"Remember, we are not living in 1840s or 1850s. Seriously, do you think I care about a long gone and relatively short-lived legislation before I was born? The law was moot and Unconstitutional by the time of the 14th Amendment was adopted and 1867 and pretty much unenforced by 1870 except an occassional incident here and there."
^ #3 is closest but omits economic factors. Trump has been playing the media for decades and is masterful at it. The media loves controversy because it sells advertising. Therefore Trump is the perfect media candidate.
Election cycles are the bread and butter of the media, and they routinely create a false equivalency to compel both sides to spend every last penny on advertising. If it was no contest why would they bother? Now that are no restrictions on political spending it's a worlds biggest hot dog eating contest. Not to be overlooked is the media's influence. As such the tail is wagging the dog in more ways than one ...
I don't think Nate's far off with theory #3. It's for sure the closest to what I believe is happening, But I happen to think that media bubble has been intentionally created by the Republican operatives. It's too good and too easy to manipulate the early polls.
It shields other republican candidates while giving the media something to talk about while putting pressure on democratic opponents with the added result of helping republican candidates appear more moderate by comparison come the general election, without alienating the base.
Even if it wasn't a thoughtful strategy there has to be republicans who see exactly that happening and thought trump was a good thing overall for those reasons. Though now some are starting to worry that the plan may backfire and trump's media bubble will hold water through the election, but I doubt it.
Gwharton, I had not followed anything from 538 on trump earlier. How were his predictions off so far?
Back in August, Silver said Trump had only a 2% chance of winning the nomination. He revised that to 5% in September. In October, Silver revised his odds of Trump winning the nomination back down to 2% and said Trump's campaign was doomed. In November, he came back and said Trump's odds of winning the nomination were "between zero and twenty percent."
"In presidential primaries, endorsements have been among the best predictors of which candidates will succeed and which will fail. So we’re keeping track."
Who do they still have as the top contender on this "best predictor?" JEB BUSH. And they don't even have Trump listed at all.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Like Scott Adams says, Silver is analyzing this election like it's a knife fight -- just like the past few elections that preceded it. And Trump has brought a flamethrower to that knife fight. Silver can't see that, but Adams does, and is betting on the flamethrower..
so you're saying his data changes as the data changes? there isn't anything wrong with that
he has a page that shows candidate endorsements. what's wrong with that? are you just saying you disagree with the importance he places on candidate endorsement? is that because when you've tracked candidate endorsements in the past, you've found that it isn't a good indicator for primary nomination? or have you decided this is no longer a relevant indicator because it doesn't favor the candidate you've randomly chosen to support this year?
trump hasn't won the nomination yet. just because you disagree with the way silver places odds doesn't mean his spreadsheet is wrong, or that his data is wrong.
while i don't follow these things all that close, my initial inspection seems to suggest silver is being pretty open and transparent about how he's developed his data. he shows who made endorsements. he explains how he weighted endorsements. he compares the number of endorsements per candidate in this round with those of candidates in the past. his method and the way he communicates it is far better than just saying 'i like adams because he tells me what i want to hear. silver's data is bunk because it doesn't reinforce the biases i already hold.'
It means that Silver has cultivated the impression that his prediction model is very reliable, when in fact all he's doing is chasing the latest poll data. And with his analysis of Trump's candidacy, his model has been radically fault-prone. He has been predicting the imminent implosion of Trump's campaign since July, and yet Trump's support keeps growing bigger.
Silver's prediction model is the opposite of "transparent." It's a huge moneyball-style spreadsheet he made and does not make publicly available. He massages the numbers and changes the algorithms behind the scenes and makes pronouncements about them. That's pretty much it. He's a poll aggregator with a spotty track record.
And while the first primary has not been held yet and we are far from knowing who the nominee is going to be for sure, there has never yet been a Presidential primary election for a Republican candidate where a poll leader with numbers like Trump's going into December/January has NOT won the nomination thereafter. So if Silver is still predicting that Trump is not the far front-runner for being the nominee, he's got to explain why he's coming up with such an extraordinary, ahistoric result. So far, he can't explain it, other than that he thinks the media is in the tank for Trump: a proposition which is laughable on its face. The media are visibly anti-Trump, despite the attention they give him.
Adams, on the other hand, made a bunch of early predictions about Trump's campaign based on his Master Persuader principle, and his record has so far been perfect. He hasn't missed a call yet.
