By now you know Trump won big in the New York primary. Bigger than most people expected.
According to a Fox poll, Trump leads nationally with Republican “men, women, every age group, every income group, and among those with a college degree and those without.”
So, if somehow the GOP nominates a candidate other than Trump, the only Republicans who will be angry about it are …“men, women, every age group, every income group, and among those with a college degree and those without.”
Shenanigans might happen at the convention. But unless something big changes, the GOP will either become the Trump party or the newest resident of history’s dust bin, living under a Clinton presidency. The GOP is down to two options.
And by now all pundits recognize Trump’s third act transformation underway. But keep in mind that they aredescribing itwhile it happens whereas I predicted it months ago. Big difference. The Master Persuader filter continues to predict with spooky accuracy.
Did I mention that Trump won in New York with Republican women? It turns out that being the most forceful voice for protecting women’s health might be a winning strategy. Quickly, name the other candidate who is willing to be labelled a racist to decrease the risk of rape in this country.
Right. The frame is changing.
A few months ago Trump was the crazy clown saying racist things about rapists coming from Mexico, and rapists coming in via Syrian refugees. What do those two things have in common?
Well, racism, for one. But that part is in your head. Trump has never mentioned race. He has mentioned illegal immigration and he has mentioned religion and terrorism. But the race part is all you, influenced no doubt by the “wisdom” of the Internet. None of that came from Trump’s mouth or brain.
The way our brains work, outrageous ideas start seeming less so over time. Consider Trump’s wall idea. That went from outrageous to reasonable in six months. Even Clinton supports good border security. Now all we’re talking about is the height of the wall and who pays for it.
The same is happening with Trump’s comments about rapists coming from Mexico and from Syrian immigration. In the beginning, those thoughts were toxic. But we’re nearing a point where the outrageousness is wearing off and what remains is this: Trump is the strongest voice for women’s safety.
You might disagree with Trump’s views on abortion, but keep in mind that the point is to save the lives of what he sees as living girls and boys. And Trump favors abortion when the mother’s health is an issue.
Now consider Trump’s gun policies that would allow women to own guns for self-protection. You might disagree with Trump’s gun policies, but you can see that in every case he is looking out for the interests of women (as he sees it).
Remember Trump’s big blunder on the question of penalties for illegal abortion? That worked against him, big time, at first. It made him seem uninformed and non-empathetic to women. So women let him know he screwed up. And he immediately changed.
That change is the biggest story of the campaign. Women needed to know that their wishes would translate into policy with a Trump presidency. Trump proved he can listen and adjust. The mistake isn’t the important part. The adjustment is.
By analogy, restaurant owners know that the most loyal customers are the ones who had a complaint that got resolved to their satisfaction. People are usually more invested in the fix than the complaint. If a restaurant gets the fix right, the customer bonds for life. Trump got it wrong with abortion penalties, but his fix was swift and unambiguous. Voters notice the fix. And they bond to it.
As I often say in this blog, my political views do not align with Trump or with any of the other candidates. But objectively speaking, Trump has the strongest voice on protecting women, even if you don’t like how he would go about it.
I predict Trump will win the vote of women in the general election. And I think his path to do it is almost humorously easy. It’s an identity play, and it goes like this:
I've read a couple of his books and occasionally his blog. He has the air of a guy who managed some success and then decided it was all because he was so great, so everyone should listen to his sage advice. Even where he manages to mention the luck elements in his success (most successful people work hard, but they all have some luck), he takes credit for it himself. I thought his book 'how to fail at everything and still win big' might be different, but it has a whole lot of arrogance and a big lack of understanding of how a lot of people live (this coming from a guy who freely admits not understanding how a lot of people live).
Regardless of the election outcome, Scott Adams will still be an asshole.
I think you're being unfair to Scott Adams, who in his own alien-geek-from-another-planet way is trying to be impartial about Donald Trump. He sees himself as reporting on a dog fight he doesn't think he has a dog in:
Scott Adams wrote:
For new readers:
I have already disavowed Donald Trump for being scary. And by that I mean he scares my fellow citizens, which I find unacceptable.
My policy views don’t line up with any of the candidates’ positions, including Trump’s. I don’t vote and I am not a member of a political party. I try to avoid identifying with any political label because doing so would make me biased and less credible.
My interest in Trump is his persuasion skills. I have never seen better.
