"Your argument, then, is that the winning strategy for political office is to play up one's unsuitability for public office. I'm not going to dismiss that out of hand, but it's not a statement that should be accepted at face value. Do you have examples of other protest candidates that have used this strategy effectively?" Not really - the point I'm making is that the winning strategy is often disruption in general. Donald Trump is a bizarre case, and I think a lot of the reason that he's gotten as far as he has is that the political establishment in the United States is far more despised than it is in, say, Canada. So, in this case, a message to the effect of "I may be a jerk, but I'm not one of THOSE jerks" is enough. In Canada, that wouldn't fly - as I mention in the analysis, if Trump had admitted that he hadn't paid his taxes in 15 years in a Canadian debate, his opponents would have nailed him and his campaign would be effectively done as of that moment. That said, we've seen a number of successful disruption strategies in Canadian elections over the last few years. To use a very clear example, Dalton McGuinty won the provincial election in Ontario by disrupting the Conservative strategy - while they were very negative, he ran a very positive campaign that left the Ernie Eves Conservatives scrambling to adapt to (and they didn't, and have been out in the political wasteland ever since). The trick is that what you are attempting to disrupt has to be something that has had sufficient time to become established. So, if Trump was attempting a strategy like this at the end of the Bill Clinton years, Congress and their obstructionism would not have become so established and detested that it would have worked. What makes this situation very dangerous is that by presenting himself as a viable outsider candidate (a threshold he reached as soon as he got the Republican nomination), he IS expanding his voter base to include a number of people who would otherwise not vote because they've lost complete faith in the system. The mistake that I think a lot of commentators are making is to think that the people supporting him don't realize he's a blowhard and a liar - a lot of them DO, but still consider him better than the blowhards and liars that are in office already. So, his attack on the political establishment DOES make this election winnable for him, and if he does win, the United States gets a President whose is very unpredictable and quite possibly dangerous.
I disagree with this because when it came to the Ontario election McGuinty rolled with the punches so to speak and the same thing happened in the Canadian federal election this past year. It wasn't about disrupting the status quo, it was about portraying himself as being above his opponent. It made the Tories look childish while he was the charismatic cool headed guy who didn't care for petty shenanigans. I don't think simply acting differently than the established way would achieve this when "acting differently" is acting like a hot headed child unless the other person is baited by it and also acts like a hot headed child. That's not really "disruption" as it is pushing somebodies buttons for a reaction. Because of this I also disagree with your idea that Clinton should take opportunities to make Trump look like a Buffoon. It would be easy for him to turn that around on her and make her seem like the negative candidate who is just here to throw around petty insults. Which would in turn elevate himself above her as cool headed, focused on the issues candidate who's being picked on by the establishment. Something I think the other Republican candidates did in the primaries. He baited them well and it would be a mistake for Hilary to be baited in the same way.
The obvious case for "disruption as winning strategy" is the Brexit, in which the Leave campaign was effectively arguing for a bygone age before Thatcher closed the coal mines and held it up as a possibility for the future. Trump doesn't really have that angle available to him - it's clear that by pounding on NAFTA he hopes to remind Rust Belt voters that globalization stole their livelihood and the Clintons are the poster couple of globalization. But he fucked even that up - the man literally slagged on Newark airport by comparing it unfavorably to Qatar. Your comparison to Ontario politics is facile. Ontario has about the same population as Illinois, and it's been less than 24 hours since the debate - do you really believe Clinton or any of her surrogates are going to let "I don't pay taxes because I'm smart" slide? Meanwhile, you're saying that McQuinty won by going positive while his opponents went negative... as an example of why Trump won the debate. The guy who keeps saying America is "so sad" while his opposition are saying the country is "already great." It's not provocative or insightful to call Trump a protest candidate. It is provocative to assert that somehow Trump is bringing out the vote when Republicans are demonstrably staying home in droves. What it comes down to is this: you want Trump's outsider status alone to be enough to win him the election, but you've made no arguments for your case. I appreciate your attempts, but I don't find your assertions compelling.You land at LaGuardia, you land at Kennedy, you land at LAX, you land at Newark, and you come in from Dubai and Qatar and you see these incredible — you come in from China, you see these incredible airports, and you land — we’ve become a third world country.
