(05-31-2016 07:47 PM)Guitarman Wrote: And can Hillary with all her billions be so stupid as to make her slogan; "LOVE TRUMP(s hate)".
One thing I have noticed lately is the MSM trying to start the narrative that the Trump campaign has some kind of problem because it isn't structured like the typical campaign.
Here's an NY Mag article calling the Trump campaign,
"An absolute strategic and managerial garbage fire"
From the article:
Quote:By all accounts it is the most organizationally and strategically inept campaign for a successful major-party nominee in recorded history
So strategically inept that he earned the most votes of any republican in a primary?
Quote:Trump is reliant on information he garners himself, and can be swayed by the last person he talked to
God forbid he gathers his own information.
Quote:Parker and Haberman somewhat delicately put it. His campaign staff is far too small, and yet constantly at war with itself, already having gone through multiple shakeups and coups.
Hillary has over a hundred people on her staff and hasn't been able to put away Bernie.
Trump's modest outfit has completely ratfucked the entire mainstream media and dominated the news for months now. Meanwhile, most of the news on Hillary pertains to her email scandal.
Quote:In keeping with his general disdain for data, Trump has eschewed any use of analytics to target voters or competitive areas. Indeed, he has fixated bizarrely on plans to compete in New York and California, two states where any Republican faces hopeless odds against an entrenched Democratic electorate. He is currently in North Dakota for reasons nobody fully understands.
Data and analytics? Forget tapping into the attitude of the American people as a whole. How will he pander appropriately?
Trump shouldn't try to compete in the big states, but he shouldn't focus on the small states either?
It's so hard for anyone to believe Trump would make a stop in North Dakota where he would surpass the 1,237 delegates needed for the nomination. Not to mention the energy plan speech he gave in an area that is a huge oil market. Mindblowing.
A day later the New York Times ran a
similar article:
Quote:Mr. Trump is reliant on information he garners himself, and can be swayed by the last person he talked to.
Same exact sentence from the NYM article.
Quote:The Trump operation, for instance, has talked for weeks about hiring a full-time communications director, but has yet to bring anyone on board. Ms. Hicks is still the sole communications staff member. The Clinton campaign, by contrast, has a press team of more than a dozen, including people devoted solely to the news media for black and Hispanic audiences.
Why would a candidate bother crafting their own message when you could have a team of autistic nerds tweeting out carefully turned phrases and word pictures instead?
Quote:He has suggested that he will compete in new states, despite the scant resources he has devoted to the traditional Republican map so far. And he has been adamant to aides that he intends to try to compete in New York, which no Republican has captured since Ronald Reagan
More similarities from the NYM article. If the the Bushes couldn't win New York it certainly must be unwinnable right?
Quote:Mr. Trump, who lent his campaign money during the primaries, has begun fund-raising for the general election, and there are signs that high-dollar donors are willing to help, especially by donating to a super PAC supporting him. But there are several such groups, and the campaign has yet to unofficially sanction one, leaving some donors confused about which super PAC, if any, they should support.
Is it at all surprising that a candidate who has been anti-donor and anti-PAC would continue to be anti-donor and anti-PAC?
Quote:Woody Johnson, the Jets football team owner and a Republican fund-raiser, who this week committed to helping Mr. Trump raise hundreds of millions of dollars in a short time period, said he did not believe that the unsettled nature of the presumptive nominee’s campaign would be a hindrance.
Nothing negative here but I like to note how Trump continues a trend of having high profile supporters from the world of sports which seems smart in a nation of sports addicts.
I don't know if the new york times and new york mag are owned by the same people or what fuckery is going on. The reality is that this is another narrative that the MSM is trying to push.
I walked by a TV today and saw they were praising the clinton campaign for their adaptive tactics and how it would give them the strategic edge against Trump.
I wish the average American citizen would see this attack and take away the important underlying story. That is, Trump is promising change for this country
and his actions actually back it up.
I love that people I know support Trump but I wish they had better talking points and reasons for why they support him. I know everyone loves the idea of a big beautiful wall and a promise to keep potential terrorists out of our country but I don't think that is the best way to evangelize for Trump.
Trump spreads his broader message to the country but his supporters need to help him explain the between the lines details to potential voters that he can't spread himself.
The best way I think we can help Trump is to try to speak to his character. How he stands by people when any other politician would have tossed them out on the street.(Lewandoski) or how his actions actually back up his promise to do things differently. How he hates the impotent nature of ineffective government bureaucracy (Wollman rink). How he is involved in his campaign on a deep personal level, a magnet of information that doesn't rely on a huge team of bureaucrats to do his work for him and how this is a stark contrast from the absentee presidency of Obama.
In this election you can tell a lot about how candidates would run this country by the way they campaign. Hillary(similar to the defeated GOP field) is a typical bureaucratic government operation burning through billions of dollars. Bernie has taken a ton of money from people and god knows what he does with it all.
Trump on the other hand has clearly been successful running a lean operation that relies largely on his own talents as a shrewd businessman and negotiator, whereas his competitors rely on excessive spending, huge campaign staffs, and a heavy reliance on data and analytics to make up for what they lack in their own intelligence and personality.