[tyingq]

Seems to depend heavily on the hypothesis that a carefully crafted message would sway an uncommitted voter away from Trump.

I'm not convinced that works. He has done a fairly good job of showing there's a strong correlation between "any kind of exposure, good or bad", and success.

You run the risk of doing the exact opposite of what your goal is.

[kogus]

Like him or not, I think it's fair to say that Trump's messages have been very carefully crafted indeed. It's not just a matter of "any press is good press". He's not as dumb as he seems.

[gist]

I have been following him since before I would guess most of the HN readers were even born. (late 70's). This idea that he is "stupid" just because he doesn't speak the "king's english" really shows more about the intelligentsia and quasi intelligentsia (and the media and other politicians) that are making those comments than it does about Trump. You can disagree with what he says or with his ideas but one thing is for sure he is not stupid even if what comes out of his mouth may sound "stupid". [1]

[1] In other words who is the fool at the table.

[tyingq]

He seems pretty squarely in the "any press is good press" camp. Sure, he's picking the messages, some that I'm sure he knows won't be well received.

"The funny thing is that even a critical story, which may be hurtful personally, can be very valuable to your business....But the point is that we got a lot of attention, and that alone creates value..."

[ktRolster]

A couple months ago the WSJ had an article that analyzed his messaging technique. They showed how he will choose a theme, test it out in a smaller audience (for example, the speeches he gives as he crosses the country and most people ignore). If the audiences respond well to it, then he tries it again for a larger audience. If they don't respond well, then he drops it.

That, of course, in addition to his several decades polishing his messaging techniques in the public eye (some people would call them click-bait techniques, but whatever).