Strong evidence that the Great Recession was caused by giving loans to people who couldn't afford a house, not due to a Bush economic decision. Somehow, that didn't seem to matter. Your average liberal blames Trump for this recession as do many of the independents who get their info from the MSM. Many of these libs/indies also believe Trump is responsible for Covid as well. You're giving these people too much credit. To them it's Trumps' fault. If it was Trump's messaging or personality that was the problem he would not have won in 2016.
Trump tweets that he has covid 19
- Thread starter EasternHorn
- Start date
Strong evidence that the Great Recession was caused by giving loans to people who couldn't afford a house, not due to a Bush economic decision. Somehow, that didn't seem to matter. Your average liberal blames Trump for this recession as do many of the independents who get their info from the MSM. Many of these libs/indies also believe Trump is responsible for Covid as well. You're giving these people too much credit. To them it's Trumps' fault. If it was Trump's messaging or personality that was the problem he would not have won in 2016.
I agree with you on what was at least a major cause. However, that was far more debatable than this.
They do blame him for Covid, but why? Covid isn't his fault. The Democrats have no plan and actually took the matter less seriously at the critical time. But who's making that case with any degree of competence? Nobody. Instead, we get nonstop distractions and incoherent messaging.
Like I said, if it's Trump's messaging, name-calling, Tweets, etc. that is the problem Trump could not have won 2016. He said some of his worst **** then. However, since then we've had non-stop investigations , constant attacks and made-up scandals along with the Covid/recession. Just like the media destroyed Bush they may end up doing the same to Trump. Time will tell.
Very different dynamics in '16 than today, and he was up against crap.
When I say "crap," I mean his opponent. In 2016, it was easier for voters to say, "well, there's a lot I don't like about Trump, but Hillary Clinton is the worst." The reason why is that Republicans had been building the case against her since Trump was still married to Ivana. That isn't true of Biden. We've really only been ripping on him for a few years, and he doesn't give as much ammo. He gaffes a lot, but he doesn't put off the slimy condescension that Hillary put off.
You are correct that the media is tougher now, but they were horrible in 2016 too - much worse than they were with previous GOP nominees.
However, we disagree on two issues. First, you seem to think that because the media sucks, messaging basically doesn't matter, because they'll crap on him anyway.
I reach the opposite conclusion. Because the media will crap on him, that's all the more reason to have solid messaging - not because it'll force the media to be fair, but because you have chances to speak directly to the people and because what you say can either undermine or reinforce the media narratives.
For example, let's look at the recession/Covid angle since you mentioned that.
I think most voters understand that the recession is a product of Covid. I don't think they blame Trump for Covid, but they do blame him for how we've handled Covid. The media has told them that we are chaotic and don't take it seriously. Of course, that isn't reality. In terms of what has actually been done, the federal response has been pretty organized within the constitutional framework, and they've taken it seriously. But actions aren't driving the narrative unless someone is driving home the actions with articulately-stated words. So when Trump publicly clashes with his own people on the issue, that reinforces the media narrative of chaos. When he ridicules mask wearing, that reinforces the narrative that he doesn't take it seriously. What if instead of doing that, he stayed on message with what the federal government is actually doing? What if he didn't make fun of mask-wearing? It would be harder for the media's narratives to succeed.
Second, we disagree on another matter, which is that Trump has an easier time now in some respects than he had in 2016. For starters, he has a generally good record. He had no record in 2016. In addition, though Biden isn't as offensive as HRC was, his Party is MUCH, MUCH worse and is easier to target. They're talking about ruining the federal courts, throwing out the US Senate, and they condone violence. They are a disaster, and that's a huge weapon he could be deploying now that he couldn't deploy then.
My point is that this race is winnable (and certainly was very winnable) even with a Covid-induced recession, and the media doesn't decide everything. Candidates, campaigns, and messaging still matter a lot. Mike Pence showed how it can be done.
Last edited:
I never said messaging doesn't matter. Trump's messaging is fine for the most part. If it wasn't would there be campaign rallies as big as they are? Name one other republican that can do that. That's where your logic fails you. You can't have an audience that large if you're not getting the message through. The only time he dropped the ball on messaging was the last debate. He won't make that mistake again.
