Quantcast

The Dehypnotizing has Begun

I’m getting reports that people have successfully used my blog post that is designed to dehypnotize Clinton supporters. If you want to try it yourself, here are some tips for maximizing the effect.

I engineered the dehypnosis blog post to convert about 20% of Clinton voters who are exposed to it. To maximize the effect, try to identify people who are most easily persuaded. Look for Clinton supporters with these characteristics:

1. Open-minded in general.

2. Under-informed about the election.

3. Plans to vote for Clinton because Trump is “unfit to be around the nuclear codes” or similar reasoning.

My blog post won’t dehypnotize hardcore Democrats who consider their political affiliation part of their identity. But you might want to try it with that group anyway just to watch the cognitive dissonance that arises. Trust me when I say it will be hilarious. You will get to watch a total abandonment of any pretense of rational thought along with – I assume – a frantic attempt to change the topic. 

Once you have identified your subject for persuasion, prime that person by saying you read the Scott Adams Blog and you have learned a lot about the field of persuasion. Mention that I am a trained hypnotist and that I have made spooky-accurate predictions so far this election. Tell the person that I wrote a blog post designed to dehypnotize a Clinton voter who thinks Trump is a dangerous candidate. Say you know it works for some people because I reported that here and on Twitter. (That’s true.)

This type of priming is important for persuasion. You want your subject to accept the idea that I have special skills in the field of hypnosis. Once they believe that is true, your persuasion will be more effective. Don’t skip the priming because it makes a big difference.

Suggest to your subject that it would be fun to test my hypnosis. Offer to read my blog post out loud to them and see if it works. Call up the post on your phone and ask your subject to sit comfortably and give you their full attention. They do not need to close their eyes. They only need to listen and give you full attention. Do this where you will not be interrupted. 

Read the blog post slowly enough for your subject to follow along. Pause for effect when you feel it makes sense. The pauses, and your choice of what words and thoughts to emphasize, is what keeps your listener focused. If you read it all the same, the listener gets bored and the mind wanders. Try to keep it interesting if you can. Feel free to pause and paraphrase any of it. 

Don’t be too aggressive in trying to flip your subject to Trump. People will reflexively resist what they feel pushed. The ideal framing is that both of you are trying a fun experiment. You are not trying to change a mind so much as you are curious whether the method works. That gives your subject the freedom to change without feeling you “won” in some way and they “lost.”

I’ll retweet your success stories @ScottAdamsSays. That will serve to make the post viral as well as making the dehypnosis more credible and therefore more persuasive.  

Here’s the link again to the dehypnosis post.

On a related topic, many people have asked me if I am accurately predicting a lot of things that happen in this campaign or actually causing them to happen with my own persuasion. The interesting answer is that there’s no way to know. 

I can tell you that I write to persuade. I can tell you I’m good at it. I can tell you my persuasion is engineered to work. I can tell you that the mainstream media and both campaigns read this blog. And I can tell you that I’m fairly certain I’ve influenced national topics in the past. But I don’t know what things would have happened by chance, or because other people think the way I do. 

That said, if you successfully dehypnotize a few Clinton supporters with my blog post you will get an idea for the power of persuasion, and it will blow your mind. Then decide for yourself how much influence I have had on the election. I’m interested in your opinion on that.

You might love reading my book because the writing is persuasive.

Trump the Closer

I had been wondering if Trump was planning some sort of special closing argument. He did not disappoint. In my opinion, his final ad is the political ad of the year, if not the best ever. Watch it here first and I’ll include my thoughts below.

https://t.co/WvTLumkqxO

Here’s what makes this ad so special:

1. Trump delivers his lines perfectly, like an experienced actor. We haven’t heard him like this before. You probably didn’t think he had this in him. He stays calm and assured, but not cocky. That is an effective counter-framing to Clinton’s framing of Trump as an unpredictable madman. Here Trump comes off as perfectly reasonable and deeply empathetic. 

2. The timing is perfect. This race went so low that even the trolls were starting to gasp for oxygen. Trump made us wait for relief – Hollywood style. He made us crave civility and sanity. And just when we thought it was out of reach, he goes ultra-positive.