He is essentially handicapping Trump's chances of winning the election and finding that a likely outcome, a prospect that fills me with horror but which I can't realistically deny. It is a real possibility.
In the rest of the linked post he has some shallow analysis of the nation's economic trajectory and what Trump's election might mean for that. I think his analysis is superficial, that it accepts as fact some panic-mongering demagoguery about immigration and border security, and that he overlooks a lot of possibilities that don't come from the two incumbent parties. His argument that a Trump presidency wouldn't be that scary hinges on comparing it to the alternatives presented by those two parties—which amounts to comparing Trump to the status quo and asking the rhetorical question "How's that working out for you?"
This is a compelling argument for people without much imagination, but it could indeed go an awful lot worse. As much as I admire Scott Adams' creativity in his comic strip he is way out of his depth. In that way he is a lot like other pop culture icons like Bill Nye—smart people who fancy themselves generalists, endorse politically fashionable positions, but aren't terribly deep thinkers and get it wrong a dismaying amount of the time.
But that doesn't make him an asshole, let alone a Trump supporter—it makes him a nerd. He's a smart, witty guy who people enjoy listening to and assign way too much importance to. He's a cartoonist. His cartoons are trenchant and adept at exploring social issues that apply to people like him, and people like him are willing to lend him an ear.
I still enjoy his comic and his insights into business culture. I also enjoy Bruce Springsteen's music, but he doesn't have any special insights on, say, on nuclear power. I'll cut him some slack when he says stupid things about it. I don't go to rock stars for nuclear policy and I don't get political advice from cartoonists.
I only found out about Adams blog when it was brought up here. Not sure when he started his commentary on Trump. Don't follow Dilbert or any comics for that matter.
That said, when Trump first declared, nearly every pundit and everyone with a national microphone on both sides of the aisle laughed and declared it a joke and purely an exercise at branding and shameless self promotion. Huffington Post laughed the loudest and said they would only cover Trump in their Entertainment section. A few took him seriously out of the gate and were ridiculed to no end for their conclusion. Joe Scarborough and Limbaugh took him seriously in the beginning to name a couple national figures who did and faced national ridicule from their peers.
I took Trump seriously and so did a couple other of us here and we all were ridiculed as well, regardless of stating support or no support for Trump. We were pronounced gullible and brain dead. Perhaps Mr Adams also took Trump seriously from the beginning. I don't know cuz I was late to his party. At any rate, those of us who took Trump seriously immediately, are having the last laugh at the expense of those who thought that his candidacy was nothing more than an obvious joke and that includes many here. Whose perception was correct ? All the recognized experts and other deep thinkers were wrong, very wrong and don't like being told so. Hence the sour grapes towards Mr Adams and others who think like him or at least saw things the same way and had the guts to say so, on the record, in the beginning.
Sure, one could say that those who said Trump was serious had a 50 / 50 chance of being right. But what about everyone else who staked their reputations that he was nothing more than a joke ? They bet the ranch with all their witty and credentialed hoopla, and lost.
No one likes hearing I told you so. But with so many getting it wrong and being so adamant about it, we told y'all so. Perhaps Mr Adams' snark is rooted in the same and justifiably so.
I have found some cartoonists to be very wise over the years about politics and human nature.
I've read a couple of his books and occasionally his blog. He has the air of a guy who managed some success and then decided it was all because he was so great, so everyone should listen to his sage advice. Even where he manages to mention the luck elements in his success (most successful people work hard, but they all have some luck), he takes credit for it himself. I thought his book 'how to fail at everything and still win big' might be different, but it has a whole lot of arrogance and a big lack of understanding of how a lot of people live (this coming from a guy who freely admits not understanding how a lot of people live).
Regardless of the election outcome, Scott Adams will still be an asshole.
I think you're being unfair to Scott Adams, who in his own alien-geek-from-another-planet way is trying to be impartial about Donald Trump. He sees himself as reporting on a dog fight he doesn't think he has a dog in:
Scott Adams wrote:
For new readers:
I have already disavowed Donald Trump for being scary. And by that I mean he scares my fellow citizens, which I find unacceptable.
My policy views don’t line up with any of the candidates’ positions, including Trump’s. I don’t vote and I am not a member of a political party. I try to avoid identifying with any political label because doing so would make me biased and less credible.
My interest in Trump is his persuasion skills. I have never seen better.
He is essentially handicapping Trump's chances of winning the election and finding that a likely outcome, a prospect that fills me with horror but which I can't realistically deny. It is a real possibility.