Trump has flipped the script on them, and because of who they are, they can't help but pay attention to him. His ratings are YUUUUGE, and ratings are their lifeblood.
Well since everything's been flipped don't you think its just as likely that we say such ratings are not going to play the same factor they had previously?
Trumps ratings are in large part driven by the fact that he is a spectacle more than any other candidates and in that sense it's not really a valid comparison to other candidates. Which is why the typical spreadsheet formulas gwharton is pointing to might be at a disadvantage predicting more near term fluctuations. They have never seen the likes of such an entertainer.
I still think Silver will right though over the long term race and criteria such as endorsements will return to playing a more typical roll later in the race. I tend to believe people will vote for different reasons then they turn on the television for.
Trump is a wreck and actually believing he should be permanently installed is like saying "look at all those people slowing down to look at the traffic accident that must mean what the public really wants is permanent roadside traffic accidents"
I would expect that this election finally breaks with the exposure and media coverage = popularity formula.
All that aside I still think trump is being used to shield the republican party. Look at this clown.... pay no attention to the candidates behind the curtain.
his chart that shows endorsements for candidates is not poll chasing, it's a chart that shows endorsements for candidates. he's pretty open about that.
i remember the way silver explained his poll aggregating during the last presidential election. as i recall he ended up pretty accurate down to a county by county level. also he was pretty open about how he got data from those polls. in fact, his website has long articles about how his models work.
i don't know what the master persuader principal is, but it seems to me silver's goal is to predict the primary outcome. if his goal was to predict angry white guys getting all riled up by a run of the mill rabble-rouser, i assume he would be saying something different.
why do you say trumps numbers are so huge? at the moment he isn't that far ahead of cruz in iowa. typically the race is within the sampling error right? he gets high media ratings, if that's what you're talking about. he attracts click-bait journalism, but that doesn't necessarily attract votes. he can also get angry middle aged white guys to get all worked up, which probably polls OK for republicans, but doesn't really give him enough support to actually win an election does it?
in closing i'd like to clarify that i don't know if silver's prediction model is accurate. i don't really care. i'm just pointing out that your statement that trump is such a great candidate when you dismiss the polling data that doesn't support you no matter how good the data is, and promote data that supports you no matter how dubious, then your belief comes from a cognitive bias and not from an accurate reality-based observation of the world.
If you think Trump is just spectacle, or ego, or a "wreck," you are still operating on the level of cognitive dissonance, not analysis. Trump gets great ratings because he's entertaining. And he's winning because he is a master persuader. We haven't seen a candidate like him in modern memory. He is very likely to be our next President because of that.
Persuaded you to vote for him? I have not heard much that i would personally find persuading but yet much like the media and polls out there right now here I am talking about him. I expect that you actually fall in a similar category, as do most of the voters, republican or otherwise. Many people, are willing to say they support him to get a closer look at the wreck and pour a little fuel on the fire.
but we're not talking about his tv ratings, we're talking about his ability to be elected by the republicans as their nominee for president in the general election. at least that what nate silver was talking about.
Trump has persuaded me that we need an immigration moratorium and a wall at the southern border, and that he can get that done.
He also actually persuaded me that I ought to vote again. I'd given up all hope of our political system ever being worth a damn or producing candidates who weren't horrible, evil shills ever again.
I've also heard nothing about *how* this is all going to get done, despite repeated assurances by Trumps fanbase that "He can get it done." It reeks of the blind faith sadly typical of the older, conservative, religious types who he seems to have attracted.
I'm not surprised that some people are actually stupid enough to think that electing that corrupt, self-centered egomaniac would be a good thing. Without a constituency to offend or seat to defend he can say whatever he wants, and in the snake pit that he's slithering in that appears as refreshingly honest. But only if you are willing to dismiss his history, starting with an inheritance of between 50 and 150 million. Self-made man, my ass.
Trump's business model is based on bankruptcy and tax evasion. He "negotiates" decades-long tax abatements on luxury development. After bringing in investors, he crashes the projects and buy them out for pennies on the dollar. I don't think that's going to work with China. His xenophobia is frightening and harks back to Hitler among others.