But here’s the best part. Clinton has no good options to counter this message. If she stays dark, Trump finishes as the inspirational one. If she tries to match his positive message, she has little chance of doing it this well. 

3. While Obama is out talking about his legacy, and Clinton is out talking about making history as the first woman president, Trump (the narcissist) asks for the American people’s help in draining the swamp and making America great again. That’s one heckuva contrast to end on.

4. The writing for Trump’s speech is great. The editing is great. The production is great. The visual artistry is fantastic. This one will be studied for a long time, not only for its persuasion excellence and production values but also for its strategic timing. 

5. Trump’s strongest message at this point is that Clinton is corrupt in a variety of hard-to-explain ways. People don’t need to understand the details. They just have to hear the message enough. This video uses visual persuasion perfectly to portray the halls of power and corruption versus the people united. The color red is exceptionally well-used. It activates us.

You just witnessed something special. 

You might enjoy my book because Trump’s video was well-made.

Unhypnotizing a Clinton Supporter

Today I teach you how to unhypnotize a Clinton supporter.

Keep in mind that the strongest form of persuasion is fear. Clinton’s team of persuaders has convinced her followers that Trump is dangerous. If you remove that part of her spell, Trump wins. Here’s how.

1. Trump’s Tough Talk Inspires violence: Ask Clinton supporters if they have seen the Project Veritas video of Clinton operatives talking about paying people to incite violence at Trump rallies. The people on the video have been fired, and we haven’t seen violence at Trump rallies since.

2. Temperament: Ask Clinton supporters if they have seen the video of Clinton ranting “Why aren’t I already fifty points ahead?” She looks either inebriated or deranged. Mention that the people who know Trump personally have reported that he is both smart and sane in person. Even his enemies who know him personally don’t claim he has a temperament problem. If he did, is there any chance we wouldn’t have heard about it by now?

3. Trump might insult foreign leaders into a war: Trump and Putin seem to get along fine. Netanyahu said he could work with Trump. Mexico isn’t likely to start a war over trade, or the wall. Trump says North Korea is China’s problem, which is literally the safest thing you could say. And China’s leaders are adults who know Trump says offensive things now and then. China will pursue its own interests, and none of those interests involve going to war over some words. Likewise, other leaders are adults too. They won’t change their foreign policy over some insults.

5. Trump might start a war: Trump owns buildings and property around the world. As a general rule, people who own a lot of real estate don’t start wars because their own assets are at risk. But Clinton is “sponsored” – via the Clinton Foundation and speaking fees  – by defense companies that profit from war. Likewise, Clinton is sponsored by foreign countries whose interests don’t align with American interests. Clinton supported war in Iraq and Libya, and she threatens Russia, just as the money trail suggests she would. Trump talks mostly about having a strong military to avoid war. He gains nothing by war.

6. Alcohol: Normally alcohol would not be a risk factor in picking a president because usually both candidates are social drinkers. But Trump has never had an alcoholic beverage while Clinton tells us she enjoys social drinking. Having a few social drinks is not a problem unless you plan to drive a car…or make a nuclear launch decision. If we don’t trust a social drinker to operate a motor vehicle, can we trust a social drinker to manage a nuclear arsenal?

If you have ever drunk-texted, or received a text from someone who has, you already know how much “social drinking” can influence decisions.

7. Group Violence versus Crazy Individuals: Have you noticed that when you see election-related violence from a group, it is always Clinton supporters? That happened at Trump’s San Jose rally, and it happened with the homeless woman protecting Trump’s star on the Walk of Fame. When Trump supporters do something violent they are usually acting alone, and crazy. When Clinton supporters get violent it comes in the form of mobs who are NOT crazy. That’s the dangerous kind of violence because they are literally Stronger Together. 