In the rest of the linked post he has some shallow analysis of the nation's economic trajectory and what Trump's election might mean for that. I think his analysis is superficial, that it accepts as fact some panic-mongering demagoguery about immigration and border security, and that he overlooks a lot of possibilities that don't come from the two incumbent parties. His argument that a Trump presidency wouldn't be that scary hinges on comparing it to the alternatives presented by those two parties—which amounts to comparing Trump to the status quo and asking the rhetorical question "How's that working out for you?"
This is a compelling argument for people without much imagination, but it could indeed go an awful lot worse. As much as I admire Scott Adams' creativity in his comic strip he is way out of his depth. In that way he is a lot like other pop culture icons like Bill Nye—smart people who fancy themselves generalists, endorse politically fashionable positions, but aren't terribly deep thinkers and get it wrong a dismaying amount of the time.
But that doesn't make him an asshole, let alone a Trump supporter—it makes him a nerd. He's a smart, witty guy who people enjoy listening to and assign way too much importance to. He's a cartoonist. His cartoons are trenchant and adept at exploring social issues that apply to people like him, and people like him are willing to lend him an ear.
I still enjoy his comic and his insights into business culture. I also enjoy Bruce Springsteen's music, but he doesn't have any special insights on, say, on nuclear power. I'll cut him some slack when he says stupid things about it. I don't go to rock stars for nuclear policy and I don't get political advice from cartoonists.
I believe him, and I understand his message. He's just very arrogant in his presentation (on this and other topics). This is why I think he's insufferable. If Trump does win, there'll be no living with him.
You're correct, he's a cartoonist. And although he drops that line frequently to alleviate any responsibility for following his advice, he also likes to shout "look how great I am, follow my advice" a lot.
He is essentially handicapping Trump's chances of winning the election and finding that a likely outcome, a prospect that fills me with horror but which I can't realistically deny. It is a real possibility.
In the rest of the linked post he has some shallow analysis of the nation's economic trajectory and what Trump's election might mean for that. I think his analysis is superficial, that it accepts as fact some panic-mongering demagoguery about immigration and border security, and that he overlooks a lot of possibilities that don't come from the two incumbent parties. His argument that a Trump presidency wouldn't be that scary hinges on comparing it to the alternatives presented by those two parties—which amounts to comparing Trump to the status quo and asking the rhetorical question "How's that working out for you?"
This is a compelling argument for people without much imagination, but it could indeed go an awful lot worse. As much as I admire Scott Adams' creativity in his comic strip he is way out of his depth. In that way he is a lot like other pop culture icons like Bill Nye—smart people who fancy themselves generalists, endorse politically fashionable positions, but aren't terribly deep thinkers and get it wrong a dismaying amount of the time.
But that doesn't make him an asshole, let alone a Trump supporter—it makes him a nerd. He's a smart, witty guy who people enjoy listening to and assign way too much importance to. He's a cartoonist. His cartoons are trenchant and adept at exploring social issues that apply to people like him, and people like him are willing to lend him an ear.
I still enjoy his comic and his insights into business culture. I also enjoy Bruce Springsteen's music, but he doesn't have any special insights on, say, on nuclear power. I'll cut him some slack when he says stupid things about it. I don't go to rock stars for nuclear policy and I don't get political advice from cartoonists.
That's where I am with it too. Our friend Rotekz and many others (read the comments on his blog) gloss right over the part where he says he's not endorsing Trump and take Adams' admiration for Trumps skills as an endorsement. Much like when I say the Dodgers are the best team in the National League... that means I want the Dodgers to win, right?*
I've read a couple of his books and occasionally his blog. He has the air of a guy who managed some success and then decided it was all because he was so great, so everyone should listen to his sage advice. Even where he manages to mention the luck elements in his success (most successful people work hard, but they all have some luck), he takes credit for it himself. I thought his book 'how to fail at everything and still win big' might be different, but it has a whole lot of arrogance and a big lack of understanding of how a lot of people live (this coming from a guy who freely admits not understanding how a lot of people live).
Regardless of the election outcome, Scott Adams will still be an asshole.
I think you're being unfair to Scott Adams, who in his own alien-geek-from-another-planet way is trying to be impartial about Donald Trump. He sees himself as reporting on a dog fight he doesn't think he has a dog in:
Scott Adams wrote:
For new readers:
I have already disavowed Donald Trump for being scary. And by that I mean he scares my fellow citizens, which I find unacceptable.