First off, I'm not an American, I'm a Canadian. I have also clearly stated that I consider Trump to be extremely dangerous, and that I thought that Clinton was a better candidate for the office. While I did not take any position in the article, I am very much hoping that Trump doesn't come within a hundred miles of winning this race. Second, you are free to disagree with me if you wish. You are free to attack my ideas to your heart's content. Do not EVER attack my person, or put words in my mouth (frankly, you are exceedingly bad at mind-reading). Now, onto your points. You are correct about Trump probably alienating core Republicans. What makes him dangerous, however, is that his appeal is to those who have lost faith in the system as a whole, hence his repeated systemic attacks in place of solid policy statements. This means that people who would probably not come out to vote if an established politician had won the nomination may very well come out to vote this time. Consider this: Congress' approval rating in August was at 18%, and it hasn't broken past 24% since 2011...and these are sustained historic lows (source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx). The American voter turnout in 2014 was the lowest in over 70 years, with a national average of 36.3% (source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/opinion/the-worst-voter-turnout-in-72-years.html). These are signs of a massive loss of faith in the political system, including a loss of faith that the people inside that system can turn it around. Trump isn't trying to appeal to the 36.3% of voters who still have enough faith in the system to vote - moreover, he probably doesn't care about the Republicans in that number who will stay home in 2016 because he has alienated them. He's gambling that he can mobilize enough of the 63.7% who stayed home to win the election by presenting himself as the clever outsider who can tear down a broken system. If he succeeds in that, this election will be quite winnable for him. Also, I don't think you understand what "disruption" means in this context. "Disruption" in this context means forcing your opponents to abandon their own ground and try to compete with you on yours in such a way where they lose if they don't. When McGuinty did it in Ontario, the Eves Conservatives looked out of touch by relying on their tried and true negative campaign strategy, which had won at least two prior elections (oh, and by the way, just because Ontario doesn't have a huge population doesn't mean there aren't lessons to be learned from its elections - we have a democratic system up here too, you know). Clinton is waging a standard political campaign, pitched at mobilizing her core base of Democrat voters - Trump is NOT. He's pitching his message at an entirely different group of people.
Wow. Chill the fuck out, cowboy. Nowhere did I say that you supported Trump, nor "put words in your mouth." I said that your argument was facile, and that you wanted your argument to be true. Devil's advocacy? Don't care. My point is you didn't make your point. Which is very much the position you took in the article - you titled it "Why Donald Trump may have won the first Presidential Debate." One assumes the argument you're making is that Donald Trump may have won the first presidential debate. My position is that you have not successfully argued that Donald Trump may have won the first presidential debate. Are we clear on this? Is it now abundantly obvious that I don't give the first fuck where your ideology lies, but where your arguments are made? Great. Let's move on. Because the bulk of your argument above is that voters are disenfranchised, not that voters are energized. Here's a quote: Okay, he's trying for that. The argument you need to make, therefore, is that his performance thus far is doing that. Which it is not. Previously, by the way, you defined "disruption" thusly: That's very different from So shall we debate whether Trump is making Hillary compete on her strengths? Or shall we debate whether Trump is making Hillary abandon her strengths to compete on Trump's? Because those definitions are polar opposites and you've used both. Don't get me wrong - I welcome the discussion. And I'm interested to hear your thoughts. But if you're going to post them where I can reply to them, I shall reply to them and if I see weakness in your arguments, I will point them out. So far you've argued that Trump won the debate because he didn't debate and people will vote for him for president because he's unpresidential. When discussing Trump's "disruption" you chose an example that more closely mirrored the Democratic National Convention than Trump's behavior or policy and when you were questioned on that you redefined "disruption" to mean the opposite of what you initially asserted. Hectoring me and resorting to condescension does not resolve this rhetorical shortcoming.He's gambling that he can mobilize enough of the 63.7% who stayed home to win the election by presenting himself as the clever outsider who can tear down a broken system. If he succeeds in that, this election will be quite winnable for him.
Another word for this strategy is “disruption,” and it’s a long-standing and effective campaign tactic. For example, Karl Rove specialized in campaigns that would attack an opponent’s strengths rather than their weaknesses, on the grounds that somebody was prepared to defend their weaknesses, but would be taken by surprise if they had to justify their strengths. Donald Trump’s campaign, in which he is constantly sending up flak attacking the political establishment, is all about disruption.
"Disruption" in this context means forcing your opponents to abandon their own ground and try to compete with you on yours in such a way where they lose if they don't.