8. Pacing and Leading: When normal politicians change their minds we label it flip-flopping or – more kindly – “evolving” in their thinking. When a Master Persuader does it, you are seeing pacing and leading, which is a major tool of persuasion. Pacing involves matching people – in this case emotionally – and later using that bond to lead them. We see Trump doing this often.

a. Trump paced his base by saying he would deport 11 million undocumented immigrants. Once he had his base on his side emotionally, he led to them to his current policy of deporting only the people who committed crimes while here. Have you heard any Trump supporters complain about it lately?

b. Trump paced his base by saying he would ban all Muslim immigration to stop terrorist infiltration. Once he had them on his side emotionally, he led them first to a ban on specific problem countries, and then again to “extreme vetting,” which is a lot like Clinton’s plan. Trump supporters followed, and you don’t hear them complaining.

c. Early in the primaries Trump paced the racists in the Republican party by not disavowing them as clearly and as loudly as even the racists thought he would. Since then he has led Republicans to think that some form of a “New Deal” for African-Americans might be worth a look. 

d. At the Republican National Convention, Trump used his emotional connection to his supporters to declare he was the strongest voice to protect the LGBTQ community. Republicans stood and cheered. 

Readers of this blog might recall that months ago I predicted that Trump would soften his immigration proposals. That’s because I saw him from the start as a Master Persuader, not a crazy person, and not a common flip-flopper.

In my opinion, Trump might be the safest president we have ever had. He can lead the dark parts of his base toward the light (as Nixon went to China) and he has no incentive for war. Claims about his “temperament” are mostly about his penchant for insults, and that isn’t a mortal danger to anyone.

And there you have your formula for unhypnotizing a Clinton supporter who is mostly worried about Trump being dangerous. 

You might enjoy my book because I paced you in this blog post.

Same Candidates, Different Worlds

Last night I was comparing campaign coverage on CNN and FOX News. It was like seeing two different realities.

On FOX, the big news is that the FBI is not only investigating the Weiner laptop emails, but separately the FBI has a major investigation about the Clinton Foundation. I watched Trump surrogate Rudy Giuliani – who knows a thing or two about prosecutions – explain the money-laundering-bribery crimes the Clinton Foundation has allegedly committed. In other words, if you only watch FOX News, you might believe Clinton is the head of a crime organization that just got caught, and therefore she has no chance of winning the presidency.

Now switch to CNN.

CNN is temporarily a comedy network because it is hilarious to watch them avoid mentioning Clinton while pretending to cover a race that allegedly involves two candidates. They talked about process. They talked about Republican voter suppression. They talked about Trump. But they don’t say much about Clinton. On CNN, what matters most is putting the messengers on trial. CNN pundits accuse the Russians of stealing DNC emails to influence the election. They accuse the Director of the FBI of announcing stuff he shouldn’t announce. On CNN, Clinton has a solid lead in the electoral college and she is likely to be our next president.

So choose your reality. If you like the reality where Trump wins, you can watch it happening live on FOX News. He’s crushing it over there. But if you hope for a Clinton win, watch CNN and see your dreams come true. She’s doing great on that network. On November 8th, one of those realities will fall away. 

You might enjoy reading my book because your reality is the correct one. Everyone else is nuts.

The Persuasion Scorecard Update – One Week Out

As I have taught you over the past year, the strongest form of persuasion involves fear. And the stronger the fear, the better the persuasion. For example, in the primaries, the biggest physical-fear story on the Republican side was terrorism and immigration risks, and that favored Trump’s bad-ass messaging. Result: Trump got the nomination.

For Democrats the biggest fear was that Trump might become president. That favored Clinton over Sanders in the primaries because it was believed she had the best chance against Trump in the general election.

Once the contest became Trump versus Clinton, Trump had the early fear advantage because Clinton was talking about her policies and experiences while Trump was talking about rapists, terrorists, and ISIS drowning people in cages. If that matchup had stayed the same, Trump would have coasted to victory. We saw him briefly pull ahead earlier in the summer.

Then Clinton went “full fear” in her messaging, cleverly framing Trump himself as the biggest risk to humanity. While Trump was scaring the public about crimes and atrocities that might affect some of us, Clinton was talking about Trump’s “temperament” leading to nuclear war, and his “dog whistles” leading to a new American racism. That would affect all of us. You can’t top that kind of fear message. And so we saw Clinton’s poll number zoom ahead of Trump’s later in the summer.

