-
Comment -
she hated to hear that
Comment -
And I posted on this board how I was 100% Obama over Romney. Not that there was a good choice.Comment -
In a stunning interview with Breitbart yesterday, Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson said that she’s been receiving messages from Sen. Bernie Sanders’ camp that the Vermont socialist’s supporters would come over to Trump if he wins the nomination.
- See more at: http://www.everynewshere.com/breakin....P5OouTd0.dpufComment -
Common Dwight
I'm not saying it won't happen, but if you believe anything being said right now, you're naive
And I don't believe you're naive.
Trumps camp is probably lying, or Bernies camp is leaking some BS
It's all politicsComment -
Comment -
Comment -
Comment -
Comment -
Comment -
How Powerful is Persuasion?
Posted April 21st, 2016 @ 8:51am in #Trump
I have been writing about Donald Trump’s powers of persuasion for months and yet many of my readers are still persuasion doubters. I get that. We like to think of ourselves as creatures of reason.
But we are not creatures of reason. We aren’t even close. Science has known this for a long time.
For example, here’s a story about an experiment that changed men’s votes (from Clinton to Trump) just by priming the men with a gender-related question. The effect was dramatic and immediate.
You should be skeptical of any study until you see it replicated. But I’ve studied persuasion for years, and this study looks credible to me. If you have read my Persuasion Reading List – especially the book Influence – you already know that humans can be reprogrammed this easily.
The effect you see in the study is a big reason I predict Trump will win the general election in a landslide. Trump understands persuasion at this level, as he often demonstrates. His opponents do not. He’s bringing a flamethrower to a stick fight.
I have blogged that a Trump-versus-Clinton matchup would feel like Dad against Mom. If the country feels safe, they might prefer mom for a hug and a sandwich. But if there’s a scary noise downstairs (such as ISIS), Dad starts looking like a better deal, even if he can be an asshole sometimes. We are wired to be sexist that way. Reason can only overcome some of that.
But perhaps a larger factor than the mom/dad theme – as the study suggests – will be how men and women feel about gender roles in general. If men are feeling secure about their masculinity and their roles in society, they will have no problem voting for Clinton. That describes about one-third of men, I would think.
And women who feel they are living in an oppressive patriarchy will prefer Clinton, I assume, as the best solution. In my experience, about one-third of women feel they are living in an oppressive patriarchy that needs to change and the rest prefer things the way they are.
By my subjective estimate, about two-thirds of men and two-thirds of women will have a greater emotional connection to Trump compared to Clinton by election day. That’s all you need to know.
Unless you still think policies matter.
—
Here’s a little experiment to try at home. Record one of Hillary Clinton’s televised rally speeches and put it on TV with volume high (but not too high) when you expect a female friend or relative to knock on the door. Answer the door and say nothing about the television in the background. Then watch the expression on the face of your guest. Two-out-of-three times you will see a pained grimace. For many people – male and female – listening to Clinton’s speeches actually hurts.
If you can catch the grimace on video, post it in the comments.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1431643...-is-persuasionComment -
Wow. I really hope this guy wins, going to be hilarious.
Comment -
lolComment -
Brooks hasn't contributed shit in the last week. A few lol's and called 2 people idiots.
Do you ever have anything substantial to say, you glass licking imbecile?Comment -
I don't know where Kraken and I are as far as historical agreement, but it doesn't matter, he's right on here
Comment -
Huh? I just posted an article and never even commented on it.
I'm not saying it won't happen either, but if you believe that I believe anything being said right now, you're naive.
And I don't believe you're naive.Comment -
Dwight, I will write it for you - Kraken, you are naive.
your welcome,
edit:
i am naive sometimes also, a lot of tricky, slippery, Clinton type people around...
carry on...
Last edited by PittsburghPlayer; 04-22-16, 01:39 PM.Comment -
You guys seen Scott Adams blog?
A friend told me that I sounded just like him (I predicted Trump presidency in August of last year). I finally, randomly came across him today and it is really interesting.
People get too caught up in the moment and don't realize the larger realities out there.
The Clinton-Trump mom/dad analogy he uses is fantastic. Go check it out.Comment -
It’s Probably First Ballot Or Bust For Donald Trump At The GOP Convention
By Nate Silver
FiveThirtyEight
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its*probably*first*ballot*or*bust*for*do nald*trump*at*the*gop*convention
At the prediction market Betfair on Friday morning, bettors put Donald Trump’s chances of winning
the Republican presidential nomination at 56 percent. That’s down a fair bit — Trump had been hovering
at about 70 percent after his win in Arizona (and loss in Utah) last week.
Meanwhile, the likelihood of a contested convention according to bettors has considerably increased. There’s now a 63 percent chance 1 that the convention in Cleveland will require multiple ballots, according to Betfair.
In other words, the markets are now betting on a contested convention. Not just a near*miss, where the nomination
is resolved at some point between the last day of GOP primaries June 7 and the start of the convention July 18,
but the thing that political journalists dream about: a full*blown contested convention where it takes multiple ballots
to determine the Republican nominee.
Here’s the thing, though: Those markets don’t make a lot of sense. If you really think the chance of a multi*ballot convention
is 63 percent, but also still have Trump with a 56 percent chance of winning the nomination, that implies there’s a fairly good chance that Trump will win if voting goes beyond the first ballot.
That’s probably wrong.
If Trump doesn’t win on the first ballot, he’s probably screwed.
The basic reason is simple. Most of the 2,472 delegates with a vote in Cleveland probably aren’t going to like Trump.
