Scott Adams's Blog, page 246

Scandal Poker - Trump Vs. Clinton

This is the most scandalicious election of all time. I’m losing track of all the allegations and rumors. As a public service, I will use the persuasion filter plus some pattern recognition to give you my subjective impression of the odds of each rumor being true. I will do this in the form of poker hands.

Let’s play Scandal Poker!

Hand 1:

Clinton had several political opponents killed 

Trump is a puppet of the Russian government

Result: Tie. Neither is believable. 

—

Hand 2:

Trump made inappropriate sexual advances with women.

Clinton threatened her husband’s rape victims.

Result: Tie. Both damaged women. 

—

Hand 3:

Trump stiffed subcontractors and suppliers on one or more major projects.

Clinton had the Travelgate scandal

Result: Tie. Both did the deeds, but all within the law, as far as we know.

—

Hand 4:

Trump raped a 13-year old girl

Hillary Clinton is knowingly married to a serial pedophile

Result: Tie. Neither is credible.

—

Hand 5:

Trump university was a scam

Clinton made huge gains on fraudulent commodity trades thanks to a political ally.

Result: Tie. Both probably true.

—

Hand 6:

Trump games the IRS code to avoid taxes

Clinton’s foundation is a pay-to-play scheme

Result: Tie. Both apparently true, and both probably legal (enough).

—

Hand 7:

Clinton is hiding a major health problem.

Trump is secretly a racist/Hitler

Result: Trump wins this hand. Nearly everyone was a blatant racist 30 years ago, judged by today’s more enlightened standards. Many people improved since then. I see no signs of real racism from Trump in the past decade or two, and several examples of the opposite. What you see if you are not trained in persuasion is loads of confirmation bias that looks (to you) like evidence of racism. That’s because the Clinton persuasion game has succeeded in framing Trump’s nationalist policies and politically incorrect phrasing as racist “dog whistles.”

Clinton, on the other hand, is almost certainly covering for some sort of major health problem. We see that in her schedule, her demeanor at some events, her two excuses for her 9-11 collapse, and the more-than-one explanation of her persistent cough. Two explanations for one event is a tell for lying.

—

Hand 8:

Clinton has a drinking problem

Trump has a temperament/ego/narcissism problem

Result: Tie. Both probably true. But if so, both of them got this far, so apparently they can control themselves enough to succeed.

—

Hand 9:

Clinton and Huma are secretly a couple (implying Clinton is not proud of her sexual orientation)

Trump is a homophobe

Result: Tie. I am aware of no evidence to support either allegation.

—

Hand 10:

Trump is a sexist

Clinton is anti-male

Result: Tie. Both claims are likely to be A LITTLE true, because they are human. But we don’t see it reflected in their public lives or policies.

—

Hand 11:

Trump has a cocaine habit that causes his sniffling.

The Clinton family keeps 95% of the money donated to The Clinton Foundation

Result: Tie. Neither allegation is likely to be true. Trump is anti-drug to the core. The Clinton Foundation has high marks from independent charity graders.

— 

Hand 12:

Clinton allowed Benghazi to happen through incompetence or incapacitation.

Trump’s several bankruptcies prove he is bad at business.

Result: Tie. Neither is likely to be true. The most-likely explanation for Benghazi is that the government is keeping something from the public, but not necessarily for evil reasons. The Trump bankruptcies represent the kind of pivot/comeback we associate with the best business-people in a high-risk entrepreneurial environment.

—

I’m sure I’m forgetting a few dozen allegations and scandals, so I’ll update this if I think of anything else that is important.

—

Note: I now endorse Gary Johnson. He’s allegedly a stoner who doesn’t know much about Aleppo. I call that relatable. A vote for Clinton or Trump is support for an alleged abuser of women. I don’t need that on my brand.

—

—

Hear my full 7-minute interview with the BBC radio, about Trump.

—

You might love my book because it has no scandals. It is also the #1 best seller in its category today.

Hear Me Tonight on BBC News Hour

I’m heading out to record an interview at the London office of the BBC, for News Hour. It airs in the 8 PM hour in London, so 2 PM EST.

The topic is Trump. They asked me to explain why so many people in America would vote for him. Apparently that is a bit of a mystery over here. I’ll clear it up for them, even though I endorse Gary Johnson.

—

You might like my book because they drink a lot of tea over here.

