sphere wrote:
Adams' analysis essentially pointed to a truism that I learned a long time ago, and that Trump executed far better than any of his competition, Hillary Clinton in particular: if you want to win an argument, you have to win them to you first.
Trump was excellent at emoting, and convincing people he felt
exactly the same way half of America did, but even more emphatically about those things than they did themselves, and so they paid far less attention to the details, the hedges, and the reversals, because they
knew he was on their side.
I'm a regular guest on an economics talk show hosted out of Rollins College. During the Republican primary I commented that there was a very stark difference between Trump and all of the career politicians up on the stage and that Trump was having a conversation with the audience few people were aware of. As you said, he was emoting. Humans have an innate social intelligence. It's running in the background of our minds constantly and we're not even aware of it. It's that "gut" feeling when we think someone is lying to us or if we run across a person that we think might threaten us physically. It's hardwired.
Did I think Trump was going to get the nomination? No. Did I think he was going to win? No. But I did think the whole thing was going to be a lot closer than anyone in the mainstream thought because Trump was doing something that career politicians weren't even capable of understanding.