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.
It’s basic comprehension and reasoning. No one’s said anything about lying either. Maybe just kind of take a little break, come back and reread. I misread shit all the time.
Okay? That’s exactly why I said I didn’t know what else it meant.
So yeah, you are suggesting I’m lying when you say that this is some sort of not being able to see a difference of opinion as anything but a total counterpoint to my position since, according to you, my position was incorrect, so we weren’t even discussing the same thing.
Much like my posts aren’t lies, they also are not universal truths.
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.
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?
Probably because of the weird, combative, absolutist way you frame so many of your comments?
So block me, don’t accuse me of lying.
It’s basic comprehension and reasoning. No one’s said anything about lying either. Maybe just kind of take a little break, come back and reread. I misread shit all the time.
Okay? That’s exactly why I said I didn’t know what else it meant.
So yeah, you are suggesting I’m lying when you say that this is some sort of not being able to see a difference of opinion as anything but a total counterpoint to my position since, according to you, my position was incorrect, so we weren’t even discussing the same thing.
Much like my posts aren’t lies, they also are not universal truths.
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.