Tiernan;1752627 wrote:Sleeper...how naive of you. Political "advisors" are simply frustrated politicians either too ugly or too many skeletons to get in the race themselves. Remember that couple...one was Repub one was Dem? They were the two most butt ugly people on Sunday morning TV...couldn't have got elected Dog Catcher, well she might have got elected just Dog.

I've never worked in politics and only casually follow it and that's why I asked the question to gain perspective. Thanks for helping!

Heretic;1752625 wrote:My guess is that they all cater to the lowest possible denominator -- the tabloid-reading, reality-TV watching couch potatoes. Instead of logical arguments like "Why should WE fund this program when we're umpteen gazillion dollars in debt?", they turn it into a pure emotional "LOOK AT ALL THE WIDDLE DEAD MURDEREDED BABIEZ!!!!!" rant where logic goes out the window and an exaggerated hyperbole appeal to emotions replaces it.

It's why, after a debate, it's almost essential to look online for a fact-checker article, since they just care about making broad appeals to emotions on the opinion that the average voter is too stupid and ignorant to care whether what they're saying is actually 100% true, because it's more to a candidate's benefit to say something that will appeal to "MORAL OUTRAGE" than something that will appeal to brains.

Except that sometimes you have to fact check the fact checkers.

Speaking of rants where logic goes out the window, that was a pretty good one yourself, Sparky. I'm sure it makes you feel better and superior to the "tabloid reading reality-TV watchers", but the facts are that a lot of highly educated people are abhorred by what transpired at Planned Parenthood, Unfortunately, the low information person, who gets their news thru social media and comedian talk show hosts, suck up to the liberulz narrative of conservatives waging "wars" on everything that is wonderful in their utopia.
...and of course they drink the Kool-Aid that defunding Planned Parenthood is going to send us back to the stone age of women having to use coat hangars. Conservatives are more than happy to keep funding women centers and will send the funding to those centers instead of PP, pending an investigation of whether this one particular organization BROKE THE LAW in SELLING ABORTED BABY PARTS. But no....there are plenty of idiots who think this is an attack on women's rights.

BoatShoes;1752614 wrote:This. They often blame the debate moderators and the media for asking them questions on this topic but look - they are about to make a hey-day over the budget over Planned Parenthood funding. Even if you agree that there should be no federal funding for planned parenthood, one can see why Jake Tapper would bring up the topic. It is on the Republican candidates themselves (IMHO) to avoid making the topic controversial. They could say "I do not think that is an appropriate role for federal spending per my limited government values" but the fact is they take turns framing the issue in moral terms as much as possible to attract the attention of "values voters" to the point of absurdity i.e. Cary Fiorina lying about live babies kicking and screaming being murdered.


Democrats do this in their own way as well i.e. discussions of economic disparity are framed in racial, ethnic and gender terminology or they risk losing a constituency such as Martin O'Malley making the mistake of saying "All Lives Matter"

I agree with you somewhat, But really, a moderator really controls the flow of the debate, and the moderators of these debates seemed to have no plan( or desire) to direct the flow to substantive issues. In regards to Republicans, the media seems hell bent on creating "gotcha" moments on social issues. The serious, most electable candidates sidestep those issues, but then they suffer from a lack of attention and media coverage.

HitsRus;1752668 wrote:Except that sometimes you have to fact check the fact checkers.

Speaking of rants where logic goes out the window, that was a pretty good one yourself, Sparky. I'm sure it makes you feel better and superior to the "tabloid reading reality-TV watchers", but the facts are that a lot of highly educated people are abhorred by what transpired at Planned Parenthood, Unfortunately, the low information person, who gets their news thru social media and comedian talk show hosts, suck up to the liberulz narrative of conservatives waging "wars" on everything that is wonderful in their utopia.
...and of course they drink the Kool-Aid that defunding Planned Parenthood is going to send us back to the stone age of women having to use coat hangars. Conservatives are more than happy to keep funding women centers and will send the funding to those centers instead of PP, pending an investigation of whether this one particular organization BROKE THE LAW in SELLING ABORTED BABY PARTS. But no....there are plenty of idiots who think this is an attack on women's rights.

No way anyone is ever going to prove that they broke the law by selling baby parts. While any reasonable person knows full-well that they're making money on the practice, their accountants/lawyers have likely earned their $$$ making it impossible to prove. The one center director essentially said as much on one of the videos.

If anyone really has the stones to go after PP legally, the low-hanging fruit would be their admission on two separate videos that they purposefully alter the procedure in order to obtain an intact fetus. That's the only crystal clear violation of federal law shown so far.

HitsRus;1752687 wrote:I...but then they suffer from a lack of attention and media coverage.

That's a REALLY good point. If you tone down the rhetoric and take a more measured, rational approach NO ONE covers you, not Fox and certainly not the liberal media, especially in a crowded field. Trump intuitively gets this - I don't think he's all that intelligent, but he IS a marketing/branding savant.

