quote:

Originally posted by wtg:
https://www.nydailynews.com/op...f6ku46eda-story.html

Responding to the story headline (Trump’s convention should worry the left)...
Oh, it does, it does!

But I disagree on whether the motley enthusiastic audience shown represents a cross-section of America. Don't forget that that's precisely what they (organizers - brilliant indeed) wanted to present. We ARE America. I'm sure they went to a LOT of trouble to "prove" they have superior popular support, and from all the groups the Democrats want to appeal to (how many well-spoken top level, Black professionals did they recruit? Ones with no trace of uneducated Black elocution.
Gold-star parents, small business owners - often former Democrats - who'd turned to Trump, with great success. MANY who believed (or said they did) that Trump's reign had turned their lives around. (One girl claimed he had cured her cancer!).

The live audience (unmasked and - at the end - freely mingling) contributed greatly to the effect of popular support. (I'm not so sure it was a good idea to veto a live audience at the DNC).

So while I don't want to kid myself (yes, as in 2016), I don't want to take this carefully curated impression TOO serously.

Yes, we goofed last time, but we should avoid being fooled now. That's precisely the effect they worked to make. That Trump has already won over Middle America - ones like them (whom he had come through for). I was just thinking about these conventions and how they influence elections. I believe a major effect on voting (and buying anything, really) is feeling "everybody else"is favoring a product - a candidate. (So, don't bother to vote - an especially pernicious effect on those in the middle, with long lines expected.).

We don't want to kid ourselves, but to be realistic. After Trump's embarrassing showing at sparcely attended rallies, OF COURSE, he's going to put together such a package.

This man values winning above all else.

And he's not wrong that giving the impression he's already won, can make that likelier. (Why else has he had hissy fits, when attendance at rallies has been much smaller than claimed? He's been campaigning the whole time he's been in office).

Since unfortunately, many in the middle ARE influenced by the popularity effect, this IS a concern. (But - to the editorialist - how many were actually at that live rally?)

It's REALLY too bad the RNC came after the Dems'(surely sought after timing). He and his fans were able to constantly refer to it - derisively and of, course, erroneously. What "Joe" and cohort would do if permitted. (Invoking G-d - their patron - against such a "perish the thought").

I'm afraid the last time we saw how little well-spoken journalists and scholars affect opinions. (Add to that now, medical experts). How many voters actually read fact-checks? Especially on the Right.

Sadly, they may have out-maneuvered Dems (again) but apart from lying, we need to take a page from their book. We need to work on changing their successully presented message.

It's harder for those respecting the guidelines for public rallies. (Another advantage for THAT side)
Somehow, though, we need to persuade that we ARE ahead and WILL prevail.

Less so perhaps (if we have to choose) how much more decent our side is, especially comparatively,b ut how successful and popular ALREADY.