Then came the Wikileaks. And Project Veritas. And the FBI’s latest announcement about the emails on Weiner’s computer. We watched Clinton physically collapse in public. Individually, none of that news was big enough to make a difference. But collectively it framed Clinton as a drinker in dubious health, who hired bullies to start violence at Trump rallies, and runs a Mafia-like shadow-government called The Clinton Foundation, funded in part by companies that benefit from war. Add that to Clinton’s confrontational language about Russia, and suddenly Clinton looks as dangerous as Trump. The fear persuasion was approaching a tie.

Then the Access Hollywood tape dropped. Our brains forgot about fear for awhile and concentrated on the appalling things Trump said and – according to several women – actually did. Voters abandoned Trump and put his poll numbers in a big hole.

But here’s the catch. You might be disgusted by Trump’s interactions with women. You might think he is a terrible role model. You might think it is an insult to the women you know and love to even consider such a person for President of the United States. You might think a dozen different bad things about Trump. But – and here is the important part – you probably are not afraid he will try to kiss you personally, or grab your p*ssy. And given his busy schedule, there is not much chance he will get around to acting inappropriate with anyone you know. Fear-wise, Trump’s interactions with women don’t have much impact on you as an individual. Your brain took a vacation from “Trump has a bad temperament and might destroy the Earth” to “Trump is a p*ssy-grabber.” The new frame is the less scary version of Trump, albeit icky.

Quite by accident, the Access Hollywood tape took the scare off of Trump. It made you think of Trump as an ordinary flawed human and not Hitler planning the Holocaust. Every minute you spent thinking of Trump as a horn-dog was a minute you weren’t worried about him blowing up the world. Meanwhile, the slow drip of revelations from Wikileaks and Project Veritas, plus the FBI announcement, was making Clinton look scarier. After an initial pearl-clutching period about the Access Hollywood tape, the fear gap started to close. And we see the results now in the tightening polls.

Clinton’s new messaging this week is focused on Trump’s views on women. She wants you to think a President Trump would take the country backwards in terms of how men treat women. Her persuaders are doing a good job of piecing together evidence and producing ads. But there is one problem.

It doesn’t scare anyone. 

And we already knew Trump was “no angel” as he once said of himself. He never tried to sell himself as a role model. In fact, every voter who heard the Access Hollywood tape probably already believed Trump was guilty of private behavior that each of us would find appalling. The thing that appalls you might differ from the thing that appalls me, but Trump probably has something for everyone in his personal history. So does every voter. Most of us would fail the hot mic test. We aren’t angels either.

Persuasion-wise, Clinton’s message that Trump is bad for women sounds credible enough for her base, but it is largely inert persuasion for most of the public. We can’t imagine a scenario in which Trump tries to kiss us, or someone we know, without permission. Nor can we imagine that society will treat women worse because a guy with an appalling personal history is president. Frankly, we’ve outgrown that type of thinking. (Thanks to Bill Clinton.)

We’re down to the final week before election day. As things stand, Clinton’s “Trump is mean to women” message is weak compared to Trump’s generic stump speech plus the Wikileaks/FBI/Project Veritas stuff that keeps dripping out. 

In summary, Clinton’s message this closing week is that Trump is politically incorrect, offensive to many people, and sexually aggressive beyond the point of appropriate social behavior. That’s all the stuff you already assumed about Trump a year ago. And it doesn’t scare you, no matter how badly it offends you. 

Meanwhile, the current news cycle along with Trump’s supporters have framed Clinton as a low-stamina liar with a drinking problem who is running a criminal enterprise (The Clinton Foundation) that sells influence to foreign countries and companies that are more interested in war than peace. While she trash-talks Putin. That stuff could get all of us killed.

Fear is the strongest persuasion. Clinton has largely abandoned her fear message in the final weeks to focus on Trump’s words and behaviors involving women. Comparing the persuasion game on both sides, I predict Trump wins in a landslide. 

