Här är Scott Adams analys av talet:
Trump’s Immigration Speech - Persuasion Score
Citat:
Trump needed to undo the persuasion that Clinton’s side has been laying on the public for months. Specifically, Trump needed to demonstrate that he is…
1. Not crazy.
2. Not uninformed.
3. Not the wrong temperament to lead.
4. Not scary.
5. Not racist.
By my scorecard, Trump achieved all five objectives in the eyes and of his core supporters, and 3-out-of-5 with his opponents. I’ll break it down.
Alltså, en mycket lyckat tal, en stor succé. Precis som alla har sagt.
Under rubriken
Persuasion is Part of the Plan skriver Adams en hel del intressant, som jag också varit inne på:
Citat:
Trump’s approach to immigration is to make border control a priority over deportation. [...]
Realistically, you can’t control the borders with any kind of barrier if the rewards for entering the country illegally are high enough. [...]
The problem for Trump – and for the country – is that being hardasses to illegal immigrants violates our national character. These folks are our friends, neighbors, and coworkers. We don’t wish them harm on an individual level. So how can Trump create an immigration policy that addresses the legitimate need for border control with our human need to be kind? It can’t be done.
Unless you are a Master Persuader. Then it’s easy.
Trump needed to soften his immigration stance to sell it to undecided voters while at the same time hardening it for his core supporters. To succeed, he needed to move in two opposite directions at once. Impossible.
So what he did was create a speech that was hardcore and scary in tone and delivery, while leaving an escape hatch in language. In other words, he gave you two opposite and competing messages at the same time. He sent a message of hardening with his tone while sending a message of softening with his words. Pick the one you like.