Suppose that the election will be rigged. What makes more sense: a close Clinton win or a landslide? Mirroring polling and exit polls, or flouting them like a falsified Bradley Effect?

Is that the one he paid "actors" $50 to attend & rally for?

You misunderstand me. I wasn't throwing down a gauntlet and saying let's dance. I'm trying to point out how having a pissing match over crowdsmanship is exactly that: A pissing match with no meaningful impact on the outcome.

To appreciate that fact even greater, let's say that is indeed the biggest crowd. It was in NY, right? So by your logic, Trump should be able to sweep that state, because he was able to pull a bigger crowd there than she was.

Except she's going to take NY very, very, very easily in the electoral. It's not even close to being a swing state. Despite the fact that Trump drew bigger crowds there.

It doesn't work on that micro level, and it doesn't work on the macro, either. Level of support isn't a ladder scale where the higher the excitement is, the more you do. Some support their candidates in ways that don't involve spending time & money going to a rally, and I know that, because I've never been to a political rally but am still excited about every politician I've supported in the past.

Crowdsmanship is a distraction & a pissing contest with no impact on anything larger.

/r/AskTrumpSupporters Thread Parent