Let’s back up a bit. In most of our discussions about delegates here at FiveThirtyEight, we treat them as though
they’re some sort of statistical unit. We might say a candidate “racked up 44 delegates” in the same way we’d say
Steph Curry scored 44 points.
But those delegates aren’t just a scoring mechanism: Delegates are people, my friends.
Delegates are people!
And as I said, they’re mostly people who aren’t going to like Trump, at least if the excellent reporting from Politico
and other news organizations is right. (If Trump turns out to have more support among GOP delegates than this reporting suggests, even marginally, that could end up mattering a great deal.)
How can that be? In most states, the process to select the men and women who will serve as delegates is separate from presidential balloting.
Massachusetts, for instance, Trump won 49 percent of the GOP vote on March 1 — his highest share in any state to date — to earn 22 of the state’s 42 delegates.
But the people who will serve as delegates haven’t been chosen yet.
That will happen at a series of congressional district conventions later this month and then a Republican state meeting in May or June.
According to Politico, most of those delegates are liable to favor Ted Cruz or John Kasich rather than Trump.
Twenty*two of them will still be bound to Trump on the first ballot, but they can switch after that.
The same story holds in a lot of other states: in Georgia, Louisiana and South Carolina, for instance — also states that Trump won.
Trump’s delegate problems stem from two major issues.
One is his lack of organization: Trump just recently hired a strategist to oversee his delegateselection efforts; Cruz has been working on the process for months. The other is his lack of support from “party elites.”
The people who attend state caucuses and conventions are mostly dyed*in*the*wool Republican regulars and insiders,
a group that is vigorously opposed to Trump.
Furthermore, some delegate slots are automatically given to party leaders and elected officials,
another group that strongly opposes Trump, as evident in his lack of endorsements among them.
There are various ways these delegates could cause problems for Trump.
The most obvious, as I mentioned, is if the convention goes to a second ballot because no candidate wins a majority
on the first.
Not all delegates become free instantaneously, but most do, and left to vote their personal preference,
most of them will probably oppose Trump.
Conversely, Trump isn’t totally safe even if he locks up 1,237 delegates by the time the final Republicans vote.
The delegates have a lot of power, both on the convention floor and in the various rules and credentials committees
that will begin meeting before the convention officially begins. If they wanted to, the delegates could deploy a “nuclear option” on Trump and vote to unbind themselves on the first ballot, a strategy Ted Kennedy unsuccessfully pursued against Jimmy Carter
in 1980.
Although I’d place fairly long odds against this thermonuclear tactic, there’s the possibility of piecemeal skirmishes for delegates. In South Carolina, for instance, delegates might unbind themselves on the pretext that Trump withdrew his pledge to support
the Republican nominee.
Remember those chaotic Nevada caucuses that Trump won?
They could be the subject of a credentials challenge.
There could also be disputes over the disposition of delegates from Marco Rubio and other candidates who have dropped
out of the race.
A final possibility is “faithless delegates,” where individual delegates simply decline to vote for Trump despite being bound
to do so by party rules. It’s not clear whether this is allowed under Republican rules, but it’s also not clear what
the enforcement mechanism would be. I don’t want to make too much of these “nuclear” possibilities, given that such efforts would be blatantly undemocratic and would risk a huge backlash from Republican voters.
Still, even 1,237 delegates isn’t quite a safe number for Trump, especially if he’s just barely above that threshold.
Another possibility is Trump coming up somewhat short of 1,237 delegates, but close enough that he could win
on the basis of uncommitted delegates who vote for him on the first ballot. In fact, Trump finishing with something
like 1,200 delegates is a strong possibility. The expert panel we convened two weeks ago had Trump finishing
at 1,208 delegates — with a lot of uncertainty on either side of that estimate — and he’s run just slightly behind
our projected pace since then by getting shut out of delegates in Utah.
Let’s say that Trump ends with exactly 1,200 delegates after California. He’d then need 37 uncommitted delegates
to win on the first ballot. That might not seem like such a tall order — there will be at least 138 uncommitted delegates,
according to Daniel Nichanian’s tracking, and Trump would need only 27 percent of those.
But most of those delegates 4 are chosen at state meetings and conventions, the same events producing unfavorable delegate slates for Trump in Massachusetts and other states.
Alternatively, Trump could try to broker a deal with another candidate — Kasich, for example — to get to 1,237.
But that isn’t so easy either; whether Kasich could instruct his delegates to vote for Trump on the first ballot
6 would vary depending on the rules in each state, and some delegates could become unbound instead of having to vote Trump. Trump and Kasich could also try to strike a deal on the second ballot — but by that point, most of their delegates would have become free to vote as they please. This is not an exhaustive list of complications.
We’ll save the discussion about Rule 40 — and why it’s largely toothless — for another time, for instance.
The basic problem for Trump is that all the rules will be written and interpreted by the delegates, delegates who mostly
don’t like Trump. They have a lot of power to wield at their discretion.
That’s not to say the rest of the voting doesn’t matter — it would be much easier, both procedurally and ethically,
to block Trump from getting the nomination if he comes into the convention with 1,100 delegates instead of 1,300.Comment -
Comment -
INDIANA WILL BE THE LAST STAND OF THE ALSO-RANS:
TODAY AT REALCLEARPOLITICS
Donald Trump tops his Republican rivals in Indiana, according to a WTHR/Howey Politics poll released on Friday.
Trump leads with 37 percent support in the state, which votes on May 3, followed by Ted Cruz at 31 percent
and John Kasich at 22 percent.
Comment -
.Comment -
Comment
