In this Korner: Tweet-storms. In that Korner: CNN and NYT Headlines
Konspiracies need not apply on this one

.

Hey, man.  Since Korners get 50 replies real quick and since Felix gets 4, you have only your ownselves to blame.  :- )

....

There is a scintillating comments area at my second site, Detect-O-Vision, on the question of whether Donald Trump's political successes are due to his being smart, or his being lucky, as it were.  Lampoon and Mr. Jonez especially have all sorts of thoughts that never occurred to me. 

Personally I have tended to come down on the side of his being lucky.  By "lucky" I mean that he's clumsy, sloppy, but INADVERTENTLY cut from the perfect cloth to overachieve as One Man vs The Washington Establishment.  MisterJonez however sees it differently, and I would value others' ideas as to how much Trump has been lucky vs good.  (No matter how much you might hate Trump, it is a given that he has overperformed his expectations in the political arena.)

Lampoon linked us to a cool Harvard review of Trump's "skill" in Tweeting.  But even cooler is this unbelievably fun "before and after" breakdown of Trump's tweets by Slate.com.  You'll probably enjoy it even more IF you are a Democrat.  It is one of the only places I found a convincing argument that Trump pre-calculates his moves, but it uses examples embarrassing to Trump, so ... that's SSI for you.  Fair and balanced.  :- )

Ms. Hess' Slate article contains little sections like this one:

.

... his most Trump-ian tweets manage to hit upon all three of Aristotle’s modes of persuasion: logos (the appeal to logic), ethos (the appeal to credibility), and pathos (the appeal to emotion).  (Aristotle?!  LOL - Dr D)

Take his response to the December death of six U.S. airmen in Afghanistan:  "A suicide bomber has just killed U.S. troops in Afghanistan.  When will our leaders get tough and smart.  We are being led to slaughter!"

A statement of fact, a knock to his rivals’ credibility, and an emotional outburst [with vivid imagery]: bump, set, spike.

.

Ms. Hess gives another example of this profound 3x concept she spotted:  "Jeb Bush just got contact lenses and got rid of the glasses.  He wants to look cool, but it's far too late.  1% in Nevada!"

Ms. Hess analyzes Trump's tweets as mere tactical devices, but it's also fair to notice that the Tweets wouldn't work if they didn't (usually) contain some element of truth.  Or at least imagery that strikes a chord.  The devices are worthless if the substance itself is not interesting.

...

The comments areas at SSI are *suggested* for Russia/Wiretapping conversation, if so desired.  The comments area at D-O-V is suggested for discussion of how much Trump is lucky vs good - and whether it is inevitable that he'll lose this "find a scandal" whack-a-mole game in the long term. 

But of course, the user is always right :- )

Respectfully,

Jeff

Blog: 

Comments

1

The more I think about this, the more perfect it is. Both had stellar track records in the minors, numbers that suggested they were about to be the next big thing. Both got their cup of coffee, did what they were expected to, and looked primed for superstardom. The establishment had anointed them, and everyone agreed they would be stars. Ackley was destined to be a squeaky clean Pete Rose, and Hillary was on her way to something almost as impressive.

But then, disaster struck. For Dustin Ackley, it was the Lefty Strike Zone (TM). Pitch after pitch sailed three inches outside, and the umpire barked "Steee-Rike". Dustin grimaced and muttered "that's a ball." Then he, reset, and tried again. And again. And again. 

Some years later, Hillary underwent the same process. Tweet after tweet came sailing by, three standard deviations of political correctness outside the norm, and she watched each one sail past with cool indifference. When asked why she never offered at them, she smiled (Hillary Clinton's smile is basically a grimace) and said "Those tweets are low and outside. When they go low away, I look high and inside." She kept stalking her pitch. She never got it.

Hillary and Dustin stayed the course, and watched tweet after tweet, pitch after pitch go by them. They struck out, over and over. Gradually the fans became disenchanted with their respective franchise players. It's just hard to believe someone who says they aspire to be great and win a championship, but makes such little effort to adapt to the world around them. There is a sickening arrogance in someone who can strike out looking three times in a night, then grumble in the post-game interview "Those pitches were just deplorable. I can't work with that at all." Time passed. Disenchantment became disgust, then hate. Careers died. Now both are just footnotes to history.

 

Seriously, the only way I could like this analogy better is if Hillary gets a bizarre haircut and then gets traded to the Russians.

4

I can only take so much credit. A friend of mine actually came up with that player-pair. As soon as she said it, I figured this community absolutely had to hear it. And then I hop online and BOOM, Konspiracy Korner just went live. Beautiful.

I'll give myself a golf clap, maybe a small pat on the back. Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled debating.

5

That'd be a well-earned bow.  There are precious few genuine points of origin for ideas; we mostly recognize chains of custody for them.  Be proud to be a link in such a chain :-)

Add comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><p><br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

shout_filter

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.