Aside from that, Trump is only interested in one thing - Trump. I think the most plausible scenario is that he becomes the kingmaker, giving his support to someone in a back-room deal we'll never hear about. Not sure what the real players - the guys who buy elections - think. On one hand he'd benefit them financially with tax benefits, on the other he'd probably crash the economy hard enough to break it for good. But any of the mainstream candidates - like all past presidents - would do (and have done) the same thing without fatal damage. As far as the big money players are concerned the real threat is Bernie.
ghwharton, you need to stop reading that cartoonist, he's a white guy wearing white guy filter shades. He can't see past his own experience and isn't that smart.
this is a 24-7 connected global world. trump will not play well on the global stage and will bring war to the united states. he might be hitler, but more likely he's just a loose cannon.
I don't think we can fully know the results of electing him, and therefore it's best to be careful and elect someone else.
"Trump can’t help but abuse the power of presiding over a rally. His supporters believe that he will stand with little guys against elites. Yet there he was amid thousands of fans ordering hired muscle to strip powerless dissenters of their coats. There he was saying they should be turned out into the Vermont winter that way.
He was not content to restore order. He went a step further, using power vindictively, whether to satisfy his own desire or to play to the worst impulses of the crowd.
His behavior was needlessly cruel."
Actions speak louder than words. He's nothing but an egomaniacal, sociopathic, vindictive baby. The best solution is to ignore him.
gruen: Adams has been 100% right about Trump and his campaign so far, where Silver's track record with Trump has been much less accurate. Including Adams' assessment about how much of the opposition to Trump is being generated by cognitive dissonance. Adams has also predicted that this cognitive dissonance will resolve via persuasion. Polls are already showing that as many as 20% of Democratic voters will switch sides and vote for Trump if he faces Billary in the general election.
silver is an odds maker right? so he aggregates data, runs it through whatever script he has, and it spits out an answer that attempts to predict an event that hasn't happened yet. that event is the outcome of an election that hasn't taken place yet, so you can't say his prediction was wrong until after the event occurs.
now correct me if i'm wrong here, but adams is a comic. he is taking events that happen in the trump campaign and comparing them to his theory after the fact.
what these two people are doing is not comparable. it's not necessarily the conclusion you're coming to that's screwed up, it's the path you're taking to get there. i don't know whether trump is really all that persuadable, as you suggest. he's not pandering to my demographic. when he spouts his angry white guy misogynistic or racist bullshit, i tend to think that it doesn't coincide with my world-view, so instead of being persuaded by a rabble-rouser i just tune him out. i don't think it speaks well to your character that you're so easily influenced by such weak pandering.
Ah, yes the "it's just a joke" dodge. Way to downplay a massive punch-down (http://www.tobiasbuckell.com/2013/04/12/dont-punch-down/) mere sentences after a subtle jab at Obama for not being self-depricating enough (which is so false. Say what you will about Obama, the man gets humor).
It doesn't matter if it was a joke, it was a mean spirited one and one that's both aggrandizing and arrogant. Again, Trump's actions belie his words. I don't believe anything he says because he's shown time and time again that he's willing to say anything just to stay in the spotlight.
curtkram: With respect to Adams, you are wrong. He's been doing leading-indicator analysis of the campaign, not post-game analysis. Very early on, he looked at what Trump was doing and noticed that it very closely matched what Master Persuaders do according to a very specific template of behavior. He then made a whole bunch of predictions on that basis. Of the predictions he's made for which we can judge their accuracy, he's batting a thousand so far. That's an impressive record.
He has also been analyzing particular campaign events as they occur, according to his Master Persuader template, and then making further predictions on that basis (e.g. when Trump called Jeb Bush "low energy", Bush was still a major primary contender with the best financing and most endorsements, but Adams predicted that Trump's attack on him was a "kill shot" and his campaign was done. This was correct.)
Some of Adams' predictions can't be evaluated at the present time. For instance, he predicted that Trump would win both the nomination and the general election. We obviously don't know those results yet. But he made those predictions on a very specific basis many months ago and has not changed his position on them.
What Adams and Silver are doing (making predictions based on an analysis of events and probabilities) is exactly the same. They are just using different methods to do it, and focusing on different analysis criteria in the process. Their results are diverging widely for that reason.
As for "pandering" and persuasion, Adams has a few things to say about that as well. You may wish to read this: How to Spot a Wizard.
