Posted on 03/24/2016 12:40:13 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Scott Adams remembers just how the game turned. He was young and improving at chess, but the masterful kid across the board would outmaneuver Adams till the game seemed a runaway. Now, this kid didn't want to just beat Adams; he wanted to embarrass him.
"So after he'd picked away three-fourths of my pieces and I was discouraged," Adams recounts, "he would offer to turn the board around and play with my pieces." And then effectively "win" again.
On those occasions, Adams, the creator of "Dilbert," got insight into the type of personality that loves not only the challenge of game strategy, but also the thrill of overwhelming the competition. It is the sport of meticulously plotted domination.
And that is part of why Adams believes Donald Trump will win the presidency. In a landslide.
Adams, in other words, believes that Trump himself has turned the campaign game around. On the stump, the real-estate mogul is not running on the knowledge of his numbers or the dissection of the data. He is running on our emotions, Adams says, and sly appeals to our own human irrationality.
Since last August, in fact, when many were calling Trump's entry a clown candidacy, the "Dilbert" cartoonist was already declaring The Donald a master in the powers of persuasion who would undoubtedly rise in the polls. And last week, Adams began blogging about how Trump can rhetorically dismantle Clinton's candidacy next....
(Excerpt) Read more at sunherald.com ...
Yeppers.
Interesting analysis — he is making some good points.
I hope he is correct.
In January, I watched Hillary attack Trump, calling him a hater of women.
He eviscerated her by bringing up the peccadilloes of her husband and her part in it. Two paragraphs, one tweet. The Clintons melted.
In December, Cruz in an interview said that those old sex issues were off limits to his campaign.
Later in a debate, Trump said that he would go after Islamists with not only waterboarding, but worse. Ted Cruz was embarrassed, and gave a pretty weak retort.
The point here is Trump put himself out there, risking his front runner status. He took stands that weren't expected, that were going to be attacked by the media, and used against him.
He took them on principle, fought for them, and is winning on them. Just these two examples, but everyone knows he's been doing that on every single issue since he began.
Yes, he's persuasive, but it's the issues he's taken up that are important. It's the fact that he can clearly form a narrative, and win against the media as no one can.
Cruz is learning, but he's just not ready. It's why Sarah Palin and so many others have chosen to go with Trump.
This seems to miss the point. "Turning the board around" is an expression of confidence in ones abilities, not of "meticulous plotting".
You know, I don't even get it! What is he thinking ???
Hmmm, not so sure about that. We have a majority idiotic electorate that votes Democrat...no matter what. Its going to be almost impossible to defeat Hillary with all the blacks, hispanics, young entitlement crowd and guilty feeling whites out there.
Yes, he is learning and so are WE.
See this post
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3378862/posts
The trouble though is the possibility that she will be taken out of the race if she appears to be a likely loser.
Then again, if Hillary is shafted she knows where the bodies are buried and would be able to collapse the democrats chances..she has them over a barrel. To get her out of the way might be difficult, even for a bunch of grifters like the democrat party.
What an election!
I hope he is right. Trump it’s the only one left.
Cruz has gone over to the dark side.
Well , it looks like Cruz has gone over to the dark side.....Lindsey Graham is supporting him, Jeb Bush is supporting him, Mitt Romney is supporting him I guess Ted is now one of them......He is now officially one of the GOP elitists....oh that nutcase Glen Beck is supporting him too...
Cruz isn't learning, he's echoing. He thinks he can rely on data collection and a team of psychologists to manipulate the voters which is proof positive that Cruz has no understanding of human nature and no instincts for reading individuals or an audience.
Cruz has no empathy and the closest he comes to seeming humane toward others is when he's in carefully selected little groups where he can apply what his research says will work with that cohort of the population.
Trump, OTOH, sizes people quickly and has a feel for how that person sees the world, what they aspire to, and what they fear. It's empathy in practice and it's a gift that can be enhanced or ignored but it can't be created in those who don't have it or imitated by them.
Cruz is not persuasive because he assumes the voter is rational and will vote for the most rational argument. He is campaigning like the college debater he is...appealing to an audience who will judge him on how he defends his argument logically.
Unlike Scott Adams, I don't think the voters are irrational or that Trump is appealing to their irrationality.
Trump thinks with his gut and is appealing to the voters gut.
Utah is an interesting case. While I will certainly vote for Trump if he is the Republican nominee, I agree that voters in Utah showed more logic and intelligence --and less emotion-- in their choice than, say, Arizonans.
I'm not saying that Arizona Republican voters are unintelligent ... only that they're more emotional in overwhelmingly backing Trump. And Arizonans, as inhabitants of a border state, are in the thick of an ongoing invasion and have much to be emotional about.
One more observation of the Trump phenomenon: Before Brussels, there were indications Trump's popularity was beginning to level off. The Brussels atrocity will push his popularity sky-high again, and that will last for at least a few weeks. If the Islamists were smart, they would hold off on the atrocities until after our November election ... the better to ensure the election of a weak Democrat.
PS to irishjuggler:
You're the first person I have seen in decades who has correctly rendered the phrase "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" (rather than the erroneous "The proof is in the pudding" ( ... which always makes me think of a pudding-eater digging through the stuff in search of some foreign object). Thank you!
But objects are often placed in puddings, at least Christmas puds!
but certainly not proofs which sounds vaguely algebraic to me.
Regarding Trump, you stated: “Thus, many voters are apparently immune to his charms.” This struck a cord for me in an unexpected way. Long before this election cycle I found myself having a viscerally negative reaction to Ted Cruz. He is apparently intelligent, conservative, and bold. I should have been a huge fan, but I really didn’t like him. In fact, I described him as “creepy.”
Because of your statement about Trump’s charm not working for some, I realize why I have reacted to Cruz the way I have. He has absolutely no charm. He has the attributes of a “fire and brimstone” preacher who only points out the “sin,” but never inspires. I know this is purely my reaction to him, but since I should be his natural constituent I believe this very lack of charm is predictive of his chances in this election. Charm matters.
Never mind all that-better get over to Wisconsin...a few times.
Trump vs Hillary
Bulldozer vs gnat
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.