Remember, facts don’t matter. Policies don’t matter. They never did. People care about their “tribe.” People care about their income. And people care about their fears. Everything else is less persuasive.

You might like my book because people in your tribe like it.

About Leadership

An anxious world watches, and waits, while the American public does its best to select a new leader. Perhaps it would help the process if we agree on what a good leader is.

Much has been said about Donald Trump’s bully ways. I think that’s a fair characterization of his approach. And in that sense, Trump is similar to LBJ or Steve Jobs. Each of those leaders prioritized the mission above anyone’s feelings. If you are useful to the mission, the bully leader praises and rewards you. If you are in the way, the bully leader pushes you aside without remorse. When selecting this type of leader, what matters most is the leader’s priorities. You can feel confident that the bully leader will get you there, but expect some casualties along the way. The bully leader often leaves a trail of destruction. Case in point, Jeb Bush will always be the “low energy” guy.

The bully leader is neither good nor bad. What matters is the leader’s priorities. Trump’s priorities are jobs, national defense, and making America greater. That’s not the bad kind of bully. And if you want to “drain the swamp,” a bully can be exactly the right choice.

Hillary Clinton offers what I would call more of a collaborative, inclusive leadership style. She is allegedly a big bully in person – such as to her Secret Service team – but she doesn’t use a bully style as a leader. Instead, Clinton creates an atmosphere in which her supporters feel a moral responsibility to bully their fellow citizens. She does that by framing Trump as a dangerous candidate who must be stopped in order to save the world from racism and nuclear destruction. I assume Clinton is following advice – as Obama did – from cognitive scientists who are experts at brainwashing the public. 

As a leader, Clinton is not the type of bully that Trump is. Not even close. But unlike Trump, Clinton has intentionally deputized her supporters to be bullies so she can win the election. We see that bullying in the form of assaults on Trump supporters, widespread destruction of property owned by Trump supporters, and career damage to Trump supporters. 

I think you’ll agree that neither Trump’s nor Clinton’s leadership style is ideal. One candidate is a bully – albeit with good priorities – and the other incites her supporters to be bullies, also in service of good priorities. Is either style good enough for America?

To answer that question, let’s consider the types of leaders we admire the most. The list might include Jesus, Martin Luther King, Abe Lincoln, Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela. None were bully leaders, and none encouraged their supporters to be bullies. So what did they do that worked so well?

I’ll tell you what.

They described a better version of ourselves and let us find a way to it.

So let’s see how Trump and Clinton compare on that leadership dimension. Are they describing better versions of ourselves?

Clinton’s message is that we are “stronger together.” That’s true, but the message is not about you. It’s about the power of a group. And in this context, unfortunately, the “stronger together” theme has mostly served to embolden Clinton’s supporters to bully Trump supporters because there is safety in numbers. Clinton also talks about her place in history as perhaps the first woman president. But that is more about Clinton, and history, than you.

Clinton does speak out against racism, homophobia, and sexism. That’s positive. But by labeling a large part of the public as “deplorables,” she is describing a worse version of ourselves. I see no invitation to improve in that message. 

Trump’s message is “Make America Great Again.” That message does speak to our desire to be better versions of ourselves. But like Clinton, Trump also puts the spotlight on himself more than us. He tells us that he is the best choice to fix things. That’s good, but it isn’t about our better selves. It is about Trump.

In my opinion, Clinton is too far gone with her “deplorables” theme to become a leader who asks us to be better versions of ourselves. But Trump’s messaging is still open to this sort of improvement. And so my citizen request to Trump is this:

You told us who you are.

You told us who Clinton is.

You told us who the press is.

You told us what you want to do as President.

That’s a good start. 

Now tell us a better version of ourselves. 

We’ll find a way to get there. 

And while we’re figuring it out, we’ll help you drain the swamp.

You might like my book because it helps you become better version of yourself. 