Among the criteria for identifying a Master Persuader in action, he outlines the following:
2. People seem to have an irrational hate for the wizard that is not entirely explained by the wizard’s actions. Regular readers already know these unusual reactions are signs of cognitive dissonance. Wizards induce cognitive dissonance often, without trying.
This is a fairly accurate description of a lot of the posting about Trump in this thread: irrational hatred belying underlying cognitive dissonance. A term from psychology, cognitive dissonance is:
"the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change."
The reason these so-called "wizards" induce cognitive dissonance so frequently in people is because they intentionally play on the underlying contradictions in people's beliefs and attitudes to neutralize opposition and get what they want. Trump does this all the time. It's a big part of why none of the attacks on him so far have worked, but have instead just provided him with more ammunition to tear down his attackers. It's also why all these articles speculating about why he's successful are wrong.
when i googled adam's blog, it was all 'this happened, and this is how it relates to my master persuader theory.' i did not see any 'this is what will happened based on my master persuader theory.' that doesn't mean it isn't there, but it seems to me they're different because i haven't seen adam's predictions.
there are good reasons to hate trump. not the least being that he says he wants to prevent muslims from entering our country. opposing that sentiment, and especially opposing that as policy, is not irrational.
does your wizard post imply that somehow you approve of trump persuading you to give him attention or vote for him or whatever his goal is because he is somehow a better person? like this wizard typology is somehow meant to rule over people like you and that is an acceptable world-view? if that's the case, then isn't it pretty important to consider trump's motivations and goals for persuading you?
so let's say he's persuading you to vote for him to be president. and let's say you're right, his persuasion abilities are soooo strong that he becomes president. does he want to be president to somehow benefit you or the country? does he really have some sort of benevolent ulterior motive in improving the country somehow? is his concern economic, so he wants to implement a monetary policy that helps (i don't even know who it would help. is he a supply-sider? monetarian? keynesian? i don't even know)? is his concern about national security, and he wants to persuade you to make him president because he thinks we need to get rid of the muslims and mexicans? is there any other goal he might have in becoming president? we can't tell from the adds or tv clips, because those are designed to manipulate us into doing what he wants us to do right?
"not the least being that he says he wants to prevent muslims from entering our country. opposing that sentiment, and especially opposing that as policy, is not irrational."
Actually, since you posit that as an unsupported assertion for what appears to be an emotional motivation, I think it probably IS irrational.
And there are plenty of rational reasons to support Trump's immigration policies, and even stricter ones besides.
It’s okay to like that Trump doesn’t bend to the bullshit, or “is speaking honestly about his feelings.” But at the end of the day, wrong thinking is still wrong. Hitler spoke passionately about his beliefs, it doesn’t make them right.
Trump has persuaded me that we need an immigration moratorium and a wall at the southern border, and that he can get that done.
right - to keep those mexicans who are heading back from leaving the country. We need that cheap labor otherwise we might actually have to hire unions.
I have observed that adults who cavalierly use the term "cognitive dissonance" often have failed to move past the pre-operational phase in some areas of their intellectual development.
Architects for TRUMP
The entire slate of Republicans is unpalatable.
Half of the Democratic slate is unpalatable.
FEEL THE BERN
"Remember, we are not living in 1840s or 1850s. Seriously, do you think I care about a long gone and relatively short-lived legislation before I was born? The law was moot and Unconstitutional by the time of the 14th Amendment was adopted and 1867 and pretty much unenforced by 1870 except an occassional incident here and there."
Except it was very much in practice.
http://gizmodo.com/oregon-was-founded-as-a-racist-utopia-1539567040
+++ SneakyPete Cunning, conniving, manipulative, opportunistic, fearless, shrewd.
He actually makes career politicos look like amateurs.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/three-theories-of-donald-trumps-rise/
^ #3 is closest but omits economic factors. Trump has been playing the media for decades and is masterful at it. The media loves controversy because it sells advertising. Therefore Trump is the perfect media candidate.
Election cycles are the bread and butter of the media, and they routinely create a false equivalency to compel both sides to spend every last penny on advertising. If it was no contest why would they bother? Now that are no restrictions on political spending it's a worlds biggest hot dog eating contest. Not to be overlooked is the media's influence. As such the tail is wagging the dog in more ways than one ...
LOL at that 538 link. That guy and his magic spreadsheet have been consistently wrong about Trump from day one.
