Grapesoda

off quora: Peter Classen, Former Chief of Staff to Hon. David J. Wimer, Advisor to 5 U.S. Presidents

Yes.

I answer ?yes? based on my experience as Chief of Staff to the former Director of Presidential Personnel (the person who coordinated approx. 8,000 Presidential Appointments) and who also served as the former Advisor to five U.S. Presidents.

I will however admit, I answer this from a more informed, less emotional perspective, which runs contrary to the perspectives offered in the volumes of ?no? and ?hell no? answers to this question.

What others miss is the connection President Trump made by first appealing emotionally (not rationally) to a large swath of voters, and second, by focusing on the issues that this large swath of voters cared, rather felt (not thought) about most. To achieve these emotional connections (which are far more powerful than rational ones) he sacrificed appealing to that other large swath of voters who felt that their lives, their interpretation of U.S. priorities, their views on what constitutes appropriate behavior, and their vision of America as morally being the only vision that should be permitted?are the right ones and other interpretation are wrong. (Educated individuals note the irony in that view).

Bottom line: He alienated many and created dyed-in-the-wool Anti-Trumpers, but as the election showed he connected with the right voters as needed to win the electoral college vote. (See my prior postings over the past year that explained this tactic, its science and its precedents, and how that made now President-elect Trump a very obvious potential election winner.)

To start us off?

Anyone who tells you in their answers to this question that the behaviors and tactics that define a Presidential race are then the behaviors and tactics that define a President?s first 100, 2 years, and term in office?is ?well, how might I put it?rather naive. I doubt they have ever worked for a President, let alone been at the level that would allow them to make an informed first-hand observation of a President. The ?race? and ?the term? are different. President Obama displayed changes in behavior between the race and the term, as did all of other Presidents I?ve come to know (indirectly).

So, yes, behaviors of the individuals who get elect to high office do CHANGE and yes, it is possible to become ?terrific?. The weight of the Presidency changes the man; it elevates some and debilitates others. Regardless of what some may think, the weight of the job will change him and the behaviors and tactics of the race will be different now.

?Could he be terrific?? is also different than the question ?Could he be perceived as terrific?? Could an ardent anti-Trump voter or Trump-bashing Quora question answerer (such as those who have already overwhelmingly responded to your question) ever look objectively and rate his performance ?terrific? or even ?adequate?? Most social scientists / transformation engineers (I often serve in such a capacity), would say ?no? given a number of complex behavioral and self-identification reasons.

Where does that leaves us? We are in a position where a large portion of the U.S. population has a strong negative attitude towards him that will not be shaken loose. Regardless of his performance then, I wouldn?t expect headlines in the U.S. media anytime soon touting his wins. I would forecast the opposite as its has been rather clearly demonstrated there exists a strong biases in certain U.S. media group?s interpretation of Trump. Going forward this media cannot alienate their non-Trump-supporting reader base so we should expect continued strong biases. Media interpretation of Trump?s behavior is likely to follow ?what their readers want to hear about Trump?, even though this runs violently contrary to the very ethical foundations of the profession of journalism, because that is media?s economic reality (ironic again, I know). This will cloud the coverage of Trump as President, but no more than how the coverage of Obama clouded his Presidency.

Those less bigoted and able to think objectively, like former Democrat Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm noted in an interview earlier this month (either December 7th or 8th I believe), President Elect Trump?s immediate focus and immediate efforts to keep manufacturing jobs in the U.S. and foster investment are ?interesting?, ?exciting?, ?fresh? and ?not been done before.?

This is an early win for him (emphasis on early, with little else to show), and it is a win that crosses party lines. She, as a Democrat but also an informed realist from a disadvantaged, manufacturing-centric state, said she sees the positive in Trump?s immediate efforts, and would strongly support any action of any President who engages in the fight to keep jobs in the U.S. with the Governors, and is enthusiastic that there seems now to be an opportunity to shape a federal policy that gives Governor?s more fire power (competitive advantage) when having to compete on the global stage for jobs in the U.S.

She noted ?no President in recent times has done this [actively engaged one-on-one with CEOs of major U.S. manufacturing corporations to keep jobs in the U.S.] at this level and with this tenacity and focus. I paraphrase: ?What the future [where we have a hands-on business person in the White House] could mean for the U.S. economy is exciting.?

So again, from my own perspective - where I know something (but not all) about the internal workings of U.S. Administrations - and considering the even more informed perspective of a respected former Democrat Governor, I believe the answer to your question is yes.

TheDynasty

a lot of text...

__________________
Try out WP-SCRIPT The Best Tube Script

Bladewire

OP gave no preface to a cut/paste wall of text so not reading researching & commenting on Peter Classen to appease OP

__________________