My policy views don’t line up with any of the candidates’ positions, including Trump’s. I don’t vote and I am not a member of a political party. I try to avoid identifying with any political label because doing so would make me biased and less credible.
My interest in Trump is his persuasion skills. I have never seen better.
He is essentially handicapping Trump's chances of winning the election and finding that a likely outcome, a prospect that fills me with horror but which I can't realistically deny. It is a real possibility.
In the rest of the linked post he has some shallow analysis of the nation's economic trajectory and what Trump's election might mean for that. I think his analysis is superficial, that it accepts as fact some panic-mongering demagoguery about immigration and border security, and that he overlooks a lot of possibilities that don't come from the two incumbent parties. His argument that a Trump presidency wouldn't be that scary hinges on comparing it to the alternatives presented by those two parties—which amounts to comparing Trump to the status quo and asking the rhetorical question "How's that working out for you?"
This is a compelling argument for people without much imagination, but it could indeed go an awful lot worse. As much as I admire Scott Adams' creativity in his comic strip he is way out of his depth. In that way he is a lot like other pop culture icons like Bill Nye—smart people who fancy themselves generalists, endorse politically fashionable positions, but aren't terribly deep thinkers and get it wrong a dismaying amount of the time.
But that doesn't make him an asshole, let alone a Trump supporter—it makes him a nerd. He's a smart, witty guy who people enjoy listening to and assign way too much importance to. He's a cartoonist. His cartoons are trenchant and adept at exploring social issues that apply to people like him, and people like him are willing to lend him an ear.
I still enjoy his comic and his insights into business culture. I also enjoy Bruce Springsteen's music, but he doesn't have any special insights on, say, on nuclear power. I'll cut him some slack when he says stupid things about it. I don't go to rock stars for nuclear policy and I don't get political advice from cartoonists.
With the New York State primary tomorrow, let’s see how the chess board is set up for Trump.
The Lead
Trump has the lead in delegates for the Republican race and that lead will grow with the upcoming primaries.
Momentum
After Trump wins the New York primary he will be the one with momentum for a few weeks.
The Colorado Innocculation
Trump cleverly used the Colorado “rules change” situation that denied him any delegates as a warning to the party for the convention. Trump’s Wall Street Journal article about Colorado was perfect because it primed voters to be touchy about any future shenanigans. The party has been warned.
The Colorado situation is a perfect fit for Trump’s story. Trump is trying to break the system at the same time the system is acting rigged right in front of our eyes.
Victim of a Woman
Trump’s campaign manager Corey Lewandowski learned there would be no charges against him after journalist Michelle Fields’ accused him of grabbing her arm at a Trump event. Regardless of the facts, the court’s conclusion made Trump look like a victim of a woman. On the level of objective fact, the Fields situation has nothing to do with any of Trump’s policies. But as a matter of persuasion it changed the frame from Trump being less empathetic on women’s issues (or so it seems) to Trump being a victim of a woman (or so it seems). Watch how Trump’s “woman problems” seem to diminish going forward.
Moreover, Trump stayed loyal to Lewandowski the whole time. Voters noticed.
Megyn Kelly Interview
As I predicted, Trump and Megyn Kelly are planning a one-on-one interview that will be a yuuuuge ratings event. Expect Trump to be polite and professional. Expect Kelly and Trump to be on good terms when it is over. Kelly has been a big part of the story of Trump’s perceived problem with women, and this will probably fix it. If this were a movie, Trump’s critical third act solution would revolve around the Kelly interview.
Bad Boy Transition Story
In movies, the hero has to undergo some sort of change in order to make the story compelling. Voters want Trump to moderate his obnoxious style and it seems that he is doing just that. We assume Trump’s new subdued style is because of hiring Reagan campaign veteran Paul Manafort. This transition from bad boy to responsible leader will be catnip for the press for months, assuming Trump keeps it up.
The new approach will help Trump run out the clock without introducing any drama that might derail him. And obviously it sets him up for the general election.
Can Trump Take Advice?
The anti-Trump public worried that Trump would be a narcissist and not follow the advice of experts once in office. That was a reasonable fear because Trump seemed to be winging it on the campaign trail. But the hiring of Paul Manafort followed by Trump’s pivot towards a more leaderish vibe are clear indications that Trump can listen. If you were worried about Trump’s finger on the nuclear trigger, you can worry less now. Apparently he does listen to expert opinions.