I don't think Nate's far off with theory #3. It's for sure the closest to what I believe is happening, But I happen to think that media bubble has been intentionally created by the Republican operatives. It's too good and too easy to manipulate the early polls.
It shields other republican candidates while giving the media something to talk about while putting pressure on democratic opponents with the added result of helping republican candidates appear more moderate by comparison come the general election, without alienating the base.
Even if it wasn't a thoughtful strategy there has to be republicans who see exactly that happening and thought trump was a good thing overall for those reasons. Though now some are starting to worry that the plan may backfire and trump's media bubble will hold water through the election, but I doubt it.
Gwharton, I had not followed anything from 538 on trump earlier. How were his predictions off so far?
Back in August, Silver said Trump had only a 2% chance of winning the nomination. He revised that to 5% in September. In October, Silver revised his odds of Trump winning the nomination back down to 2% and said Trump's campaign was doomed. In November, he came back and said Trump's odds of winning the nomination were "between zero and twenty percent."
But most LOLworthy of all is this from his site: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/
"In presidential primaries, endorsements have been among the best predictors of which candidates will succeed and which will fail. So we’re keeping track."
Who do they still have as the top contender on this "best predictor?" JEB BUSH. And they don't even have Trump listed at all.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Like Scott Adams says, Silver is analyzing this election like it's a knife fight -- just like the past few elections that preceded it. And Trump has brought a flamethrower to that knife fight. Silver can't see that, but Adams does, and is betting on the flamethrower..
so you're saying his data changes as the data changes? there isn't anything wrong with that
he has a page that shows candidate endorsements. what's wrong with that? are you just saying you disagree with the importance he places on candidate endorsement? is that because when you've tracked candidate endorsements in the past, you've found that it isn't a good indicator for primary nomination? or have you decided this is no longer a relevant indicator because it doesn't favor the candidate you've randomly chosen to support this year?
trump hasn't won the nomination yet. just because you disagree with the way silver places odds doesn't mean his spreadsheet is wrong, or that his data is wrong.
while i don't follow these things all that close, my initial inspection seems to suggest silver is being pretty open and transparent about how he's developed his data. he shows who made endorsements. he explains how he weighted endorsements. he compares the number of endorsements per candidate in this round with those of candidates in the past. his method and the way he communicates it is far better than just saying 'i like adams because he tells me what i want to hear. silver's data is bunk because it doesn't reinforce the biases i already hold.'
It means that Silver has cultivated the impression that his prediction model is very reliable, when in fact all he's doing is chasing the latest poll data. And with his analysis of Trump's candidacy, his model has been radically fault-prone. He has been predicting the imminent implosion of Trump's campaign since July, and yet Trump's support keeps growing bigger.
Silver's prediction model is the opposite of "transparent." It's a huge moneyball-style spreadsheet he made and does not make publicly available. He massages the numbers and changes the algorithms behind the scenes and makes pronouncements about them. That's pretty much it. He's a poll aggregator with a spotty track record.
And while the first primary has not been held yet and we are far from knowing who the nominee is going to be for sure, there has never yet been a Presidential primary election for a Republican candidate where a poll leader with numbers like Trump's going into December/January has NOT won the nomination thereafter. So if Silver is still predicting that Trump is not the far front-runner for being the nominee, he's got to explain why he's coming up with such an extraordinary, ahistoric result. So far, he can't explain it, other than that he thinks the media is in the tank for Trump: a proposition which is laughable on its face. The media are visibly anti-Trump, despite the attention they give him.
Adams, on the other hand, made a bunch of early predictions about Trump's campaign based on his Master Persuader principle, and his record has so far been perfect. He hasn't missed a call yet.
The media are visibly anti-Trump, despite the attention they give him.
Except all he wants is attention, so they're working in his favor no matter what they say.
Trump has flipped the script on them, and because of who they are, they can't help but pay attention to him. His ratings are YUUUUGE, and ratings are their lifeblood.
...and we're all doomed as a result.
Well since everything's been flipped don't you think its just as likely that we say such ratings are not going to play the same factor they had previously?
Trumps ratings are in large part driven by the fact that he is a spectacle more than any other candidates and in that sense it's not really a valid comparison to other candidates. Which is why the typical spreadsheet formulas gwharton is pointing to might be at a disadvantage predicting more near term fluctuations. They have never seen the likes of such an entertainer.