"Nowhere did I say that you supported Trump, nor "put words in your mouth."" You know what? You kind of did - you took a straight-up exploration of strategic messaging with a number of nuanced pointed and reduced it to "the winning strategy for political office is to play up one's unsuitability for public office." I've been strawmanned before - I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now. If you want to damn me, then do it for what I said, not a caricature of what I said. That said, you're right - there are a couple of things you said that I interpreted in the worst possible manner. So, I do owe you an apology, and it is offered gladly. That further said, I think you're wrong, and the evidence you're using is outdated - the article is from May, and this is now September, further Trump has actually closed the gap between him and Clinton in a number of polls (source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls). Either way, clearly it's time for both of us to back away from each other, so I'm done replying to you. Please do not take this as a demand to stop commenting or discussing in this thread - I simply won't be replying to you anymore.
Apology accepted. Thank you. I'll leave you with this, however: Your argument remains unmade. That Trump is closing in the polls in no way indicates that he is energizing formerly-reticent voters. I did a quick scan for research that backs up that allegation and I find none.
Disruptive marketing means going after a target audience who isn't being targeted by the mainstream groups. Where did you get your version of "disruption" for this piece ? It seems like you switch back and forth from understanding that disruptive means going after the non-voters nobody else cares about and thinking it has something to do with positivity vs. negativity. The conservatives in Ontario have won most elections. Mcguinty won because he was able to make them crash and burn by being charismatic. He lost previously because he wasn't charismatic. It's the same reason Trudeau did so well this election. Every time he messes up he handles it so well that he gains more followers as his opponents get dramatic and come across as childish. If you checked the NDP's facebook page after the whole Elbow thing you would see comment after comment of NDPer's denouncing their party for being so ridiculous.
Well said. This is probably the crux of what's going to make this a hard decision for me. I don't particularly like either candidate, but I have to choose one since I'm in a swing state and my vote actually matters this time. I'm searching for the stances that I do actually like in both and using that to base my decision, and Trump going against the establishment is one of those things that I like, even though in a different light I also put Hillary's continuation of status quo as beneficial as well. I can vote for one person that can shake things up for better or for worse, and I guess I have to decide if I think that's worth the gamble. If by the time the election comes around and neither has an edge in my mind, I'll probably err on the side of safety and go with our more stable candidate.
Is it ever worth the gamble? Trump has hardly existed in isolation. The man has sought the public eye for thirty years. Clinton, for her part, has been a political animal for (I'm guessing) longer than you've been alive. Consult the oracle: google "trump accomplishments" and then "clinton accomplishments" and decide for yourself. This is not an election in which someone can reasonably claim they're voting for an unknown.
One thing that won't show up on the "trump accomplishments" list is his taking advantage of the corporate tax laws. Most people see it as a despicable trait, but I think it proves his understanding on what's broken. I think a shakeup by Trump in this area isn't even a gamble. I think it can only end positively. The gamble is in what I'd expect from diplomatic relations, which is an area where Hillary excels. In my mind, a Trump presidency appears to result in a stronger economy for us, but may hurt us on the world stage. That's the gamble I refer to, and while I don't know if it's one I will take or not, I do think it it should illicit more thought than to brush it away saying that it's never worth the gamble.
I can't put my finger on why, but this sounds wrong. I think if he shows he's the kind of man to take advantage of broken systems, it shows that he shouldn't be trusted with another system he could end up taking advantage of.One thing that won't show up on the "trump accomplishments" list is his taking advantage of the corporate tax laws. Most people see it as a despicable trait, but I think it proves his understanding on what's broken. I think a shakeup by Trump in this area isn't even a gamble. I think it can only end positively.
I'd go along with that. I do feel it's a conflict of interest that he would be a sitting president with a bunch of companies under him. He says he'll leave those behind, but I have a hard time believing that. As the president though, he's not going to be drafting intricacies to a new tax code. Anything on the table will be up to him, congress, and the public to pick through. From what I can tell of his plan, it's all about transparency and getting backdoor money back into the US.
I've actually barely even started my research into this. Some notes that I've made so far center around corporate tax reform and lower taxes. I need to see how this differs from the Bush-era trickle-down economics (if at all). With the tax reform, if he can keep money on the books, corporations will have to either reinvest or pay their share of taxes. Either is great. Right now, a lot of big companies are sending money out a backdoor. As for small businesses, they either reinvest, or pay the 30some percent. The 15% rate will seem more worthwhile for small business to hold on to some cash. More companies holding onto cash could soften the blow when interest rates start to rise. I'm also intrigued by the tariff ideas. I don't know the repercussions on that other than forcing the hand to bring some manufacturing back to the US, and if that's even a good thing at all. If you have any good reading material on any of these topics, I'd love to see them.