Do you think rally size is indicative of support? Because if it is, then you're absolutely right. Trump is the best candidate of all time, because nobody from either party at any point I know could outdraw him. In fact, and he'd take 49 states. Even in California or New York, he'd easily outdraw Biden.
He's able to draw big rallies, because his message does appeal to some. And those people are very enthusiastic and don't care about mishaps. His appeal isn't broad, but it's very deep. The problem is that most people who vote never show up to a rally. If rally size translated into success, Rod Stewart or Mick Jagger would be POTUS. They can get a million people to show up for them.
Name one republican who could have taken the Rust belt states like Trump did which won him the election. Sorry, his messaging got those 3 states. No, his appeal will not work with libs but his appeal gets conservatives to the voting booths.
Rally size is indicative of how strong you are within your party to a certain extent, not to people who don't share your values. I'd say his appeal was stronger than other republicans because he won states that no other republican could get. He didn't lose any states that another republican could have picked up either.
You're not going to entertain the possibility that anyone else could have carried those states or any that he lost and there's no way to prove it since only Trump won the nomination. So it's kinda pointless.
Yet you do the same.
I do what?
Speculate on elections.
I'm not saying he speculates. His wannabe baby daddy won.
Anyway Deezer, here’s more to chew on.
Poll Which Correctly Called 2016 Election Sees Another "Shocking" Outcome In November
Dude, you're so in love with the smell of your own farts it's not even funny.
Last edited:
You're only saying this because you know I'm right. What state was close that Trump lost that could have been won by a republican who says the "right things"? NONE!
Trump won those three states because of messaging, something you said he can't do. He got the union vote that no republican has done in decades. Please tell me what other republican running could have done this. I'll be waiting.
Last edited:
The best argument I'm seeing for Trump on my Facebook feed, always lousy with Trump lovers is that voters should use their ballot like a chess piece, not a Valentines card. Vote in your best interest even if you despise the guy. Of course I despise Trump so much that's the only argument that resonates at all with me. However I consider his narcissistic, ego driven rhetoric and decision making too dangerous to tolerate.
Yeah, vote for the party that embraces the terrorist blm and antifa (won't capitalize those) pieces of **** and defunds police. Because of Trump's ego. Wow. Pathetic. Glad I don't vote on hurt feelings and ********.
We'll see what happens on election day (or more likely, a month later after a Supreme Court ruling), but I'm skeptical of something that says Gary Peters is vulnerable but that Martha McSally and Joni Ernst are not.
If I name somebody, you'll shout, "********! Those guys couldn't win a damn thing." I can't prove that they could, and you couldn't prove that they couldn't, because they were never on the ballot. We would be at an impasse.
What Trump did to get those three was something special. Something that hasn't been done in decades. Just face the facts that there just isn't another republican that could've done it.
Your candidate won't oppose packing the US Supreme Court, which would easily be the most dangerous move since 1861. And this is coming from someone who is currently arguing with Garmel AGAINST Trump.
Even this dishonest and in the tank media has to wonder how long it can let Harris...er, Biden, get away with the non-answer on the Supreme Court. Of course, it let pelosi, that *****, get away with you can read the Bill after it is passed.
It was good to see them flip, but all three had been trending to the GOP as Democrats started getting into the God-hatred. Do bear in mind that Bush came close to carrying all three in 2004 against a stronger opponent than Trump had. In fact, Romney actually did better in Wisconsin than Trump did in terms of total votes. Is it a stretch to think a guy like Kasich who had strong blue collar appeal couldn have carried them? Not at all.
I see no evidence of them trending toward the GOP. Bush came close but every election there seems to a 3-5 point gap in every presidential election involving the Rust Belt states. I wouldn't exacly say Kerry was a strong candidate. Kasich does have strong blue collar appeal but the problem is that he's a weak conservative candidate and can't draw conservatives beyond RINOs. Conservatives in those states would have stayed home. Proof? Kasich finished in single digits in his 2016 presidential campaign in all of the Rust Belt states.
NEW: Pro Sports Forums
Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.
Pro Sports Forums
Pro Sports Forums
Recent Threads
-
Elon Musk Stuff
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 563
- West Mall
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 602
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Post Right Wing looniness here
- Started by Seattle Husker
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