I've said before, both sides love talking about religion, guns and abortion because, particularly for POTUS, you're never going to do anything substantial and those debates are largely based on opinions and values so it's a lay-up for your base. There's no plan or policy to critique and you can't really be wrong....the bonus is most of the country doesn't care and wants to move on to something substantive, so the people you really offend are never voting for you anyway but the people who will can get fired up to turn out. That's why the Dems really push the divide-and-conquer strategy (which Trump may be taking to new extremes) so they can CREATE single issue voters they can pander to - read up on NARHWAL (I think it is) as Obama literally turned this into a science.

sleeper;1752618 wrote:Don't these politicians have political advisers to help them with this? One has to think they have done the analysis on whether they will draw more voters from framing the issues in moral terms rather than dodging the question to something less controversial. I don't work in politics so I'm not sure how it works.

Dude I'm starting to just think that the consultant class, donor class, think tank scholars and the D.C. Bubble just really have no clue what average "not-that-political" voters really believe and I don't think they care. If we get X% of this stereotypical voter "we win" they say. Who cares if general alienation within the public is the result.

I remember asking an Obama campaign field staff member "Do you think the fact that you guys went so out of your way to avoid Republican leaning voters and committed McCain voters that this caused some of the animosity they have toward him?" and his response was "Yeah, well you're not going to convince a John McCain voter. It's a waste of precious time."

They've got so much data now that it's not even really about a constructive and civic political process. It is a machine dedicated to getting enough warm bodies that will pull the lever your way to the polls.

And, I think people sense that. When they hear the politician speak the sense that a consultant told them to say X, even if they agree, and that they are saying it to get them to the poll. When they hear Trump say close the border they think he means it. When they hear Marco Rubio say it, they think he is trying to get Tea Partiers to vote for him in spite of the Gang of 8 bill.

It's like real substance and changing hearts and minds is considered antithetical to winning.

The consultant people don't care as they get rich and say "Doesn't matter we can still win if we hit the formula cus enough of you will vote for the home team."

Hillary is the classic example. There are very few rank and file Democratic voters are like "Hell yeah Hillary!" but her team knows if she says the right things and appeals to the various groups and tweets about X, Y and Z (provided she didn't talk about selling Nukes to Iran in her emails or some other epic disaster) she'll probably limp to the Dem nomination without really inspiring a soul.

I mean look at Nate Silver sitting there saying "Odds are Bernie and Trump aren't going to win. 5% chance." The Dems and the Pubs have guys just like him sitting around saying that stuff all day.

HitsRus;1752687 wrote:I agree with you somewhat, But really, a moderator really controls the flow of the debate, and the moderators of these debates seemed to have no plan( or desire) to direct the flow to substantive issues. In regards to Republicans, the media seems hell bent on creating "gotcha" moments on social issues. The serious, most electable candidates sidestep those issues, but then they suffer from a lack of attention and media coverage.

I actually agree. And, that even goes for Jake Tapper who is really one of the best in the business right now. Frankly I found his inability to control things to be pretty startling. They should have just let Hugh Hewitt run the whole thing rather than say just a few words.

P.S. I read a story about Walker's campaign today. Seems to be acknowledgement that he was punished for not talking beyond his allotted time. Seems to me the microphones need to shut off or something after the time is up.

gut;1752691 wrote:That's a REALLY good point. If you tone down the rhetoric and take a more measured, rational approach NO ONE covers you, not Fox and certainly not the liberal media, especially in a crowded field. Trump intuitively gets this - I don't think he's all that intelligent, but he IS a marketing/branding savant.

I've said before, both sides love talking about religion, guns and abortion because, particularly for POTUS, you're never going to do anything substantial and those debates are largely based on opinions and values so it's a lay-up for your base. There's no plan or policy to critique and you can't really be wrong....the bonus is most of the country doesn't care and checks out and turns on the NFL, so the people you really offend are never voting for you anyway but the people who will can get fired up to turn out. That's why the Dems really push the divide-and-conquer strategy (which Trump may be taking to new extremes) so they can CREATE single issue voters they can pander to - read up on NARHWAL (I think it is) as Obama literally turned this into a science.

Mostly agree but FTFY on one point.

I heard Newt Gingrich on an interview the other day with Bill Kristol discussing the Trump Phenomenon say something that I think was spot on.

He said "The people who care about politics, the people in Washington - they think its about policy. It's not. The People generally don't care. They want to be sold a brand. Trump's brand is Let's Win. America can Win again."

HitsRus;1752687 wrote:The serious, most electable candidates sidestep those issues, but then they suffer from a lack of attention and media coverage.

Really this sums up Scott Walker's situation perfectly. Trump gets all that media coverage and Scott Walker never would have had the gaffe about the Canadian Border Wall and Birthright Citizenship if it weren't for Trump. A governor with a solid conservative record was bounced by Trump's master manipulation of the media. Can we really rule out the Clinton plant angle?

For those in the area, Wright State University will be hosting the first presidential debate next September.