Quick Debate Reactions from Switzerland

I just watched the debate on replay. Trump won bigly. This one wasn’t close. And keep in mind that I called Clinton the winner of the first debate, and I now endorse Gary Johnson, primarily to avoid being called an alleged enabler of alleged sex abusers and their alleged enablers. That basket of deplorables includes both Bill and Hillary Clinton (the alleged doer and the alleged cleaner-upper) plus Trump and his alleged misdeeds.

Some quick reactions…

1. When the Access Hollywood tape came up, Trump dismissed it as locker room banter that he regrets. You expected that part. The persuasion move was that he quickly contrasted that “small” issue with images of ISIS beheadings, and cage-drownings. It was a high ground maneuver, a powerful visual anchor (like the Rosie O’Donnell move from his first primary debate), and a contrast play. In this framing, Trump cares about saving your life while Clinton cares about your choice of words. I realize the issue is Trump’s alleged deeds, not his words. But in terms of debate persuasion, Trump nailed it hard.

2. Clinton’s body language was defensive. Trump is physically larger and prowled the stage. He won the optics. It only got worse when a fly landed on Clinton’s face mid-answer. Both candidates looked perfect in terms of wardrobe and hair, given what they have to work with.

3. Trump threw in enough random details about Syria to persuade viewers that he knows more than they thought he knew. And he did a great job selling the idea that he knows more than the generals (as ridiculous as that sounds), at least in terms of not announcing where we plan to attack. I agree with the moderator who said there might be good reasons for announcing attacks – such as giving time for civilians to leave – but it wasn’t quite a counter-argument. Trump succeeded in looking informed on Syria, and at the same time reinforced the “can’t keep a secret” theme for Clinton.

4. Trump’s pre-debate show with Bill’s alleged victims dismantled Clinton’s pro-woman high ground before the debate even started. I didn’t see the pre-debate show, but I assume it was impactful. It had to be. Clinton looked shaken from the start.

5. The best quotable moments from the debate are pro-Trump. His comment about putting Clinton in jail has that marvelous visual persuasion quality about it, and it was the laugh of the night, which means it will be repeated endlessly. He also looked like he meant it.

Clinton’s Abe Lincoln defense for two-faced politicking failed as hard as anything can fail. Mrs. Clinton, I knew Abe Lincoln, and you’re no Abe Lincoln. You know that was in your head. Or it will be. 

6. Most of the rest was policy stuff that no one understands or cares about. We don’t know how to fix Obamacare or what to do with TPP. But by acting competent on these and other policy issues, Trump gains more than Clinton in persuasion.

7. Trump attacked Clinton on emails, and did a good job. His base needed that.

8. Clinton had to defend her “deplorables” comment. She said she regretted it. Regret isn’t what the public wanted to hear. That’s about her. They wanted to hear that she doesn’t think that way. She failed to address the emotional part of that topic, and that’s a persuasion fail.

9. Trump defended his “extreme” vetting fairly well, but he did miss a huge opportunity for reframing. Trump mentioned the need for Muslims to help the country by informing on known terrorists in their ranks. He could have gone a step farther and said that he takes responsibility for some Islamophobia by his tough talk, but the solution to Islamaphobia is not what Trump says or does going forward. The solution is for the community itself to self-police the bad elements in its ranks. You can think that is unfair – because it is – but it might be the only solution in the long run.

—

I talked to a Swiss local yesterday about American politics. He says everyone in Switzerland is following the race closely. He favors Trump because he thinks Trump would be better for the global economy. I asked if anyone he knows in Switzerland is worried about Trump’s “temperament” and having his finger on the nukes. The Swiss man literally laughed. I had trouble explaining why that was even a topic in the United States. Apparently their news sources filter out some of that stuff. He wasn’t worried and didn’t know anyone who is. (But this is a data point of one. Don’t assume too much.)

I also asked the Swiss man what kind of problems they have in Switzerland. He laughed again. The answer is “none.” Literally.

Good economy.

Plenty of jobs.

No racial strife.

Low crime rate.

Highest standard of living.

No real pollution.

No litter.

No homeless that I could see.

He also told me that it is illegal to build a mosque in Switzerland because they don’t want to change their national character, which is 95% Christian he estimated. He said (and I did not fact-check) that the Swiss allow no immigration at all unless the person has special skills or marries a citizen.

And the gun ownership in Switzerland is 100% for adult males. That’s their militia. Yet crime is low.

