In other words, you jumped to your conclusion and can't offer a logical explanation.
I explained exactly why twice.
If you would like to demonstrate it is a valid communication strategy, start by giving me 3 game changing lies (that you could communicate in a single sentence each) which would convince swing voters to vote against Trump even if the economy was doing well, they were concerned about immigration etc.
You sound like the generals who champion strategies that won the last war.
And you are championing the strategy that lost the last war miserably.
False analogy. Clinton couldn't run a campaign on the trust issue because the ton of evidence of Trumps lack of integrity became obvious only after he was elected.
That Trump is a purveyor of hyperbole and is not overly concerned with factual accuracy was rarely in question. People aren't as stupid as you think they are
Well, of course it would. It's dumb. Is that the best you could do as a candidate?
Quoting David Gergen, who worked for five Presidents, would be a more persuasive way to begin.
“Trust remains the coin of the realm in politics. A President who is trusted, by the people, by the congress, by the press, by foreign countries, is a President who can get a lot of good things done.”
You are presenting a man who worked for Presidents Nixon, Reagan and Bill Clinton as evidence that the voting public cares about scrupulous honesty when electing their representatives?
Assuming the election season began today, Trump would run on the economy, immigration, national security built around a vision of a 'great America'.
"Can't trust him, he tells fibs to make himself look better"
Trump: Who do you trust to keep the economy strong? Who do you trust to keep the borders safe? Who do you support our allies in the Middle East? etc.
"But he tells
fibs!!!!!!"
*cue 4 more years*