Trump talking tonight in Louisiana, mentions Hillary in passing. Crowd starts to boo. Trump motions them to stop, saying “No, it’s ok, no, forget it.” Then to my surprise, he added with a big laugh, “That plays great … before the election.” Throws up his hands and gives his big goofy smile and says, “Now, we don’t care … right?” People laugh and nod and go quiet immediately, and without a pause he starts talking again about his subject, the deal is done, he’s moved on.
I was careful to never watch either Trump or Hillary speak during the campaign. I would read the transcripts instead—I didn’t want to be caught up in the moment. I like the distance. So it’s fascinating tonight to watch him work the crowd.
Look at his ability to mold public opinion above. He is changing his supporters minds, right before our eyes, moving them in two very different and very good directions.
First, he’s taking the bitterness against Hillary out of his supporters. This can only be good for America, and is a further sign that he was serious about not having any personal desire to see her harm.
Second, he’s getting his supporters to stop focusing on the past, and focus on the task at hand. It’s easy to get caught in the past, to try to refight past battles and redress real and imagined past losses.
He wants people to forget about all that and move forwards with him, and look at how sweetly and gently, and yet firmly and without hesitation, he pulls them along in his train.
The master’s touch was the pause and the smile and the rising inflection on the “right”? He’s not telling us what to do. He’s not laying out the law.
Instead, he’s asking us to agree with him that we should not be vindictive towards Hillary and that we should move forwards and not look back, and to their credit, everyone nodded their heads when he said it.
All I can say is, it’s fun to watch the master persuader at work … right?
My best to all, democrats and republicans alike,
w.
Skating Under The Ice 
I agree with you Willis. It is time to get the country back on the rails and eliminate the distractions from the past several years that blind us to the real isues at hand.
There is much work to do and no time to waste.
Nice place you created here! I look forward to visiting.
Cheers!
Ed
LikeLike
Willis,
I found out about your blog yesterday. I read everything to get caught up and sunnuvgun! you’ve added 3 posts. They are all good reads.
Anyhow, I’m very pleased to see you starting your own blog. I’ve already pinned it to my favorites bar.
********
Oh… side note on my handle, H.R.. Back in 2001, I, an a small band of like-minded people, took on a major insurer that used a very cynical multi-level marketing approach to sales. It’s one of those structures where you recruit people who recruit people who recruit people… until everyone in a major metropolitan area is skittish about running across one of the poor, desperate schlubs think Amway but insurance instead. I took on the handle ‘Highly Recruited,”‘ shortened to H.R. when people responded to me, because I had 17 recruiting calls in one two week period alone and many after that, offering me the same opportunity for a 6-figure income. That company has 120,000 to 150,000 reps and turnover is usually over 100% per year. Most of those reps experience negative income while they are there.
I cost that company a lot of recruits and saved those recruits a lot of heartache. The General Counsel for that company would love to know who I am. I no longer post much on that topic but I still post as H.R. to let the General Counsel know I’m still around the interwebs and just might weigh in again on their company.
The reason for the above explanation is that I prefer anonymity solely because I’m still poking a stick in the eye of that insurer. You’ve mentioned you like people to put real names behind their words, but I see you’ve not settled on a commenting policy yet. N.B., I’ve been posting at WUWT since 2008 and was snipped only once for copying and pasting ‘bull$#!t’ from another commenter, but that was w-a-a-a-y back when. Other than Al Gore, who is fair game as far as I’m concerned, I’ve never attacked other commenters from my position of anonymity.
I’ll keep reading here ’cause I really appreciate your perspectives, but I’ll keep an eye out for and abide by any policies you settle on. Your blog, your rules.
*******
Now, I’ve got 2 more posts to catch up on here.
Best,
H.R.
LikeLike
Hi, Willis. Nice to see you on your own hook. Your take on Trump is exactly the same as Scott Adams’ – Trump as persuader.
LikeLike
Thanks, Steve. I greatly enjoy Adam’s take on it, although he misses Trump’s business acumen, likely because he ‘s not a businessman.
