What's Happening to Trump's Campaign?

[trdsf]

I would like nothing more than for this election to be an extinction-level event for the Republican Party.

I'll settle for it just breaking the hold of the teabaggers and Talebangelicals over them.

[Atheon]

Then two things would happen.

1.  An actual opposition party would replace the Republican Party.
2.  The Democratic Party would fracture and fall next.

Exactly what I'd like to see. Hopefully with the bigots and the Religious Reich being rejected by all.

[Hydra009]

Then two things would happen.

1.  An actual opposition party would replace the Republican Party.
2.  The Democratic Party would fracture and fall next.

Either would be nice.  We could have the emergence of an actually leftist Democratic party opposed by a center-right Republican party, which would be a new experience for us.  We could have status quo centrist Dems versus "radical" reformist Dems.  Hell, we could even have the Dems versus the Libertarians, dare to dream.  Just about anything would be better than endless culture wars and science denialism of the past 20 or so years.  We have plenty of serious, tangible problems in this country and we've been waging war over evolution, stem cells, homosexuality, and now bathrooms.  The sooner we can put that to bed, the better.

[Baruch]

At least one near miss ... Hillary had three people in Seattle on her VP short list ... Bill Gates, Melinda Gates and the Schultz guy who founded Starbucks.  Glad she raised Kaine ... even if the Bible Belt can't forgive her ;-)  But I had hoped Trump would be more Abel.

[Cavebear]

At least one near miss ... Hillary had three people in Seattle on her VP short list ... Bill Gates, Melinda Gates and the Schultz guy who founded Starbucks.  Glad she raised Kaine ... even if the Bible Belt can't forgive her ;-)  But I had hoped Trump would be more Abel.

In the early days of a campaign, the staff is expected to provide a creative and long list of possible VPs.  That gets shortened very fast.  The staff did it's job, the candidate shortened it fast, both did what was expected of them. 

[Baruch]

In the early days of a campaign, the staff is expected to provide a creative and long list of possible VPs.  That gets shortened very fast.  The staff did it's job, the candidate shortened it fast, both did what was expected of them.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?  The staff I expect are hideous syncophants.  The candidate I expect to be like Cuthulhu.  Again the metaphor of Sauron and orcs is apt.  For example, I am so glad George H W did such a good job with his pick, and George W ... it was pure genius for the hideous syncophant to suggest himself for VP!

[GSOgymrat]

Interesting theory.

Trump's bullsh*t: Why his supporters don't care that he's lying

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/17/technology/donald-trump-deception/index.html?iid=ob_homepage_tech_pool

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are seen as equally trustworthy by the public, and yet Trump makes false statements almost four times as often than Clinton.

How is this possible?

I study deception and trust and am frequently asked this question, given that fact checkers rate Trump's statements as entirely false 52% of the time compared to Clinton's 12%.
There are several possible explanations. One is that we like and trust people who look like we do, an effect known as homophily. This also allows us to discount or ignore things that we might otherwise not.

That could explain why so many white men support Trump despite his persistent falsehoods.

The two candidates also have distinctly different communication styles. Trump speaks in a direct manner, with simple words and sentences, a style that comes across as authentic and trustworthy. Clinton speaks more cautiously, qualifying her statements and using more complex sentences, a style that leads people to believe she is hiding something even when she isn't.

But neither of these explanations fully account for why Trump's more frequent lies don't affect his trustworthiness more. One explanation is that this isn't really about lying, but about bullshit. In his book On Bullshit, Harry Frankfurt distinguished between the two by noting that to lie, one has to purposely hide the truth from others. A bullshit artist isn't concerned with the truth, but instead makes things up to suit his purpose. He doesn't care if the things he says describe reality accurately. When the fisherman says that the fish was this big, with his hands wide apart, the actual size of the fish isn't what's important, it's the entertainment of the listeners.

The idea that Trump's false statements are bullshit can help explain why his supporters don't care that fact checkers say he's lying.