I still think Silver will right though over the long term race and criteria such as endorsements will return to playing a more typical roll later in the race. I tend to believe people will vote for different reasons then they turn on the television for.
Trump is a wreck and actually believing he should be permanently installed is like saying "look at all those people slowing down to look at the traffic accident that must mean what the public really wants is permanent roadside traffic accidents"
I would expect that this election finally breaks with the exposure and media coverage = popularity formula.
All that aside I still think trump is being used to shield the republican party. Look at this clown.... pay no attention to the candidates behind the curtain.
Great analogy Jonathan.
his chart that shows endorsements for candidates is not poll chasing, it's a chart that shows endorsements for candidates. he's pretty open about that.
i remember the way silver explained his poll aggregating during the last presidential election. as i recall he ended up pretty accurate down to a county by county level. also he was pretty open about how he got data from those polls. in fact, his website has long articles about how his models work.
i don't know what the master persuader principal is, but it seems to me silver's goal is to predict the primary outcome. if his goal was to predict angry white guys getting all riled up by a run of the mill rabble-rouser, i assume he would be saying something different.
why do you say trumps numbers are so huge? at the moment he isn't that far ahead of cruz in iowa. typically the race is within the sampling error right? he gets high media ratings, if that's what you're talking about. he attracts click-bait journalism, but that doesn't necessarily attract votes. he can also get angry middle aged white guys to get all worked up, which probably polls OK for republicans, but doesn't really give him enough support to actually win an election does it?
in closing i'd like to clarify that i don't know if silver's prediction model is accurate. i don't really care. i'm just pointing out that your statement that trump is such a great candidate when you dismiss the polling data that doesn't support you no matter how good the data is, and promote data that supports you no matter how dubious, then your belief comes from a cognitive bias and not from an accurate reality-based observation of the world.
If you think Trump is just spectacle, or ego, or a "wreck," you are still operating on the level of cognitive dissonance, not analysis. Trump gets great ratings because he's entertaining. And he's winning because he is a master persuader. We haven't seen a candidate like him in modern memory. He is very likely to be our next President because of that.
Gwharton, has he persuaded you?
On some things, he has. Yes.
Such as?
Persuaded you to vote for him? I have not heard much that i would personally find persuading but yet much like the media and polls out there right now here I am talking about him. I expect that you actually fall in a similar category, as do most of the voters, republican or otherwise. Many people, are willing to say they support him to get a closer look at the wreck and pour a little fuel on the fire.
but we're not talking about his tv ratings, we're talking about his ability to be elected by the republicans as their nominee for president in the general election. at least that what nate silver was talking about.
trump is still a joke.
Trump has persuaded me that we need an immigration moratorium and a wall at the southern border, and that he can get that done.
He also actually persuaded me that I ought to vote again. I'd given up all hope of our political system ever being worth a damn or producing candidates who weren't horrible, evil shills ever again.
Wouldn't a wall keep Mexicans in?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-mexico-idUSKCN0T82F220151119
Not if we let them out.
Then why build the wall?
I've also heard nothing about *how* this is all going to get done, despite repeated assurances by Trumps fanbase that "He can get it done." It reeks of the blind faith sadly typical of the older, conservative, religious types who he seems to have attracted.
I'm not surprised that some people are actually stupid enough to think that electing that corrupt, self-centered egomaniac would be a good thing. Without a constituency to offend or seat to defend he can say whatever he wants, and in the snake pit that he's slithering in that appears as refreshingly honest. But only if you are willing to dismiss his history, starting with an inheritance of between 50 and 150 million. Self-made man, my ass.
Trump's business model is based on bankruptcy and tax evasion. He "negotiates" decades-long tax abatements on luxury development. After bringing in investors, he crashes the projects and buy them out for pennies on the dollar. I don't think that's going to work with China. His xenophobia is frightening and harks back to Hitler among others.
Aside from that, Trump is only interested in one thing - Trump. I think the most plausible scenario is that he becomes the kingmaker, giving his support to someone in a back-room deal we'll never hear about. Not sure what the real players - the guys who buy elections - think. On one hand he'd benefit them financially with tax benefits, on the other he'd probably crash the economy hard enough to break it for good. But any of the mainstream candidates - like all past presidents - would do (and have done) the same thing without fatal damage. As far as the big money players are concerned the real threat is Bernie.