For those that don’t know of him, Steve McIntyre is one of the first people to actually start turning over the climate science rocks to see what was underneath. He discovered the huge mathematical flaw in Michael Mann’s iconic “Hockeystick” paper. His blog, Climate Audit, is required reading for anyone interested in climate science.
Steve was an early supporter of my scientific analyses, publishing several of them on his blog. He also encouraged me to learn the computer language “R”, for which I am eternally grateful. I said “No, Excel is good enough”, and he said “You’re fooling yourself” and kept pushing until I caved. A recent analysis I did operates on about three quarters of a gigabyte of data … not gonna do that with Excel.
So Steve, my great thanks to you, glad to see you here.
My best regards to you,
w.
LikeLike
Steve and Willis….Thank both of you…….you just answered a question I had re Scott Adams. Steve….. I couldn’t slog my way through the comments enough to find your post on his climate change thread and find myself curious to know if he acknowledged it or not. I’d like to also commend both of you for your considerable efforts to investigate and disseminate the truth on the Climate Change front
LikeLike
Wonderful. First time here but many sure to follow. Thank you for all you’ve done and that which you will do in the future.
ps Get some advertising so you might get some money. I won’t mind.
LikeLike
Stan, you say:
I’ve stoutly resisted the importunings of my gorgeous ex-fiancee in this matter. I like it that I make no money at all from my scientific work. It keeps me free of charges of being in someone’s pocket.
Plus, I like it that my site is not the vehicle for someone else’s ideas …
Regards, thanks for the thought,
w.
LikeLike
He has the uncanny ability to get people looking/thinking in directions they previously didn’t, and doing it without creating animosity and anger.
As for HRC and her ongoing legal woes, that is not the President’s job. Criminal investigation and prosecution fall in the purview of DeptJustice, and a good President never directly places themselves in that process. Appoint directors, hire prosecutors, let them do their jobs.
LikeLike
This part resonated with me: “I was careful to never watch either Trump or Hillary speak during the campaign. I would read the transcripts instead—I didn’t want to be caught up in the moment. I like the distance. So it’s fascinating tonight to watch him work the crowd.”
I have long made a habit of skipping the viewing of a politician’s speeches. I would check it out in the paper or on the web later. This divorces the policy content from the emotional manipulation. Reading lately on cognitive biases, I appreciate more how much we take mental shortcuts and that the emotional channel is the way to bypass the critical faculties. I do not want to be played emotionally. I want to be convinced with sound reasoning.
But I guess yours and my “distance” is rare. A politician who cannot make the emotional connection will not get far.
TV and talk radio get some blame for lowering the level of public discourse, but I suppose in their time, a good newspaperman could get the crowds going too. “Remember the Maine!”
LikeLike
To Svensk:
I do the same thing (read speech transcripts) and have been doing that for many decades, but I also listen to one speech per candidate
A politician does have to know how to read a Teleprompter speech as part of his job, and I want to observe that skill one time.
I judge politicians on what they’ve done in the past (90%) in politics and elsewhere, and only 10% on what they say in speeches (which are usually filled with platitudes and empty promises).
Listening to one speech from each of the two major candidates in 2016 was really painful — torture — with Hillary’s shrill shouting, and Donald’s loud shouting.
As an audiophile, I wonder why no one ever taught them how to use a microphone.
The louder shouter won — let’s hope he succeeds as president, just as he has succeeded on every other job he has had in the past.
My election year blog:
http://www.ElectionCircus.Blogspot.com
LikeLike
I, having lived in rural areas with no cable and for many years no dishTV, only radio and papers, have long been in the habit of reading what politicians say, not watching them say it. Once I surrendered to the Borg and got online I have expanded this to include reading transcripts. Stripping off the emotional manipulation and concentrating on the solid content is how people should be making these far reaching and vitally important decisions. Also reading the full content of legislation has been an eye opener over the last 20 years. The Information Age. Learn it, love it, live it!
LikeLike
Persuasion is the art of convincing others that the idea in your mind, is genuinely good for them to use.
LikeLike
Trump is so thoroughly underestimated by his opposition. He’s near genius, and might be one.
LikeLike