BoatShoes;1752705 wrote:Really this sums up Scott Walker's situation perfectly. Trump gets all that media coverage and Scott Walker never would have had the gaffe about the Canadian Border Wall and Birthright Citizenship if it weren't for Trump. A governor with a solid conservative record was bounced by Trump's master manipulation of the media. Can we really rule out the Clinton plant angle?

I'm not into conspiracy theories, but I've been trying to figure out this whole thing with Trump and Fox News. If he were a Clinton plant, destroying conservative's lone media outlet, and getting them to fight amongst themselves would be a great strategy.
Meanwhile, you destroy the black candidate (Herman Cain,(2012)and Ben Carson and his muslim moment.) ...then go after the lone woman and catch her in 'gotcha' moment....voila! You're back to the tried and successful narrative that the Republican Party is nothing but a bunch of old, white, bigoted, men.

BoatShoes;1752705 wrote:Really this sums up Scott Walker's situation perfectly. Trump gets all that media coverage and Scott Walker never would have had the gaffe about the Canadian Border Wall and Birthright Citizenship if it weren't for Trump. A governor with a solid conservative record was bounced by Trump's master manipulation of the media. Can we really rule out the Clinton plant angle?

I wouldn't bet against Trump being a plant...crazier things have been said, although that could backfire if he actually got the nomination.

And Tom Brady even endorsed Trump. Not much more needs to be said.

BoatShoes;1752701 wrote: He said "The people who care about politics, the people in Washington - they think its about policy. It's not. The People generally don't care. They want to be sold a brand. Trump's brand is Let's Win. America can Win again."

Although I think Walker had plenty of flubs that had nothing to do with Trump (just not ready to conduct a national campaign, apparently), it really does speak to a sadder state that it's all a game of smoke-and-mirrors. The press is either a lapdog or an unproductive adversary instead of responsibly vetting.

And while charisma and communication are critical skills, a POTUS success isn't about or shouldn't rely on how they talk to the American people. Now it's fair to argue polished answers and presentation are reflective of how well-thought out a position on an issue is, but to parse words and cherry-pick weaknesses of ideas while ignoring strengths is an absolute disservice to the process.

What's maybe worse is there's practically no vetting of the President's advisers and team, which are ultimately the people shaping and making policy. And in most cases, those people aren't even selected until after the election. So maybe all we really have is strength, confidence and leadership (i.e. looking and acting "Presidential")

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1752532 wrote:Yes bc I want a president who will let their religious convictions interfere with doing their job properly. I want a president who will let his nutso side shine through in any gray area.

Bernie is literally humping the pope's leg.

[video][/video]

majorspark;1752785 wrote:Bernie is literally humping the pope's leg.

[video][/video]

Yeah bc the pope has it right and conservatives are literally blowing their heads at what they're hearing from him.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1752799 wrote:Yeah bc the pope has it right and conservatives are literally blowing their heads at what they're hearing from him.

Hugely funny that the liberals and socialists are going gaga on what the Pope is saying about climate change and social justice, while convieniently ignoring the his moral authority, his particular area of expertise, on the sanctity of life. The pope is good when he supports their climate change agenda ...but when it comes to the beginnings of life....ehhhh, not so much.

HitsRus;1752807 wrote:Hugely funny that the liberals and socialists are going gaga on what the Pope is saying about climate change and social justice, while convieniently ignoring the his moral authority, his particular area of expertise, on the sanctity of life. The pope is good when he supports their climate change agenda ...but when it comes to the beginnings of life....ehhhh, not so much.

Beginning of life is great. we just also care about the rest of their life unlike you guys

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1752532 wrote:Yes bc I want a president who will let their religious convictions interfere with doing their job properly. I want a president who will let his nutso side shine through in any gray area.

...probably about the same desire as I want a moral, religious authority telling me about the science of global warming. lol

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1752834 wrote:Beginning of life is great. we just also care about the rest of their life unlike you guys

Oh, we care. We just think personal responsibility is important. Unlike...well - your side.

Heretic;1752511 wrote:So, they'd be taking after your day-to-day routine?

I'm quite calm; I just have the ability to write commentary that jumps off the page (and slaps certain people upside the head).

QuakerOats;1752854 wrote:.. I just have the ability to write commentary that jumps off the page (and slaps certain people upside the head).

Are you claiming to have written what you copy/paste from Drudge?

Ooooo we gotta plagerizer in the house?

gut;1752855 wrote:Are you claiming to have written what you copy/paste from Drudge?

It takes a calm head to correct do that. Get pissed off and suddenly, you've cut what you were supposed to have pasted (or accidentally pasted your own manifesto instead of all the linked headlines for the day).

^^^
Only pot heads that smoked a grocry bag of ganja this morning manke that mistake....

cruiser_96;1752844 wrote:Oh, we care. We just think personal responsibility is important. Unlike...well - your side.

Personal responsibility is great whenever everyone is competing on a level playing field