Make of that what you will. It’s simplistic to think that a total ban on immigration plus universal male gun-ownership helps Switzerland have no real problems. But you can’t rule it out, either.

Trump is trying to make America a bit more like Switzerland. Clinton is trying to make America less like Switzerland. Spend a day in Switzerland and tell me who has the better plan. This country is amazing.

—

You might like my book because I woke up early this morning.

Why I Endorse Gary Johnson (this week)

I don’t know how to write this post without unintentionally disrespecting the real victims of abuse in any form. I apologize in advance if it comes off that way. But it’s part of the national conversation now, and unavoidable. The best I can do is focus on how voters perceive the situation. I don’t have an opinion about who did what to whom because I wasn’t in the room any of those times. That said…

We fine citizens of the United States find ourselves playing some sort of sex abuse poker in which we have to assign value to various alleged sex crimes to see which alleged rapist/groper/enabler combination we want to inhabit the White House and represent our national brand. Let’s call that situation “not ideal.”

My view is that if either Clinton or Trump can be judged by the weight of the allegations against them, both are 100% unfit for the office. I think Trump supporters think it’s worth the hit to our national brand just to get some specific improvements in the country.

Clinton supporters have been telling me for a few days that any visible support for Trump makes you a supporter of sex abuse. From a persuasion standpoint, that actually makes sense. If people see it that way, that’s the reality you have to deal with. I choose to not be part of that reality so I moved my endorsement to Gary Johnson.

I encourage all Clinton supporters to do the same, and for the same reason. I don’t know if any of the allegations against the Clinton’s are true, but since we are judging each other on associations, you don’t want to be seen as supporting sex abuse by putting an alleged duo of abusers (the perp and the clean-up crew) into office. I think you will agree that it doesn’t matter if any of the allegations are true, because the stink from a mountain of allegations – many that seem credible to observers – is bad for the national brand too.  To even consider putting the Clinton’s back in the White House is an insult to women and every survivor of abuse.

To be fair, Gary Johnson is a pot head who didn’t know what Allepo was. I call that relatable. A President Johnson administration might bring with it some operational risks, and policy risks, but at least he won’t slime you by association and turn you into some sort of cheerleader for sex abuse in the way you would if you voted for the Clintons or Trump.

If you take allegations of sex abuse seriously – and you should – vote Johnson. To vote for Clinton or Trump is to be seen by others as an enabler for sexual abuse. I don’t think that’s what anyone had in mind by breaking the glass ceiling. Don’t let it happen to you.

—

You might enjoy my book because you’re not sure if I’m really endorsing Gary Johnson or just saying so to protect my brand. 

Why Does This Happen on My Vacation? (The Trump Tapes)

By now you know about the Access Hollywood recording in which Donald Trump said bad things eleven years ago. Many of my readers asked me to weigh in. One of the requests came from anti-Trump GOP elite person Erick Erickson. (Middle name Erick, I assume.) This was his polite request and my response. Read it from bottom to top.

Challenge accepted!

I’ll give you my thoughts, in no particular order.

1. If this were anyone else, the election would be over. But keep in mind that Trump doesn’t need to outrun the bear. He only needs to outrun his camping buddy. There is still plenty of time for him to dismantle Clinton. If you think things are interesting now, just wait. There is lots more entertainment coming. 

2. This was not a Trump leak. No one would invite this sort of problem into a marriage.

3. I assume that publication of this recording was okayed by the Clinton campaign. And if not, the public will assume so anyway. That opens the door for Trump to attack in a proportionate way. No more mister-nice-guy. Gloves are off. Nothing is out of bounds. It is fair to assume that Bill and Hillary are about to experience the worst weeks of their lives. 

4. If nothing new happens between now and election day, Clinton wins. The odds of nothing new happening in that timeframe is exactly zero.

5. I assume that 75% of male heads of state, including our own past presidents, are total dogs in their private lives. Like it or not, Trump is normal in that world.

6. As fictional mob boss Tony Soprano once said in an argument with his wife, “You knew what you were getting when you married me!” Likewise, Trump’s third wife, Melania, knew what she was getting. It would be naive to assume Trump violated their understanding.

7. Another rich, famous, tall, handsome married guy once told me that he can literally make-out and get handsy with any woman he wants, whether she is married or not, and she will be happy about it. I doubted his ridiculous claims until I witnessed it three separate times. So don’t assume the women were unwilling. (Has anyone come forward to complain about Trump?)