A Lesson in Cognitive Dissonance

A few days ago I tweeted a message that induced cognitive dissonance in a lot of Twitter users and some of the bottom-feeding media (Salon, HuffPo). This is a good case study for understanding the phenomenon. Here’s the tweet:

Cognitive dissonance happens when you are confronted with a truth that conflicts with your self-image. To reconcile the conflict, your brain automatically triggers an hallucination to rationalize-away the discrepancy. 

To be clear, that is the way normal brains work. Cognitive dissonance is happening to all of us on a regular basis. It’s just easier to spot when it happens to someone else.

I engineered the offending tweet to make the point that ISIS appears to prefer a Clinton presidency. That puts Clinton’s supporters on the same side as ISIS, at least in the narrow sense that they might prefer the same candidate. That creates a conflict between Clinton supporters’ self-image as good people and the uncomfortable reality that they might prefer the same candidate as ISIS. If my point is credible, the predicted result is that it would induce cognitive dissonance and a literal hallucination.

And it did.

But first, some background. The reasoning behind the tweet is as follows:

1. Trump gains popularity when people are thinking about terrorism because the public perceives Trump to have the stronger anti-terror position. ISIS would have learned that by watching the reaction to earlier terror attacks this year.

2. It only takes one terrorist with some guns and ammo to capture American headlines.

3. It is highly likely that ISIS could inspire at least one suicide terrorist in the United States or Europe between now and Election Day if that was their intention. 

4. If Homeland Security thwarts a big terrorist attempt before election day, we would hear about it. So even if an attempt is unsuccessful, we would still get a feel for ISIS’ intentions.

5. ISIS probably follows American presidential politics because it matters to them. Clinton and Trump are sufficiently different that it makes sense ISIS would have a preference. For example, Trump is likely to better partner with Russia, restrict immigration more, and focus more on the persuasion game against ISIS. (That last one is what they might fear the most. They too are Master Persuaders.)

6. ISIS has used Trump’s rhetoric as a recruiting tool, and that makes sense for them while he is a candidate. But a President Trump would actually have power to implement his war preferences, and that’s a different calculation for ISIS. Recruiting is a lower priority than war strategy, so it makes sense that ISIS would prefer the candidate that gives them the best odds – in their opinion – of defending their Caliphate and winning in the long run.

7. Given the assumptions above, it follows that if ISIS preferred Trump to be leading the war against them, they could greatly increase the odds of that happening by activating a headline-grabbing attack between now and election day in Europe or the United States. (Here I assume I am not telling ISIS anything they don’t already know.)

Obviously there are no absolutes in this world. Maybe our immigration vetting and security services are already so good that no bad people have slipped in. But that would mean those services suddenly got a lot better than they were earlier this same year. That’s possible, but unlikely.

It is also possible that ISIS isn’t thinking about American elections because they are busy defending the Caliphate. But that means the lull in attacks for the past few months is happening for some reason other than influencing our politics. What other reason can you imagine for them to take a pause? Assuming they have the capability (one guy with a gun and ammo) and the motive, why else would they take a break? From the terrorist’s perspective, more is always better.

You can see how this line of reasoning would make Clinton supporters uncomfortable. Terror is high on everyone’s list of national priorities, and no one wants to be backing the same candidate as ISIS. So if my point in the tweet seemed rational to Clinton supporters, it should – in theory – trigger them to hallucinate in order to rationalize-away their discomfort in being on the same team as ISIS (in this limited sense).

And sure enough, hallucinate they did.

The most popular hallucination is that some folks see my tweet as “praying for a terror attack” so Trump can get elected. No rational person would believe I expressed a public preference for more terrorism. But that’s what many Clinton supporters saw. They literally imagined (hallucinated) that I would be delighted with a new terror attack. That’s a big hallucination. (Just to be clear, I don’t want any terror attacks for any reason whatsoever.)

Watch the ongoing Twitter battle at @ScottAdamsSays as I trigger the #Hillbullies to annihilate their moral authority by acting on their cognitive dissonance and coming after me in full-bully force. It is good entertainment. 

You might enjoy reading my book because #Hillbullies is a funny hashtag.

