Hacker News Reader

Comment by nsgi | Hacker News Reader

So Trump is really good at the political game, for instance?

He did become President of the USA so I think the answer is yes.

...and he's been planning it since the 1980s, so yeah, it's hard to make the argument that he didn't play the game persistently and well.

Yes, if you believe he is not good at political game, you don't understand the game.

Is there a more powerful political position he could have?

Yes, he could be a president with reliable support from the senate and the house. But that said he still managed to reach very far.

Is that an option these days? When was the last time that existed?

2010?

It seems to me (as an outside observer), that this normally happens for the two years after a new President is elected.

Normally they don't get 60 in the Senate though, which means that the system is working at intended (you need to stay consistently popular for 6+ years to start swinging the Senate).

Absolutely. But the game we use to choose a president does not seem to be at all related to the actual job of president.

He sure as hell isn't, but has some understanding of marketing, and access to people and resources (Bannon, Russian propaganda, Republican playmakers via Pence) that could push him over the edge.

How much of his agenda is really his, anyway? He's a punching bag to distract everyone while the real power players get their way.

I think Trump is a good example of how luck and skill interact. He absolutely has a talent for selling his ideas to a big chunk of people. I don't think he would have actually become president though, if it weren't for a number of things out of his control: if Putin hadn't been trying to stir up discord, if there'd been a compelling Republican alternative, if James Comey hadn't made that last-minute announcement reminding everyone of the emails again.

I would say yes, if you define success in the political game as being elected to a high office. Most of us consider him an idiot, and in many way he certainly is. But he do knows who to get people to vote for him, which is what matters. He didn't fall into the precidency by accident or by being rich or well connected. He did what mattered to become elected (with a bit of help from Putin).

Many smarter people with more money and better connections failed, see e.g. Bloomberg.

You could think of it as, "Trump is good enough at the game to get elected president."

You could also think of it as, "Those with enough money and power to influence who gets elected president are good enough at the game to get Trump elected president."

Trump is a world-class salesman. And this skill is more about instinct than cerebral/deep thinking, which is why nerds “just don’t get it”.

Check Scott Adams’ writing on Trump’s persuasion abilities.

Scott Adams claimed that Trump uses methods from hypnosis. I have no idea if that's true, but it's the best explanation I've seen for the irrational support he still gets.

>Trump is a world-class salesman.

When did Mexico agree to pay for the wall?

That’s part of the pitch. He’s not selling to Mexico.

This is what a lot of people don’t get. All the stupid shit he says is for his base. He doesn’t care about Mexico.

People get that, they just disagree that it's a sign of political genius on his part.

Getting them to pay was never a concern -- he's trying to rile up the base.

Plus he's a construction magnate -- get enough traction to get a preliminary budget and start allocating funds to his buddies. Even if it's just a concrete wall for 1/3 of Texas that's big $$$ for his construction cronies.

He's not world class at selling walls. He's world class at selling Donald Trump.

Indeed. He's not getting paid (in both actual dollars and in attention) for having walls built. Whether the wall gets built or not is entirely irrelevant as long as he gets votes.

Unfortunately, selling "walls" (policy) is his actual job.

He's like a vacuum cleaner salesman who can always get his foot in the door, but can never manage to sell a unit.

Not quite.

He's like a vacuum salesman who promises to give his customers dishwashers and toasters for free if they buy a vacuum cleaner.

When they buy the vacuum cleaner, it turns out he lied about the other goods but they still ended up with the vacuum cleaner. But what a lot of people really wanted was the dishwasher.

I may have pushed the analogy a little too far...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com