8. If the LGBTQ community wants to be a bit more inclusive, I don’t see why “polyamorous alpha male serial kisser” can’t be on the list. If you want to label Trump’s sexual behavior “abnormal” you’re on shaky ground.

9. Most men don’t talk like Trump. Most women don’t either. But based on my experience, I’m guessing a solid 20% of both genders say and do shockingly offensive things in private. Keep in mind that Billy Bush wasn’t shocked by it.

10. Most male Hollywood actors support Clinton. Those acting skills will come in handy because starting today they have to play the roles of people who do not talk and act exactly like Trump in private.

11. I’m adding context to the discussion, not condoning it. Trump is on his own to explain his behavior. 

12. Clinton supporters hated Trump before this latest outrage. Trump supporters already assumed he was like this. Independents probably assumed it too. Before you make assumptions about how this changes the election, see if anyone you know changes their vote because of it. All I have seen so far is people laughing about it.

12. I hereby change my endorsement from Trump to Gary Johnson, just to get out of the blast zone. Others will be “parking” their vote with Johnson the same way. The “shy Trump supporter” demographic just tripled.

13. My prediction of a 98% chance of Trump winning stays the same. Clinton just took the fight to Trump’s home field. None of this was a case of clever strategy or persuasion on Trump’s part. But if the new battleground is spousal fidelity, you have to like Trump’s chances.

14. Trump wasn’t running for Pope. He never claimed moral authority. His proposition has been that he’s an asshole (essentially), but we need an asshole to fight ISIS, ignore lobbyists, and beat up Congress. Does it change anything to have confirmation that he is exactly what you thought he was?

My thoughts above have more to do with reason than persuasion. And that means you can ignore all of it because reason is not part of decision-making when it comes to politics. On the persuasion level, all that matters is whether this new development changes what you already assumed about Trump.

Personally, it didn’t change what I assumed about Trump’s personal life. Your mileage may vary.

I hope this answers all of Erick Erick Erickson’s questions.

—

If you think the Access Hollywood recording will be a problem for Trump, you might enjoy my book because it will take your mind off of it.

—

The Week I Became a Target

This weekend I got “shadowbanned” on Twitter. It lasted until my followers noticed and protested. Shadowbanning prevents my followers from seeing my tweets and replies, but in a way that is not obvious until you do some digging.

Why did I get shadowbanned?

Beats me.

But it was probably because I asked people to tweet me examples of Clinton supporters being violent against peaceful Trump supporters in public. I got a lot of them. It was chilling.

Late last week my Twitter feed was invaded by an army of Clinton trolls (it’s a real thing) leaving sarcastic insults and not much else on my feed. There was an obvious similarity to them, meaning it was organized. 

At around the same time, a bottom-feeder at Slate wrote a hit piece on me that had nothing to do with anything. Except obviously it was politically motivated. It was so lame that I retweeted it myself. The timing of the hit piece might be a coincidence, but I stopped believing in coincidences this year.

All things considered, I had a great week. I didn’t realize I was having enough impact to get on the Clinton enemies list. I don’t think I’m supposed to be happy about any of this, but that’s not how I’m wired.

Mmm, critics. Delicious :-)

—

P.S. The one and only speaking gig I had on my calendar for the coming year cancelled yesterday because they decided to “go in a different direction.” I estimate my opportunity cost from speaking events alone to be around $1 million. That’s based on how the rate of offers went from several per month (for decades) to zero this year. Blogging about Trump is expensive. 

But it is also a system, not a goal. I wrote a book about that.

—

Update: Then they started leaving fake book reviews on Amazon to go after my book sales.

Presidential Temperament

Do you remember the time someone insulted Donald Trump and then Trump punched him in the nose?

Neither do I. Because nothing like that has ever happened.

Instead, people attack Donald Trump with words (often) and he attacks them back with words. See if the following pattern looks familiar:

1. Person A insults Trump with words. Trump insults back with words.

2. Person B mentions some sort of scandal about Trump. Trump mentions some sort of scandal about Person B.

3. Person C endorses Trump (even if they publicly feuded before) and Trump immediately says something nice about Person C. The feud is instantly over.

See the pattern? 

Consider how many times you have seen the pattern repeat with Trump. It seems endless. And consistent. Trump replies to critics with proportional force. His reaction is as predictable as night following day.