Watch the Persuasion Battle

If you want to watch the persuasion game-within-the-game, follow me on Twitter @ScottAdamsSays. Here’s the situation so you know what to look for.

1. Yesterday I announced my endorsement of Trump, primarily as a protest to the bullying culture of Clinton supporters. I don’t like bullies. And I don’t like that Clinton is turning citizens against each other. (My political preferences don’t align with any of the candidates.)

Yes, Trump is a bully, but he’s offering to provide that service on behalf of the country. When leaders do it, we call it leadership. (Think LBJ or Steve Jobs.) Trump isn’t encouraging his supporters to bully Clinton supporters. But Clinton has painted Trump and his supporters as Nazi-like deplorables, and that creates moral cover for the bullying you see all over the country against Trump supporters. It wouldn’t be a bad thing to bully a Nazi, would it? That’s the dangerous situation Clinton has created.

2. My anti-bullying message must have raised a flag somewhere in the Clinton campaign machinery. That means it hit a nerve and is seen as a persuasion reframing they don’t want to risk.

3. Huffington Post, Salon, Daily Kos and other liberal outlets “coincidentally” ran hit pieces on me on the same day. That’s a sign of media coordination with the Clinton campaign. (Or a big coincidence.)

4. Hordes of either paid or volunteer Twitter trolls descended on me with two specific types of attacks. The similarity of the attacks suggests central coordination. One attack involves insults about the Dilbert comic (an attack on my income) and the other is a coordinated attack to suggest I am literally insane or off my meds (to decrease my credibility).

You’re also supposed to think I’m crazy for seeing these “coincidences” as coordinated attacks. You’ll probably see this blog post retweeted as evidence of my further spiral into madness. The same happened when I noted that Twitter was shadowbanning me for talking about Trump. Shadowbanning is real, and well-documented in my case and others, but it sounds preposterous, so it is easy to frame me as crazy. Expect more of that.

The takeaway here is that my message about Clinton supporters being bullies is effective persuasion. Otherwise I would be ignored. This reframing is a kill shot because the bullies themselves are philosophically opposed to bullies. Once they realize they have been persuaded by Clinton’s campaign to become the thing they hate, the spell will be broken. And they won’t show up to vote.

The other plausible explanation for recent events is that I’m literally insane, and in a big way. You can be the judge of that.

I’ve never had this much fun in one year. I’ll be sad after election day, no matter who wins. Unless I am literally insane. In that case I’ll probably keep enjoying myself.

You might enjoy my book because it is entirely possible that I am insane.

The Bully Party

I’ve been trying to figure out what common trait binds Clinton supporters together. As far as I can tell, the most unifying characteristic is a willingness to bully in all its forms.

If you have a Trump sign in your lawn, they will steal it.

If you have a Trump bumper sticker, they will deface your car.

if you speak of Trump at work you could get fired.

On social media, almost every message I get from a Clinton supporter is a bullying type of message. They insult. They try to shame. They label. And obviously they threaten my livelihood.

We know from Project Veritas that Clinton supporters tried to incite violence at Trump rallies. The media downplays it.

We also know Clinton’s side hired paid trolls to bully online. You don’t hear much about that.

Yesterday, by no coincidence, Huffington Post, Salon, and Daily Kos all published similar-sounding hit pieces on me, presumably to lower my influence. (That reason, plus jealousy, are the only reasons writers write about other writers.)

Joe Biden said he wanted to take Trump behind the bleachers and beat him up. No one on Clinton’s side disavowed that call to violence because, I assume, they consider it justified hyperbole. 

Team Clinton has succeeded in perpetuating one of the greatest evils I have seen in my lifetime. Her side has branded Trump supporters (40%+ of voters) as Nazis, sexists, homophobes, racists, and a few other fighting words. Their argument is built on confirmation bias and persuasion. But facts don’t matter because facts never matter in politics. What matters is that Clinton’s framing of Trump provides moral cover for any bullying behavior online or in person. No one can be a bad person for opposing Hitler, right?