LOL Miles. Bernie is a threat to exactly nobody.
.
trump is a scary fool. school yard bully.
ghwharton, you need to stop reading that cartoonist, he's a white guy wearing white guy filter shades. He can't see past his own experience and isn't that smart.
this is a 24-7 connected global world. trump will not play well on the global stage and will bring war to the united states. he might be hitler, but more likely he's just a loose cannon.
I don't think we can fully know the results of electing him, and therefore it's best to be careful and elect someone else.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/donald-trump-protestors-vermont/423447/
"Trump can’t help but abuse the power of presiding over a rally. His supporters believe that he will stand with little guys against elites. Yet there he was amid thousands of fans ordering hired muscle to strip powerless dissenters of their coats. There he was saying they should be turned out into the Vermont winter that way.
He was not content to restore order. He went a step further, using power vindictively, whether to satisfy his own desire or to play to the worst impulses of the crowd.
His behavior was needlessly cruel."
Actions speak louder than words. He's nothing but an egomaniacal, sociopathic, vindictive baby. The best solution is to ignore him.
^ The second best solution is to ignore him. The first is to make it clear to the deluded that he is not the new messiah.
gruen: Adams has been 100% right about Trump and his campaign so far, where Silver's track record with Trump has been much less accurate. Including Adams' assessment about how much of the opposition to Trump is being generated by cognitive dissonance. Adams has also predicted that this cognitive dissonance will resolve via persuasion. Polls are already showing that as many as 20% of Democratic voters will switch sides and vote for Trump if he faces Billary in the general election.
tduds: Here's a first-hand account of Trump's Vermont campaign event. It paints a different picture than the Atlantic's hit piece:
http://www.steynonline.com/7408/notes-on-a-phenomenon
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/10/that-survey-showing-20-percent-of-democrats-backing-trump-come-on/
silver is an odds maker right? so he aggregates data, runs it through whatever script he has, and it spits out an answer that attempts to predict an event that hasn't happened yet. that event is the outcome of an election that hasn't taken place yet, so you can't say his prediction was wrong until after the event occurs.
now correct me if i'm wrong here, but adams is a comic. he is taking events that happen in the trump campaign and comparing them to his theory after the fact.
what these two people are doing is not comparable. it's not necessarily the conclusion you're coming to that's screwed up, it's the path you're taking to get there. i don't know whether trump is really all that persuadable, as you suggest. he's not pandering to my demographic. when he spouts his angry white guy misogynistic or racist bullshit, i tend to think that it doesn't coincide with my world-view, so instead of being persuaded by a rabble-rouser i just tune him out. i don't think it speaks well to your character that you're so easily influenced by such weak pandering.
Ah, yes the "it's just a joke" dodge. Way to downplay a massive punch-down (http://www.tobiasbuckell.com/2013/04/12/dont-punch-down/) mere sentences after a subtle jab at Obama for not being self-depricating enough (which is so false. Say what you will about Obama, the man gets humor).
It doesn't matter if it was a joke, it was a mean spirited one and one that's both aggrandizing and arrogant. Again, Trump's actions belie his words. I don't believe anything he says because he's shown time and time again that he's willing to say anything just to stay in the spotlight.
curtkram: With respect to Adams, you are wrong. He's been doing leading-indicator analysis of the campaign, not post-game analysis. Very early on, he looked at what Trump was doing and noticed that it very closely matched what Master Persuaders do according to a very specific template of behavior. He then made a whole bunch of predictions on that basis. Of the predictions he's made for which we can judge their accuracy, he's batting a thousand so far. That's an impressive record.
He has also been analyzing particular campaign events as they occur, according to his Master Persuader template, and then making further predictions on that basis (e.g. when Trump called Jeb Bush "low energy", Bush was still a major primary contender with the best financing and most endorsements, but Adams predicted that Trump's attack on him was a "kill shot" and his campaign was done. This was correct.)
Some of Adams' predictions can't be evaluated at the present time. For instance, he predicted that Trump would win both the nomination and the general election. We obviously don't know those results yet. But he made those predictions on a very specific basis many months ago and has not changed his position on them.