The exceptions are his jokey comments about roughing up protesters at his rallies. The rally-goers recognize it as entertainment. I won’t defend his jokes at rallies except to say that it isn’t a temperament problem when you say something as a joke and people recognize it as such. (We see his rally joke-comments out of context on news coverage so they look worse.)

What we have in Trump is the world’s most consistent pattern of behavior. For starters, he only responds to the professional critics, such as the media and other politicians. When Trump responded to the Khan family and to Miss Universe’s attacks, they had entered the political arena. As far as I know, private citizens – even those critical of Trump – have never experienced a personal counter-attack. Trump limits his attacks to the folks in the cage fight with him. 

And when Trump counter-attacks, he always responds with equal measure. Words are met with words and scandal mentions are met with scandal mentions. (And maybe a few words.) But always proportionate and immediate.

Does any of that sound dangerous? 

What if Trump acted this way to our allies and our adversaries? What then?

Answer: Nothing

Our allies won’t insult Trump, and they won’t publicly mention any his alleged scandals. They will respect the office of the President of the United States no matter what they think of Trump. If Trump’s past behavior predicts his future, he will get along great with allies. Our allies have been fine with every president so far, and they haven’t all been perfect humans. The worst case scenario is that Trump calls some prime minister goofy. We’ll all be used to it by then, including the prime minister in question.

But what about our adversaries? It seems that Trump will get along fine with Putin. And Trump says North Korea is China’s problem. Compare that to Hillary Clinton trying to publicly emasculate Putin (with words) while talking tough about North Korea and forcing them to act tough in response. Clinton seems like the dangerous one here.

Clinton and Trump both talk tough about Iran. That feels like a tie. Trump might talk tougher, but he has a pattern of doing just that to begin any negotiation. Iranians understand negotiating. Clinton has the extra risk of being influenced into military action by lobbyist for the defense industry. That risk is hard to measure, if it exists at all.

China’s ruling party is a bunch of trained engineers who couldn’t be goaded into an over-reaction if you tried. China would expect Trump to be a tough negotiator, but that’s not a cause for war. 

From the viewpoint of foreign leaders, Trump is 100% predictable. He responds with proportional force, every time, and right away. The safest situation for the world is when everyone can predict what the United States will do. You can criticize Trump for a lot of things, but he is completely predictable in this particular way.

That’s why it was easy to goad Trump into counter-attacking the Khans. That’s why it was easy to goad him into counter-attacking Miss Universe. But you know what no foreign leader will ever do to Trump?

That sort of bullshit. 

That stuff only happens in campaigns and in our internal politics. 

And if a foreign leader tried something so classless, Trump would respond proportionately. And every American would cheer when he did. It would be a headline for one day.

The riskiest situation for the world is when our adversaries can’t predict our response. That encourages them to be adventurous. With a President Trump, foreign leaders will know that every action creates an equal and measured reaction. Every time, and right away. That’s his unbroken pattern.

With a President Clinton, foreign leaders won’t always know what they will get. For one thing, they won’t know where her allegiances are. Is she serving the people, the Democratic Party, or lobbyists? Will she react with equal force or try to be diplomatic? Uncertainty is risky. Clinton offers more uncertainty. She is complicated. Trump is simple.

I’ll wrap this up by summarizing the alleged risks of each candidate so you can see how they compare on the “scariness” dimension.

Alleged Clinton Risks

Dementia risk (because of age)
Low energy (maybe can’t perform the job)
Temperament (alleged to yell and throw things)
Might allow more terrorists into country via immigrationInfluenced by lobbyists to start wars (Eisenhower warned of this)
Drinks alcohol (We don’t know how much or how often)
General brain health is questionable lately
Adversaries won’t know who she serves or how she will react.

Alleged Trump Risks

Dementia risk (because of age)
Trump is “literally Hitler” (This risk is cognitive dissonance, not real)
Con man (Sure, but we’ll be watching him closely)
Temperament (responds proportionately every time)
Race riots (Clinton’s side created this risk by framing Trump as a racist)
Inexperience (But Trump routinely succeeds where he has no experience)

If you think Trump is risky because of his “temperament” or because he is “literally Hitler” you are experiencing cognitive dissonance caused by Clinton’s persuasion game. I mean that literally. And remember that I’m a trained hypnotist. That doesn’t mean I’m always right, but it does mean I’m trained to spot cognitive dissonance and you probably aren’t.

