>
>>
>>I said he presented himself as a moderate and was seen that
>>way by the voters. That is not an opinion, it's a measured
>>fact.
>>
>
>He presented himself as all things, to all people, all the
>time. It's a measured poll like the Bradley effect and the
>Wilder effect.


So I take it you're just denying that it's possible to measure voter sentiment. If that's the case then there isn't much more to be said.

And for the record, pollsters know about the Bradley effect, and it's perfectly straightforward to adjust for it. That adjustment, these days, is usually to not make an adjustment, because recent data comparing polling to electoral returns has been statistically consistent with there being no "Bradley effect" for Trump. That is, the data shows that on average people who supported Trump were perfectly willing to admit it to pollsters.


>>And the fact that being seen as the less partisan candidate
>>gives one an electoral advantage is basic textbook political
>>science.
>>
>
>Yeah all about the pivot to the middle after the primary, the
>media and pundits push it hard but someone looking for a
>moderate would not vote for Trump.

Well, they did, in 2016.


>>I have no idea what this "Trump pivot argument" is that you
>>think I'm making. Trump didn't even have to pivot in 2016,
>he
>>staked out these positions in the primary.
>>
>
>
>I'm talking about an NBC reporter who said Trump's
>teleprompter reading after the mass shooting was a pivot and

Oh, so some dude on TV made some trite and speculative comment that I never made, and you're projecting it onto me because I said some completely different thing that you didn't like. Okay then.


>one of Trumps speech that he gave in the past, was called a
>pivot. You the media and pundits are doing the same thing by
>saying people voted for him because they saw him as less
>partisan or moderate.

So by telling the truth about one aspect of how he won in 2016 I'm also making unrelated comments on how he's supposedly running in 2020?

I will say this: he will most definitely try to claim that he's the candidate less beholden to his party's base in 2020 (the definition of "moderate" that I've been using here). And if people believe him, he will gain some amount of advantage for it.

You seem to be getting hung up on the word "moderate," which as I've noted in other posts here, can mean a few different things. The people who voted for him did NOT do so because they thought he wasn't an asshole, a liar, a racist, a rapist, and so many other things that he so plainly was in 2016. A lot of his voters admitted all that and liked it --- those are the voters we'll never pull away --- but a lot of his voters admitted all that and simply didn't care. The question of whether he is beholden to his party's base is separate from the question of whether he is personally an asshole, liar, racist, rapist. But the former question is the one that more voters decided they cared about.



>>If you think I'm talking about Trump's strategy in 2020,
>then
>>I don't think you're paying attention.
>>
>
>You are not paying attention if you think voters who want a
>moderate voted for Trump based on that, because they couldn't
>see his bs for what it is. They just tell that lie.
>
>Nobody is voting for Trump because he tells it like it is, he
>is less partisan, he is an outsider all of that is a lie. Here
>are the facts.
>
>https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801


LOL, so you think voters are paying attention to every shift of policy position? You have a surprisingly high opinion of the American voter's information capacity.

Again, the issue is whether voters thought he had a dogmatic attachment to his party's unpopular positions. If anything, his all-over-the-place statements actually HELPED the narrative that he had flexible views.