They’re not saying that Trump should get more votes because of his trash headlines and behavior, they’re just calling out because it’s just what happens with that fascist.
Democrats should, unfortunately, do the same kind of massive attention seeking to resonate with those of his base that aren’t completely set on just being evil. It makes the candidate look active, engaged, decisive, and not passive on any matter, no matter how small.
Anyone who pays attention to Trump knows he has no substance with what he says, but because he’s always front and center of every little issue (or at least that’s how he’s got the media optics playing for him), it makes him seem very present and on top of things. Think of it like being a useless office worker, but you always walk around looking angry and in a hurry so people assume you’re busy and working hard.
Like it or not, there is huge value in that in this whole dumb popularity contest.
This is a good summary. I don’t know if people thought I was in support of Trump with my comment. But it is very frustrating seeing so many Trump headlines and no Harris headlines.
I’m happy to see “Harris bashes Trump for shitty comment” stories. But all I’m seeing is “Trump makes shitty comment”. Like he’s the only candidate.
Is that the thinking? Like a child in the back of class, desperate for attention and confused about why other people don’t want to just be obnoxiously loud.
No, folks don’t see any headline and think “that’s how I will vote.” This is the mental ability of an infant who just got object permanence.
As I have said to others, please show evidence that Trump won in 2016 because people heard his name more than Clinton’s a few days before the election.
That’s concerning. It means you are so biased against the conversation you can’t see a simple difference of opinion as anything but a total counterpoint to your position.
More votes. That’s it. Maybe one more, maybe a few thousand. Not winning, not running away with anything. Just a few more votes.
You remember 2016? This is exactly how that year went. All these headlines while Trump’s polling numbers are completely unaffected. It’s 2016 all over again.
According to what he found that is somewhat the way it works: two fake candidates and the one with more yard signs got way more votes. Doubt that generalizes to the US presidency though; especially with this election.
I could see it working for two candidates people have never heard of. Beyond that, I doubt it.
To go back to Meg Whitman, she totally inundated California. Every other radio and TV ad was about her. There were posters every place the campaign could think to stick them whether or not it was legal. By election day, everyone was so sick of her that she did not even come close.
Snowflake.
No, he just made even more headlines. The more headlines he makes, the more votes he gets.
This user doesn’t deserve the down votes.
They’re not saying that Trump should get more votes because of his trash headlines and behavior, they’re just calling out because it’s just what happens with that fascist.
Democrats should, unfortunately, do the same kind of massive attention seeking to resonate with those of his base that aren’t completely set on just being evil. It makes the candidate look active, engaged, decisive, and not passive on any matter, no matter how small.
Anyone who pays attention to Trump knows he has no substance with what he says, but because he’s always front and center of every little issue (or at least that’s how he’s got the media optics playing for him), it makes him seem very present and on top of things. Think of it like being a useless office worker, but you always walk around looking angry and in a hurry so people assume you’re busy and working hard.
Like it or not, there is huge value in that in this whole dumb popularity contest.
This is a good summary. I don’t know if people thought I was in support of Trump with my comment. But it is very frustrating seeing so many Trump headlines and no Harris headlines.
I’m happy to see “Harris bashes Trump for shitty comment” stories. But all I’m seeing is “Trump makes shitty comment”. Like he’s the only candidate.
Is that the thinking? Like a child in the back of class, desperate for attention and confused about why other people don’t want to just be obnoxiously loud.
No, folks don’t see any headline and think “that’s how I will vote.” This is the mental ability of an infant who just got object permanence.
Oh sweet summer child. Let me tell you about the fall of 2016…….
That’s not how anything works.
That’s absolutely how Trump works.
As I have said to others, please show evidence that Trump won in 2016 because people heard his name more than Clinton’s a few days before the election.
You just made up a straw man. Did someone say Trump won because of this? All they said was any publicity seems to be good publicity for this shit bag.
I’m not sure what else “the more headlines he gets, the more votes he gets” is supposed to mean other than Trump will win again because of this.
That’s concerning. It means you are so biased against the conversation you can’t see a simple difference of opinion as anything but a total counterpoint to your position.
More votes. That’s it. Maybe one more, maybe a few thousand. Not winning, not running away with anything. Just a few more votes.
Or, you know, I did not know what else that meant.
Why do people always think that I’m lying about what I say when I say it?
You remember 2016? This is exactly how that year went. All these headlines while Trump’s polling numbers are completely unaffected. It’s 2016 all over again.
Sorry… you think 2016 happened because people heard Trump’s name more than Clinton’s a few days before the election?
Please do show some evidence to back that up.
I wish you were right. Unfortunately, there are a bunch of idiot voters out there who just fill in the box next to the name they hear more.
I would like some evidence to support this please. Especially this close to an election.
I can tell you from personal experience that it sure as fuck didn’t work for Meg Whitman.
Related and interesting podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/search-engine/id1614253637.
According to what he found that is somewhat the way it works: two fake candidates and the one with more yard signs got way more votes. Doubt that generalizes to the US presidency though; especially with this election.
I could see it working for two candidates people have never heard of. Beyond that, I doubt it.
To go back to Meg Whitman, she totally inundated California. Every other radio and TV ad was about her. There were posters every place the campaign could think to stick them whether or not it was legal. By election day, everyone was so sick of her that she did not even come close.