I don’t think any of us is smart enough to evaluate the relative risk of either candidate. And that’s my point. If you think Trump is the dangerous one, that isn’t supported by his history, his patterns, or the facts. It is literally an illusion created by his opponents.

One thing we can know for sure is dangerous is doing more of the same. Obama has been a successful president in part because the United States was strong enough to take on massive new debt. But that situation can’t last forever. Debt is a good idea until it reaches a point where it is deadly. At the current rate of debt growth, we’re doomed in the long run. That makes the candidate of change the lowest risk, even if you think he might call a few foreign leaders dopey.

—

You might like my book because sometimes foreign leaders are dopey.

—

I’ll be traveling to London and Zurich for ten days with my neighbor/girlfriend Kristina Basham. You can follow us on social media while we are there:

Instagram: @Kristinabasham    @ScottAdams925

Snapshot: @Kristinabasham     @ScottAdams925

Twitter: @Kristina_Basham        @scottadamssays

Periscope: @Kristina_Basham   @scottadamssays​

Website: KristinaBasham.com   Dilbert.com

The Wall Around ISIS

Turkey is almost finished building its wall to keep out Syrian refugees. That seals off the ISIS Caliphate’s Northern border. See this map to refresh your memory on the geography.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is building a “bad-ass” wall along its entire border with Iraq. Jordan has plans for its own wall, for the same reason. And we can assume that Israel and Iran will be improving their border control too, if any improvement is needed.

The United States and Russia can – if they want – seal off the coast of Syria with warships and drones and digital surveillance. Better yet, let Russia and its Syrian client (now much smaller than it was) build its own wall to keep ISIS from having ocean access.

After all of the walls are built to “keep out refugees” you will – by no coincidence whatsoever – also have a wall that “keeps in ISIS.” That’s the real story here.

The future of the ISIS Caliphate has been clear (to me) since at least 2003 when I wrote my sequel to God’s Debris, titled The Religion War. In the book, I predicted the rise of a Caliphate in that general area, endless “small” terrorist attacks in the United States, and the eventual walling-in of the Caliphate to stop the “idea” of ISIS from spreading. 

Here’s how you kill an idea:

Step one: Quarantine the idea. (Build a wall around it.)

Step two: Remove all digital communications from the area.

Step three: Remove any foreign press in the zone so there are no witnesses to war crimes.

Step four: Depopulate the Caliphate over time by removing trusted women and children and killing everyone else. I don’t recommend any of this, by the way. I’m only predicting it will happen, as I have since 2003. If you have been watching my Trump-related predictions, you might recognize that I used the same filter – persuasion – to predict the rise of the caliphate and the eventual walling-off.

If you take a purely military approach to ISIS, you never kill the idea that is at its core. You might even strengthen it. Persuasion is the only weapon that can make a difference. And to persuade, first you must control the conversation. You can only do that by physically and digitally quarantining the entire Caliphate. Otherwise there will always be too much idea-leakage.

We also need persuasion tools to deter crazy loners from self-radicalizing. But that’s a separate persuasion process. The most important strategy involves blocking all communication into and out of the ISIS Caliphate. Once you brand ISIS as a loser – by totally controlling the stories coming from that zone – you can mop up the self-radicalizers over time.

That’s how you kill an idea virus as strong as ISIS. There really isn’t any other option. I believe most trained persuaders would agree.

Another key part of my prediction is that the Caliphate will start to weaponize hobby-sized drones for attacks all over the world. When that nightmare starts – and you know it will – expect to never hear another press report from the Caliphate, because that’s when the depopulating will begin.

—

You might like my newest book because both of us are moist robots.

I Score the First Debate

Trump and Clinton debated each other for the first time last night. Here’s how I score the night.

Clinton won on points. She had more command of the details and the cleaner answers. Trump did a lot of interrupting and he was defensive. If this were a college debate competition, Clinton would be declared the winner. I call that victory on the 2D chess board. But voters don’t care about facts and debating style. They care about how they feel. So let’s talk about that.

For starters, Trump and Clinton both seemed “presidential” enough. That mattered more for Trump. We haven’t seen him off the teleprompter lately. So Trump passed that test by being sufficiently serious.