For example, Trump has said that he'll build a wall across America and make Mexico pay. If that's bullshit, Trump doesn't need to care about the feasibility or what the true cost might be -- and neither do his supporters. What's important is the message of stopping illegal immigration. Or when Trump makes false claims about the trade deficit or the unemployment rate, the reality is less important than his supporters' sense that the economy is leaving them behind. When Trump says that crime is up and you'll get shot walking in urban centers, the reality is less important than his message of law and order.

Frankfurt emphasizes that people bullshit when they speak about topics that they are not well-versed in or when the facts don't line up with the overall message. Trump has been upfront about his outsider status and his lack of debate prep and knowledge on government policy. The fact that he responds to complex topics with bullshit is perhaps not surprising. This argument maps nicely onto a recent piece in The Atlantic about Trump and his supporters versus the media: The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.

But this is not an argument to explain away the seriousness of Trump's false statements. On the contrary. The bullshit artist may or may not know the truth but doesn't care about it either way. As Frankfurt writes, "bullshit is a greater enemy of truth than lies are." At least with a liar, you can present evidence to the contrary. The bullshitter doesn't care about facts. Now, as the debate around Trump's 2005 comments about groping women swirls, this issue is extremely important. If he is perceived as a bullshitter, engaging in harmless "locker room" banter, will the voters forgive his statements? The fact that many of his supporters are still on board seems to support this, but there are limits to how much voters are willing to put up with. Trump's standing in the polls has taken a nosedive.

And here's an amazing coincidence. A recent book cataloged all the synonyms for bullshit, and one of the oldest dates back to the 1400s. It originally referred to trickery and scamming, although its meaning has evolved to include general nonsense and insignificance. That word: trumpery.

[Cavebear]

Accuracy and factuality matters to me.  So does competency and experience. When I consider Trump and Clinton as President and facing some difficult decision, no matter what scenario I imagine, I end up wanting Clinton there every single time.

[trdsf]

Accuracy and factuality matters to me.  So does competency and experience. When I consider Trump and Clinton as President and facing some difficult decision, no matter what scenario I imagine, I end up wanting Clinton there every single time.

Pretty much.  It's the proverbial "who do you want picking up the phone at 3am".  Hillary will come to a decision - whether you agree with her direction or not, she would at least address the issue.  Trump would start a tweetstorm of personal insults about whoever caused the call and then go back to bed, and in the morning claim there wasn't even a phone call in the first place.

[Atheon]

Trump has said he won't accept the election results (assuming he doesn't win). That is treasonous. This could tear the GOP apart! And maybe even result in Trump's arrest.

Or it could be just bluster.

But whatever happens, it won't be good for the GOP.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Trump has said he won't accept the election results (assuming he doesn't win). That is treasonous. This could tear the GOP apart! And maybe even result in Trump's arrest.

Or it could be just bluster.

But whatever happens, it won't be good for the GOP.

He wouldn't commit when asked twice directly by Wallace. Coffin nails he pounded in himself from inside the coffin..- Rachel Maddow

[AllPurposeAtheist]

He just doomed himself by not committing. Hilary will be the next POTUS.

[Baruch]

Silly Lincoln supporters ... half the country still doesn't accept the election of 1860 ;-(

So Yankees ... y'all coming down for the fried chicken picnic?  Leave your guns at home this time, y'hear?

[widdershins]

It looks to me like Trump has finally found the key to torpedoing his own campaign.

Mission accomplished.

I'm really happy for him because he has been trying so fucking hard to do that during his entire campaign!

[Cavebear]

There are some candidates who seem to work VERY HARD to destroy their chances of winning a Presidential campaign.  As a political science major back in the 70s, I studied many Presidential campaigns and some were bizarre. 

But none as bizarre and self-destructive as Trump's.  And I say THAT without political bias.  After 2 years of campaign analysis and applying it to later years, I thought no one would ever run a campaign as poorly as Dukakis (who I favored politically).  But compared to Trump, Dukakis was a genius.

Well OK, Jimmy Carter beating at a swimming rabbit near his canoe wasn't the greatest move ever, but that wasn't a campaign strategy.