2016 Election - Trump: How Did Trump Really Win the Presidency?
- Thread starter bamacon
- Start date
- Status
Re: Can Trump Really Win the Presidency?
"You can't con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don't deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on."
Donald J. Trump, "The Art of the Deal," 60.
(If I'm a Democratic consultant, I get a look alike here saying this; maybe there's even an audio book where he says it himself......)
"You can't con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don't deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on."
Donald J. Trump, "The Art of the Deal," 60.
(If I'm a Democratic consultant, I get a look alike here saying this; maybe there's even an audio book where he says it himself......)
Re: Can Trump Really Win the Presidency?
And if I'm the Trump campaign, I use this wisdom against Hillary. What "goods" has she delivered? Seems like lots of talk and no substance if you ask me.
Re: Can Trump Really Win the Presidency?
However - you have to remember that Hillary is not new on the political scene. Her record/lack thereof has already been taken into account by a much larger population than really knows anything about Trump other than his junior high level of insults.
Btw - this is why I think folks who point back to prior polls at this time kind of miss the point.
In 1988, Dukakis led Bush by an average of about 10 points in the plethora of polls right about this time. Bush was busy attacking Dukakis on the furlough program (he began that on June 7, 1988 and kept it up until the Convention in July). Bush had been down by about 20 points. But the race dynamic was different in this sense: in 1988, Bush was the guy who had been on the scene for eight years and Dukakis was an unknown. Bush flipped the polls into about an eight-point win, a change of 28 points. The key is that one was the neophyte and was the known quantity, and the people had begun by saying "we don't want the known" but then rejected the unknown as more became known.
In 1992, Bush led Clinton by six points in June (but trailed Perot) and lost by about 5-6 in November, a 12-point flip that probably is even worse if Perot doesn't jump back into the race in October.
In 1996, Clinton basically led from start to finish although his winning margin was about half of what the polls were showing.
In 2000, Bush led Gore (the known quantity) by about 16 points in the summer and it ended in a literal tie.
In 2004, Kerry led Bush by six points and lost by about four.
In 2008, Obama led McCain by about 12 in June, fell about six behind right after the RNC.....and won by seven.
In 2012, Obama led Romney by seven in June ad won by three.
Anyone notice a basic trend here? In every case (save Obama's races - more on that in a moment), the UNKNOWN new person on the scene STARTS with a lead - if they have a chance. 1992 can even be included there because Perot was in the lead, and he was more of an unknown than Bush or Clinton. Dukakis, Perot, Bush 43, and Kerry ALL HAD LEADS (and only Perot was within the MOE) in June when they were the 'new' or unknown quantity against better-known quantities, often incumbents. When the new person demonstrated 'Presidentialness' to varying degrees, they won.
My point is this: Clinton is essentially the continuance of Obama to a large degree. In a 'we want change' world, Trump should be leading Hillary right now by at least her SMALLEST margin in a poll (six points) - if past is prologue. Pat Caddell, the Democratic consultant who worked with McGovern and Carter, points out indisputably - "doubt resolves against the challenger." To even have a prayer, the new person needs to be in the lead.
Now about Obama's races.......2008 is hard to argue one way or the other because McCain did not 'really' represent the Bush Administration continuance except by party. He was not in the Cabinet or a VP or even a very prominent Bush apologist. (Indeed, it's part of where the maverick persona came from was his opposing his own folks). Also, the Democratic race had not yet been settled that year because of the whole Michigan and Florida delegate disputes. In 2012, Obama had his lead and Romney never really got closer than a tie or slight lead. This suggests to me that a better candidate than Romney would have won in 2012.
I will grant that Trump has defied conventional wisdom so far, but don't rely on past polls to argue in favor of Trump. To win he really ought to be in the lead right now. Furthermore, we've had way too many candidates get nominated without any sort of coherent message but winning is altogether more difficult.
I don't disagree - can anyone name one specific accomplishment of meaning the woman has ever actually done? Can anyone name any life-changing, significant legislation she was principally responsible for in DC? Hell, she didn't even vote for Obamacare because she wasn't in the Senate any longer. (And what does it say about her own political effectiveness that Barack Obama, the neophyte, succeeded with fewer Senate votes than she failed at trying to accomplish the same thing in 1993?)
However - you have to remember that Hillary is not new on the political scene. Her record/lack thereof has already been taken into account by a much larger population than really knows anything about Trump other than his junior high level of insults.
Btw - this is why I think folks who point back to prior polls at this time kind of miss the point.
In 1988, Dukakis led Bush by an average of about 10 points in the plethora of polls right about this time. Bush was busy attacking Dukakis on the furlough program (he began that on June 7, 1988 and kept it up until the Convention in July). Bush had been down by about 20 points. But the race dynamic was different in this sense: in 1988, Bush was the guy who had been on the scene for eight years and Dukakis was an unknown. Bush flipped the polls into about an eight-point win, a change of 28 points. The key is that one was the neophyte and was the known quantity, and the people had begun by saying "we don't want the known" but then rejected the unknown as more became known.
In 1992, Bush led Clinton by six points in June (but trailed Perot) and lost by about 5-6 in November, a 12-point flip that probably is even worse if Perot doesn't jump back into the race in October.
In 1996, Clinton basically led from start to finish although his winning margin was about half of what the polls were showing.
In 2000, Bush led Gore (the known quantity) by about 16 points in the summer and it ended in a literal tie.
In 2004, Kerry led Bush by six points and lost by about four.