Clinton looked (to my eyes) as if she was drugged, tired, sick, or generally unhealthy, even though she was mentally alert and spoke well. But her eyes were telling a different story. She had the look of someone whose doctors had engineered 90 minutes of alertness for her just for the event. If she continues with a light campaign schedule, you should assume my observation is valid, and she wasn’t at 100%.

Some will say Clinton outperformed expectations because she didn’t cough, collapse, or die right on stage. That would be true if she also looked healthy in general, and her campaign schedule from here on out is full. We’ll know more this week, based on her schedule.

Clinton’s smile seemed forced, artificial, and frankly creepy. I’m already hearing on Twitter that mentioning a woman’s smile is sexist. I understand the point. But when someone goes full Joker-face and tests the uncanny valley hypothesis at the same time, that’s a bit different from telling a woman to “smile more.” My neighbor Kristina hypothesized that Botox was making her smile look unnatural. Science tells us that when a person’s mouth smiles, but their eyes don’t match the smile, they look disingenuous if not creepy. Botox on your crow’s feet lines around your eyes can give that effect. But whatever the reason, something looked off to me.

To be fair, Trump’s physical appearance won’t win him any votes either. But his makeup looked better than I have seen it (no orange), his haircut was as good as it gets for him, and he was otherwise his normal self that some voters hate and some like. 

But the most interesting question has to do with what problem both of them were trying to solve with the debate. Clinton tried to look healthy, and as I mentioned, I don’t think she completely succeeded. But Trump needed to solve exactly one problem: Look less scary. Trump needed to counter Clinton’s successful branding of him as having a bad temperament to the point of being dangerous to the country. Trump accomplished exactly that…by…losing the debate.

Trump was defensive, and debated poorly at points, but he did not look crazy. And pundits noticed that he intentionally avoided using his strongest attacks regarding Bill Clinton’s scandals. In other words, he showed control. He stayed in the presidential zone under pressure. And in so doing, he solved for his only remaining problem. He looked safer.

By tomorrow, no one will remember what either of them said during the debate. But we will remember how they made us feel. 

Clinton won the debate last night. And while she was doing it, Trump won the election. He had one thing to accomplish – being less scary – and he did it.

—

You might love my book because the debate.

Trump’s African-American Reframing

Do you remember last week (or so) when Trump was saying that things are worse for African-Americans in 2016 than at any time in their history?

You probably laughed because it was such a ridiculous thing to say. And perhaps you wondered what kind of person says something that is so clearly false. The answer is a Master Persuader. That’s who.

The recent headlines about police shootings, and Colin Kaepernick’s protests in particular, had focused the nation’s attention on the PROBLEMS that still need to be solved for African-Americans to fully enjoy the American experience. When you focus on something, it seems more important than it would otherwise seem. That’s how brains are wired. And the nation was focusing on something that had the potential to erupt into a race war. 

So Trump flipped the frame. He said life in the big cities is worse-than-ever for African-Americans, thereby forcing his opponents and the fact-checkers to explain in detail how much better things have gotten since slavery. And the civil rights movement. And on and on. That changes your perspective. Now you see 2016 as the best year – probably ever – for African-Americans, albeit with plenty of work left to do. And that’s the sort of reframing that diffuses racial tension. I think it helped.

But it gets better.

Trump’s absurd claim that things are worse-than-ever isn’t true in a factual sense. But it is emotionally compatible with the feelings of African-Americans who feel victimized by police and the system in general. This is one of those cases where being totally wrong is the most sensible approach. Emotions matter in the real world because they drive behavior. Facts, not so much.

Trump doesn’t ignore facts because he is dumb. He does it because facts don’t matter. Every trained persuader knows that.

In the 2D world, where people think that facts and reason matter, Trump’s claim that life is worse than ever for African-Americans is an absurd lie. But in the third-dimension of persuasion – where Trump operates – it was brilliant.

In case you are wondering, this is a known persuasion technique. You agree with someone harder than they agree with themselves, and it forces them to argue against their own point. Trump did that in part to dilute racial tensions (that he partly caused) and also to put himself in emotional harmony with the African-American community. Persuasion-wise, and strategy-wise, what Trump did was a base-clearing home run…that you thought was a dumb mistake.

As I said last year, Trump is changing more than politics. He is changing how you understand reality itself.

—

Watch the debate with me on Periscope at @ScottAdamsSays. Tune your TV to CNN. I’ll be with my co-host and neighbor, Kristina Basham.