Scott Adams on persuasion.

Meanwhile, the current news cycle along with Trump’s supporters have framed Clinton as a low-stamina liar with a drinking problem who is running a criminal enterprise (The Clinton Foundation) that sells influence to foreign countries and companies that are more interested in war than peace. While she trash-talks Putin. That stuff could get all of us killed.

Fear is the strongest persuasion. Clinton has largely abandoned her fear message in the final weeks to focus on Trump’s words and behaviors involving women. Comparing the persuasion game on both sides, I predict Trump wins in a landslide.

Remember, facts don’t matter. Policies don’t matter. They never did. People care about their “tribe.” People care about their income. And people care about their fears. Everything else is less persuasive.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152644376081/the-persuasion-scorecard-update-one-week-out

"Clinton has largely abandoned her fear message in the final weeks to focus on Trump’s words and behaviors involving women. "

Adams has a point. That will appeal to a certain group (nearly all of them women), but that group was already going to vote for her. I don't think it moves the needle with many independents, because it comes across as ordinary muck-raking that everyone has learned to tune out. On the other hand, the rapidly-widening exposure of Clinton corruption seems to be gaining traction, and Clinton's camp hasn't come up with an effective response. Possibly they've still got an election-eve surprise that they are waiting to spring. But whoever is behind Wikileaks might have one too. I still think Clinton's going to win, but it might be closer than I was thinking a few weeks ago.

But going back to the quote, note what's happening here. Clinton is criticizing Trump for not being a traditional Western-civilization gentlemen in his interactions with women. But in many other contexts, Clinton and her supporters have made it clear that the existence of the traditional gentlemen is something that they are opposed to.

I think you've missed the point Cousin Dave. When Clinton portrayed Trump as going to start WWIII she did well. Almost no one likes Clinton but dying in a nuclear war is worse. Once Clinton set that story aside to focus on other messages she lost voters. She tried to go back to it but by then she was also spouting off about Russia and Putin. So she looked like the person most likely to set off WWIII. All other arguments appear to be irrelevant. Corruption, sexism, drinking, religion, none of it matters. Don't start WWIII is it. Because that was the only thing Clinton did better than Trump.

Hi Ben! Wearja gota school?

Not succeeding:

Instead, the LP's big break has been marked by one avoidable gaffe after another, an abysmally embarrassing performance and an incomparable lost opportunity.

...

First, the gaffes. Oh, the gaffes. At this point I involuntarily cringe whenever I see a headline that begins, "Gary Johnson says…" Though the initial gaffe most Americans heard about was Johnson's "Aleppo moment," this was hardly the first indication that the former New Mexico governor is in desperate need of media training. That actually came in June, when CNN featured Johnson and Weld in a town hall event. It was a fantastic opportunity to introduce the ticket to a country coming to terms with a Clinton-Trump race.

Instead, the LP candidates used that moment to describe President Obama as a "good guy" (Johnson) who has been "statesman-like" in a successful second term (Weld). They called Clinton a "wonderful public servant" (Johnson again, really batting for the fences here) and an "old friend" (Weld). As Matt Welch of the libertarian Reason Magazine incredulously asked, "You are less than 10 minutes into the most important introduction to voters of this campaign, one in which differentiating yourself from the existing big-party competition is kind of the point, and you can't do any better than this?"

https://theweek.com/articles/653392/anatomy-faceplant-inside-libertarian-partys-abysmal-2016-campaign

Never go full Bircher. Or, "new rules for journolists".

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/248095/

"What's new Wikileaks? Whoa o Whoa o"
(use your Tom Jones voice and I apologize if this sticks w/you a while)

Hi Crid. I went to all the skool. I skooled it so hard it had skool marks on it's skool.

"When Clinton portrayed Trump as going to start WWIII she did well. "

True. And then her people blew it by going back to the Trump-is-a-cad theme. By doing that, they re-humanized him, portraying him as a loutish playboy. People may view playboys as uncouth, but no one thinks a playboy is going to start a nuclear war.

But you know what? They couldn't help themselves. It was inevitable. Tigers gotta hunt, fish gotta swim, feminists gotta accuse every man they see of misogyny. It's what they do.

Hmmm...

https://www.bleachbit.org/cloth-or-something

One more thought about that: Last night, during the World Series game, both campaigns ran some ads. Hillary went with the Trump-is-a-cad theme. Trump's ads mostly refrained from name-calling and simply pointed out the various scandals surrounding Clinton. If Trump were a better candidate, he would have spent a lot more of his time on that theme. Not too many people believe that the general election will be rigged. But a lot of people think that the Democratic primary and the Clinton investigations have been rigged. Trump could even have pulled some Sanders voters with that theme.

Why are liberal institutions such cesspools of misogyny and hatred?

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8330

Oh, right, they're the tolerant ones...

Toxic masculinity?

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/29757/

What's worse than no tech support? bad tech support.

But what makes this story so priceless isn't that John Podesta got fooled by an fourth-rate phishing scam. After all, he's just the guy who's going to be running Hillary Clinton's administration. What does he know about tech? And Podesta, to his credit, knew what he didn't know: He emailed the Clinton IT help desk and said, Hey, is this email legit?

And the Clinton tech team's response was: Hell yes!

No, really. Here's what they said: One member of the team responded to Podesta by saying "The gmail one is REAL." Another answered by saying "This is a legitimate email. John needs to change his password immediately."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/and-now-for-some-comic-relief/article/2005199?custom_click=rss

Libertarian Party ticket disintegrating. Sad. The Libertarian Party had a historic opportunity and they blew it.

Leftist: "Everything that I don't personally like is evil and should be banned. Especially ranch dressing."

Someone sees a KKK sign during a World Series game. Hilarity ensuses:

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/794031477600251904

The Libertarian Party had a historic opportunity and they blew it.

Like a $2 hooker.

Oh, wait, the hooker is actually good at their job.

"The Libertarian Party had a historic opportunity and they blew it."

No they didn't. They still had underwear guy running the show and their candidate started by telling everyone how great Hillary is. The amazing thing is they are still less of a joke than any of the other fringe parties.

And I agree with your 'One more thought'. But that is just who Trump is. I don't know how many times I've heard the complaint 'Why can't Trump not be a career politician and also be a perfect political animal?'

I have a theory about Trump. It appears to me that he has an exceptional natural talent at business negotiation. He's been riding that for most of his adult life; he's never really had to learn anything else because, until he decided to run for President, there was no need. My observation is that it is often the case with such people that since they've never had to work at developing and honing a skill, when they get thrown into a different milieu where they have to learn new skills, they struggle greatly.