In 2008, Obama led McCain by about 12 in June, fell about six behind right after the RNC.....and won by seven.
In 2012, Obama led Romney by seven in June ad won by three.
Anyone notice a basic trend here? In every case (save Obama's races - more on that in a moment), the UNKNOWN new person on the scene STARTS with a lead - if they have a chance. 1992 can even be included there because Perot was in the lead, and he was more of an unknown than Bush or Clinton. Dukakis, Perot, Bush 43, and Kerry ALL HAD LEADS (and only Perot was within the MOE) in June when they were the 'new' or unknown quantity against better-known quantities, often incumbents. When the new person demonstrated 'Presidentialness' to varying degrees, they won.
My point is this: Clinton is essentially the continuance of Obama to a large degree. In a 'we want change' world, Trump should be leading Hillary right now by at least her SMALLEST margin in a poll (six points) - if past is prologue. Pat Caddell, the Democratic consultant who worked with McGovern and Carter, points out indisputably - "doubt resolves against the challenger." To even have a prayer, the new person needs to be in the lead.
Now about Obama's races.......2008 is hard to argue one way or the other because McCain did not 'really' represent the Bush Administration continuance except by party. He was not in the Cabinet or a VP or even a very prominent Bush apologist. (Indeed, it's part of where the maverick persona came from was his opposing his own folks). Also, the Democratic race had not yet been settled that year because of the whole Michigan and Florida delegate disputes. In 2012, Obama had his lead and Romney never really got closer than a tie or slight lead. This suggests to me that a better candidate than Romney would have won in 2012.
I will grant that Trump has defied conventional wisdom so far, but don't rely on past polls to argue in favor of Trump. To win he really ought to be in the lead right now. Furthermore, we've had way too many candidates get nominated without any sort of coherent message but winning is altogether more difficult.
Re: Can Trump Really Win the Presidency?
Agreed. His campaign is a cluster. He could easily beat Hillary with any kind of focused, disciplined effort on the issues.
Re: Can Trump Really Win the Presidency?
that's kind of like saying that charleston southern could beat bama if they had a better roster.
Re: Can Trump Really Win the Presidency?
Wait....
Your analogy has Hillary vs. Trump....with Hillary being represented by....Bama?
Wait....
Your analogy has Hillary vs. Trump....with Hillary being represented by....Bama?
Re: Can Trump Really Win the Presidency?
much like hillary, people hate bama and spend most of their waking hours spreading nonsense about how we're always up to no good and getting away with something in large part because the media is in the tank for usWait....
Your analogy has Hillary vs. Trump....with Hillary being represented by....Bama?
Last edited:
Re: Can Trump Really Win the Presidency?
I guess that's one way of looking at it, 92. Except that Hillary REALLY DOES lie, cheat, and steal!
The point I was making is she's a loser and Bama is a winner.
If anything...she might be 10RC....
bwahahaaa.....
much like hillary, people hate bama and spend most of their waking hours spreading nonsense about we're always up to no good and getting away with something in large part because the media is in the tank for us
I guess that's one way of looking at it, 92. Except that Hillary REALLY DOES lie, cheat, and steal!
The point I was making is she's a loser and Bama is a winner.
If anything...she might be 10RC....
bwahahaaa.....
Last edited:
Re: Can Trump Really Win the Presidency?
I would post it, but I don't want to be bannnnnnnnnnnnnned by Tide-HSV or anyone else.
According to one Facebook post that I saw/read today, this woman has a very foul mouth. She would make foul-mouthed sailors look real bad. She would be classified as a professional and they would be amateurs.I guess that's one way of looking at it, 92. Except that Hillary REALLY DOES lie, cheat, and steal!
The point I was making is she's a loser and Bama is a winner.
If anything...she might be 10RC....
bwahahaaa.....
I would post it, but I don't want to be bannnnnnnnnnnnnned by Tide-HSV or anyone else.
Re: Can Trump Really Win the Presidency?
P. S. That is one UGLY garment/outfit or whatever you call it.I guess that's one way of looking at it, 92. Except that Hillary REALLY DOES lie, cheat, and steal!
The point I was making is she's a loser and Bama is a winner.
If anything...she might be 10RC....
bwahahaaa.....
Re: Can Trump Really Win the Presidency?
Instead of that awful 10RC outfit, they could have put her in gray and people would have thought that was an elephant. My apology to elephants.She appeared with Fauxcohontas Warren this morning. They had matching pantsuits on (same shade of blue). Looked like twin Smurfs and were making fun of Trump's baseball cap.
Re: Can Trump Really Win the Presidency?
LOL- I saw that earlier today and my first thought was.... good grief, did they both get the wear blue memo? 2 lovely women, thats for sure.She appeared with Fauxcohontas Warren this morning. They had matching pantsuits on (same shade of blue). Looked like twin Smurfs and were making fun of Trump's baseball cap.
Re: Can Trump Really Win the Presidency?
Here they are...twiddle dee and twiddle dum....
She appeared with Fauxcohontas Warren this morning. They had matching pantsuits on (same shade of blue). Looked like twin Smurfs and were making fun of Trump's baseball cap.
Here they are...twiddle dee and twiddle dum....
Re: Can Trump Really Win the Presidency?
Fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down. They give me the creeps.They could bust glass with the screeching.
Re: Can Trump Really Win the Presidency?
And to think, if we are to believe the polls, HRC will be the next POTUS. Canada is calling my name!
- Status
Latest threads
-
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 8
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