What Adams and Silver are doing (making predictions based on an analysis of events and probabilities) is exactly the same. They are just using different methods to do it, and focusing on different analysis criteria in the process. Their results are diverging widely for that reason.
As for "pandering" and persuasion, Adams has a few things to say about that as well. You may wish to read this: How to Spot a Wizard.
Among the criteria for identifying a Master Persuader in action, he outlines the following:
2. People seem to have an irrational hate for the wizard that is not entirely explained by the wizard’s actions. Regular readers already know these unusual reactions are signs of cognitive dissonance. Wizards induce cognitive dissonance often, without trying.
This is a fairly accurate description of a lot of the posting about Trump in this thread: irrational hatred belying underlying cognitive dissonance. A term from psychology, cognitive dissonance is:
"the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change."
The reason these so-called "wizards" induce cognitive dissonance so frequently in people is because they intentionally play on the underlying contradictions in people's beliefs and attitudes to neutralize opposition and get what they want. Trump does this all the time. It's a big part of why none of the attacks on him so far have worked, but have instead just provided him with more ammunition to tear down his attackers. It's also why all these articles speculating about why he's successful are wrong.
Adams has been spot-on in his analysis of Trump, and that's terrifying to me.
when i googled adam's blog, it was all 'this happened, and this is how it relates to my master persuader theory.' i did not see any 'this is what will happened based on my master persuader theory.' that doesn't mean it isn't there, but it seems to me they're different because i haven't seen adam's predictions.
there are good reasons to hate trump. not the least being that he says he wants to prevent muslims from entering our country. opposing that sentiment, and especially opposing that as policy, is not irrational.
does your wizard post imply that somehow you approve of trump persuading you to give him attention or vote for him or whatever his goal is because he is somehow a better person? like this wizard typology is somehow meant to rule over people like you and that is an acceptable world-view? if that's the case, then isn't it pretty important to consider trump's motivations and goals for persuading you?
so let's say he's persuading you to vote for him to be president. and let's say you're right, his persuasion abilities are soooo strong that he becomes president. does he want to be president to somehow benefit you or the country? does he really have some sort of benevolent ulterior motive in improving the country somehow? is his concern economic, so he wants to implement a monetary policy that helps (i don't even know who it would help. is he a supply-sider? monetarian? keynesian? i don't even know)? is his concern about national security, and he wants to persuade you to make him president because he thinks we need to get rid of the muslims and mexicans? is there any other goal he might have in becoming president? we can't tell from the adds or tv clips, because those are designed to manipulate us into doing what he wants us to do right?
I do not believe people have an irrational fear of Trump, I think Trump plays off of irrational fears some people have.
This makes him a demagogue not a "wizard".
I think he is a "master persuader" only in the sense of convincing most people not to vote for him if he were to be nominated.
"not the least being that he says he wants to prevent muslims from entering our country. opposing that sentiment, and especially opposing that as policy, is not irrational."
Actually, since you posit that as an unsupported assertion for what appears to be an emotional motivation, I think it probably IS irrational.
And there are plenty of rational reasons to support Trump's immigration policies, and even stricter ones besides.
Im surprised that Balkins isn't president yet... I mean he is so persuasive & wizardly...
Actually, since you posit that as an unsupported assertion for what appears to be an emotional motivation, I think it probably IS irrational.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration
there you go, my assertion is now supported, and my emotional disgust at policies that discriminate based on religion are justified.
gwharton, second from left.
The fact that this conversation is even taking place is the result of a crafty weasel knowing some tricks that take advantage of a base ignorance.
Political Incorrectness and the World of Trump
It’s okay to like that Trump doesn’t bend to the bullshit, or “is speaking honestly about his feelings.” But at the end of the day, wrong thinking is still wrong. Hitler spoke passionately about his beliefs, it doesn’t make them right.
Trump has persuaded me that we need an immigration moratorium and a wall at the southern border, and that he can get that done.
right - to keep those mexicans who are heading back from leaving the country. We need that cheap labor otherwise we might actually have to hire unions.
What about Balkins as President...a wizard and a troll...?
The great wall of mexico - some day it'll become a tourist attraction. Maybe he owns some land down there and is planning a casino.
don't worry - if he's like your typical developer half the wall will be made out of EIFS.
I have observed that adults who cavalierly use the term "cognitive dissonance" often have failed to move past the pre-operational phase in some areas of their intellectual development.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.