But those things are reflected in polls. And the thing with Trump is that the polls are unanimous - folks can't stand him, really can't abide him. That many polls aren't wrong. It is a sign of cult worship that you'd conclude they must be.
The only way those poll numbers can change is if Trump changes his positions and persona. Maybe he can - he admitted (or rather his new top advisor admitted) the other day that it's all an act. We once elected an actor to the Presidency, but we elected him with the knowledge or trust that his convictions were sincere. Trump admits he's a chameleon, a scam artist, whose credo is exploitation not principle - just give the people the red meat they want.
History recounts dozens of such figures. Most of them were big trouble, and the people rued the freedoms that were jack-booted from them. In the rarest and perhaps most notorious cases, the people voted in their Strong Man by the voluntary casting of the ballot.
We all must decide whether or not to be good Germans.
[i
]But those things are reflected in polls.[/i] Polls are a snap shot, not necessarily predictive. They should be used as a tool, but anyone who thinks they are destiny...especially at this stage before the conventions...doesn't know his political history.
The only way those poll numbers can change is if Trump changes his positions and persona. It IS true that a change in TONE can impact these poll numbers, as will a number of other factors that shape perceptions. Changing positions is the most unlikely factor in impacting the numbers...and would more likely prove detrimental as the change would be repeatedly pointed out by his opponent. Changing tone, good marketing, choosing a VP that softens his tough edges, and simply focusing on a positive campaign will quickly shift perceptions...because such perceptions are notoriously malleable pre-convention.
History recounts dozens of such figures. This is where you fall off the cliff of sound reasoning into the abyss of silly, non-applicable, historical fallacy. If you want genuine historical analogies...and there really are none...the closest you'd come is someone like Churchill or perhaps a Bismarck.
"Good Germans" Really? If anyone fits that mould, and they don't, it would be the Cruzites with their "litmus tests", condoning of unethical though technically allowed tactics like stealing delegates, and hard adherence to religious orthodoxies (they include folks who think Noah's Ark was real, that the world is 6000 or so years old, and that evolution is a devilish conspiracy).