Some Trump supporters online have suggested that people who intend to vote for Trump should wear their Trump hats on election day. That is a dangerous idea, and I strongly discourage it. There would be riots in the streets because we already know the bullies would attack. But on election day, inviting those attacks is an extra-dangerous idea. Violence is bad on any day, but on election day, Republicans are far more likely to unholster in an effort to protect their voting rights. Things will get wet fast.

Yes, yes, I realize Trump supporters say bad things about Clinton supporters too. I don’t defend the bad apples on either side. I’ll just point out that Trump’s message is about uniting all Americans under one flag. The Clinton message is that some Americans are good people and the other 40% are some form of deplorables, deserving of shame, vandalism, punishing taxation, and violence. She has literally turned Americans on each other. It is hard for me to imagine a worse thing for a presidential candidate to do.

I’ll say that again. 

As far as I can tell, the worst thing a presidential candidate can do is turn Americans against each other. Clinton is doing that, intentionally.

Intentionally.

As I often say, I don’t know who has the best policies. I don’t know the best way to fight ISIS and I don’t know how to fix healthcare or trade deals. I don’t know which tax policies are best to lift the economy. I don’t know the best way to handle any of that stuff. (And neither do you.) But I do have a bad reaction to bullies. And I’ve reached my limit.

I hope you have too. Therefore…

I endorse Donald Trump for President of the United States because I oppose bullying in all its forms. 

I don’t defend Trump’s personal life. Neither Trump nor Clinton are role models for our children. Let’s call that a tie, at worst.

The bullies are welcome to drown in their own bile while those of us who want a better world do what we’ve been doing for hundreds of years: Work to make it better while others complain about how we’re doing it.

Today I put Trump’s odds of winning in a landslide back to 98%. Remember, I told you a few weeks ago that Trump couldn’t win unless “something changed.” 

Something just changed.

You might like my book because Clinton’s bullies have been giving it one-star reviews on Amazon to punish me for blogging about Trump’s persuasion skills.

How to Legally Vote More Than Once

If you find it annoying that you only have one legal vote, here’s how you can get a few more. It’s called persuasion.

You can multiply the power of your opinion by convincing people on the other side to stay home on election day. Every vote you suppress on the other side is like an extra vote for you. And there’s no limit to how many you can have!

Persuasion doesn’t work every time. But you might enjoy experimenting to see how many times it works for you. For this exercise, I will assume you are a Trump supporter trying to suppress the votes of Clinton supporters. Here’s how you can do it.

1. Set the stage by cleverly hiding the fact that you are a Trump supporter. Say some good things to your intended targets about Clinton’s plucky attitude, her place in history, and the breadth of her experience. Once people believe you are on the “right” side, they will find you more persuasive later.

2. Prior to election day, note how lopsided the polls are in favor of Clinton. Also point out that the pollsters are usually correct when you are this close to election day. Say you are thinking of not voting this year because lines are sometimes long and parking might be iffy. Put that thought in people’s minds a week ahead of election day.

3. On the day before the election, and again on election day, engage Clinton supporters in conversations that involve concepts such as laziness, exhaustion, overwork, and stress. You don’t need to mention the election. Just talk in general about things that are more trouble than they are worth. People will respond to your downer-talk by feeling a bit lazier themselves. They might even feel overworked and more stressed than usual. (This concept is inspired by the book Pre-Suasion, by Robert Cialdini.)

4. Complain about workplace problems in which one person can’t seem to make any difference in this world. Talk about anything that feels disempowering. No need to talk about the election. The feeling will bleed over.

5. Proclaim that you were planning to vote for Clinton but it seems like a lot of work and she is ahead in the polls, so why bother?

6. Jokingly say that because you don’t plan to vote this time, it won’t be your fault if Clinton is a huge mistake as president. You’ll have a clean conscience for four years.

7. Wonder aloud how anyone can vote for either Trump or Clinton without feeling stained by it all.

If you follow those steps, and reinforce them with repetition, you can potentially influence about 10% of your target group to skip voting. Let me know how it works for you.

I wrote a book because I am an author.