New Haircut
Unless it is my imagination, Trump’s haircut has recently improved. I don’t know if that is because of Manafort’s advice or something else. But on the visual plane of persuasion, the haircut is far more than a haircut. It is another visible signal that Trump can be influenced by the public and his advisors. And it is part of his transition story.
In the 2D world of reason, no one ever rejected a presidential candidate based on his haircut. But in the 3D world of persuasion I would bet Trump loses 10% of voters based on them not wanting a clown-looking president to be the face of the nation. The new haircut is a big, big deal on the persuasion level.
The Sanders Association
Trump has been painting Bernie Sanders as a victim of the rigged system to show that Trump is not alone. It is a smart way to make Trump’s claims of an unfair system seem less Trump-centric. And it makes it easier for Sanders supporters to jump ship to Trump later.
The Shame Test
Trump recently passed the shame test. And by that I mean he quickly changed his position on abortion penalties when he realized his first thoughts on the subject were immensely unpopular. The public saw that as a mistake, and it was. But on the level of persuasion it solved one of Trump’s biggest problems: People believed he was impervious to facts and shame. Voters believed Trump would be dictatorial and ignore the legitimate interests of the people. But the people just spun Trump like a top on the subject of abortion penalties. Now we know he can be managed when it makes sense to do so. That’s a big deal. It might be the most important thing that happened in the campaign because it solved Trump’s biggest problem – the idea that he would not be “managed” by the people. He just was.
It might be my imagination, but I think all of the Trump=Hitler memes stopped at the same time the public “managed” Trump back to a more popular position on abortion penalties. That would not be a coincidence.
New Clinton Linguistic Kill Shot
Trump is testing “Crooked Hillary” as his new linguistic kill shot. It lacks the visual reminder element that “low energy” and “liddle Marco” had, but that’s probably a good thing because it wouldn’t be classy or smart to go after Clinton’s physical appearance. (Because of gender.) Instead, Trump is using the same confirmation bias play that he used for “Lyin’ Ted.” And by that I mean Trump depends on a slow drip of future news that reinforces the label. Trump knows Cruz will say some things that are not true (as all candidates do) and it will reinforce his “lyin’” label. Likewise, Clinton will endure a slow drip of allegations about crooked dealings in the past, taking money from banks for speaking fees, and the email server situation. Every time another sketchy detail emerges, you will think “crooked.” The new name is sticky. And it is engineered with a timer so it worsens all year until the election.
Trump has also called out Clinton for her lack of “stamina.” That’s the second kill shot, and it too is engineered as a magnet for confirmation bias. Every time Clinton coughs, loses her balance, looks tired, or cancels an event, you will wonder about her stamina.
In the movies, the hero kills all of the bad guys with one clean shot until the final showdown with a super-nemesis. The super-nemesis doesn’t die from the first shot. You always need more. So don’t be surprised by Trump using two linguistic kill shots on Clinton. Crooked and stamina work well together.
Headlines and Confirmation Bias
Unfortunately, there’s a good chance of more terrorist attacks around the world before November. You can also expect more stories about Syrian immigrants in Europe causing problems. Those stories – which are inevitable – will strengthen Trump’s appeal.
Bill Clinton’s Sabotage Tour
It looks to me as if Bill Clinton doesn’t want Hillary to be president. That makes sense on a human level because it would wreck his lifestyle and diminish his own accomplishment. Before the primaries, people assumed Bill would be Hillary’s secret weapon. But that weapon might be pointed in the wrong direction.
Obviously I could be reading too much into Bill Clinton’s motivation. But you can already see that the public is starting to interpret his actions that way.
Summary
This is the strongest position Trump has been in since he announced. The chess board is all set for him to win the nomination and then go on to a landslide in the general.
Yep. I read Dilbert and hear a very different, much meaner voice after reading Adams' pontifications. He's lost a fan.
I've read a couple of his books and occasionally his blog. He has the air of a guy who managed some success and then decided it was all because he was so great, so everyone should listen to his sage advice. Even where he manages to mention the luck elements in his success (most successful people work hard, but they all have some luck), he takes credit for it himself. I thought his book 'how to fail at everything and still win big' might be different, but it has a whole lot of arrogance and a big lack of understanding of how a lot of people live (this coming from a guy who freely admits not understanding how a lot of people live).
Regardless of the election outcome, Scott Adams will still be an asshole.
