I’m not sure which is more likely, that he believes the election was stolen, or that this is some kind of revenge for the Russia hoax. I.e., “you dogged me with a made-up story about Russia for years. Turnabout is fair play.”
Either way is embarrassing.
Indeed. I don’t know which it was either, and I find either option equally plausible, though I hadn’t considered before that he could be just playing a game and doesn’t really believe it.
An argument I’ve heard in favor of his really believing it is that he’s incapable of believing that he can actually lose. I don’t actually know if that’s true but I could easily believe that of him. Still, it could go either way.
Somehow “game” doesn’t seem to be the right word, but I’m not sure why.
You’re probably right. It was just the word that came to mind at the moment. Tactic? Ploy? Something like that.
It could be a bit of both. A third factor is: whatever energizes the base, no matter whether it is true or false.
Trump certainly reads the room, as they say, so that’s probably part of it.
Interesting expression. I guess it comes from the business world. As you attend a meeting, you are attentive to what the others reveal about themselves, not only what they actually say. Whatever sparks people off guides you. I am really bad at that. I usually just read the statements, not the “room.” I only came aware through these online discussions that people are reading me a whole lot more than they are reading what I say. And now I see that there are some, not only in business, but in politics, academia, and just everyday life, who read people with little or even no interest in what they say in the strict sense. Trump is plainly one of those who do that.
Yes, “reading the room” is a common phrase in business and politics. Here’s how I understand it.
We all pick up things from people around us — smiles, expressions, body language, maybe even smells. Some people are more in tune with that than others. People who are very good at it can “read the room” and use it to their advantage. They know what to say, what not to say, who they need to win over, who the influencers are, etc.
Yes, we all pick up such data and I think that this component is vital to human communication. It just shouldn’t be used cynically, as the likes of Trump use it. I made a big mistake a long time ago when I thought that I should disregard such data and others should disregard them about me. Well, they don’t and they won’t. You have to just learn to live with it. Nevertheless, I can still try to move the conversation in a more “logic based” direction. It does work occasionally.
It doesn’t have to be manipulative, though it obviously can be and often is. It could just be a way of assessing what form of communication will work better in a given setting. Focusing purely on the verbal content of people’s statements ignores the fact that people are NOT wholly rational beings, and have a valid intuitive component to their thinking and behavior. There’s nothing wrong with figuring out *how* best to communicate an idea to a given audience, if your approach is not deceptive and your goal is not to manipulate people against their interests or mislead them in any way.
Right. It’s a useful skill. That some use it in a bad way is not a surprise.
I have tried to get to a place where I don’t need that skill. It is just too difficult to read people and constantly to make adjustments to their quirks. It occurs to me that a reviewer once said of a book I authored that when I elaborate on a view without evaluating it I give the reader the impression that I agree with the view in question. So that’s how one reads ME, not the book. But why should I care? I write a book to be read simply for what it is, not to be a vehicle of self-expression. The best place to be is where it is unnecessary to read people or at least not to care about it. It goes without saying that such a place cannot be business or politics. I get that.
Trump was speaking of “rigged elections” prior to the Russia investigation becoming a thing. He challenged Obama’s election calling it a “total sham”. As well, indicated that if Hillary won that it would have been due to the election being rigged. So, this seems like a pattern and less likely that his disdain for a legitimate, legal investigation was the main motivation. It’s more likely he either believes it or his ego just won’t allow him to accept the truth that he lost. Or, it could be a combination of things.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-longstanding-history-calling-elections-rigged-doesnt-results/story?id=74126926
Wouldn’t it be normal for him to go back to well-worn mental pathways?
Could be. I just think whatever the impetus is beyond the Russia investigation. I strongly think it’s a combination of things. Human behavior is highly complex…Trump is no exception. His estranged niece (a clinical psychologist) has some very interesting thoughts about his motivation and behavior. https://youtu.be/mGLXKin8FV8
QUOTE: Either way is embarrassing.
It’s already concerning enough that Trump continues his big lie without much pushback from the GOP. Now, there are GOP candidates running for office that are touting the same lie as a part of their campaign (69 governor, 55 US Senate, 13 State AG, 18 Secretary of State). At a recent Trump rally in AZ, two state candidates were referring to the 2020 election as a sham and intimating that those involved in the 2020 election should be “locked up”. Hmm…where have heard that before? But, I digress. This is a state where there were multiple election audits, all confirming the initial election outcomes (one by partisan Republicans that resulted in a bigger loss for Trump).
Nevertheless, all of this happening and the GOP, for the most part is silent. Why? This is more than embarrassing…it’s potentially a threat. Where are the heroes of liberty on this one?
ISTM, that the most patriotic someone can be in some Repug circles is to want to make Trump a king.
Isn’t it interesting that in some Repug circles the “real” patriots are those that participated in the Jan 6 riot (the next revolution) and continue promulgate the “big lie” (stop the steal)! Meanwhile, it’s considered “socialistic” to advocate for identifying lawful means to increase voter participation.