Okay, let's explain that, PDiddie! I'd like to posit that polls are very badly done. (Did you see that Cornell stuff?)
The problem is that the democrats have no message everything is negative they present nothing positive nor in fact do they present a winnable candidate. They are a me too party. I think what they need is a controversial candidate. Possibly Hillary would fit the bill. Of all the candidates, yes I know she is not a candidate, IMO she would stand the best chance against Bush.
Tartarin wrote:Okay, let's explain that, PDiddie! I'd like to posit that polls are very badly done. (Did you see that Cornell stuff?)
Yes, and thanks for posting it, Tartar.
I have said, and continue to maintain, that polls have all of the importance and utility of toilet paper.
Toilet paper is an extremely valuable commodity (especially if you've ever had to go without it). But the minute it is 'consumed', its value goes to zero.
The same with polls, especially those of the mood of the electorate.
An analogy to the self-destructing tape-recording from "Mission: Impossible" is also somewhat apropos, IMO.
ufortunately, the water's getting hotter, and the frog don't feel it.
We could start by informing the frogs...
wolf, What language do we use? LOL c.i.
Holy fish, snood!
I recommned everybody rent Wag the Dog again, and invite your friends.
Although I am not feeling good about the whole Bush coterie, I don't really think they're unbeatable. It's a little thing, but I read a report by William Saletan in Slate yesterday, in which he described a small get-togehter for Kerry. Saletan's not been too kind to Kerry, but this was an eye-opener. He said Kerry was very reaxed, very funny, and dead-on in some comments not made before, like trickle-on economy to the middle class. The feeling was that at least Kerry has begun to loosen up, and that may be the direction to take. He also said that Kerry, when explaining his attitudes towards Iraq, sounded honest to the crowd, as if he was truly looking for answers rather than falling in.
I have been thinking for some time that a better approach for the candidates would be a more relaxed air, some joking, some gentle ridicule (lord knows, there's enough material for ridicule). That maybe the way to the American public is what they've been used to looking at and watching - the no-brainer laugh, the easy-going knowledge, that has the zingers built in. If this is what the public is attuned to, then play to that. High ideals are good, but they really don't win many elections. And the money is important - but it's also how it's used. Russell feinstein came in very successfully with small donations - but a manner that related to people. Hufington in CA spent a fortune - and where is he now? It's relating to the people, and the people want to laugh. And a laugh can carry a message.
mamaj, I think there's more to the laugh strategy than meets the eye. After all this fiasco created by the Bush Team, some laughter will be welcomed. Ssssshhhhh, don't tell anybody.
c.i.
Then please go run somebody's camaign! To me, this is so simple. But nobody asks me.
Let me tell you, being a grandmother is hard. All these years - who listens?
mamaj, I'm not even a grandpa, and nobody has ever listened to me! c.i.
I hear ya CI. I keep asking myself how there could be anyone at all left that support Bush! Scratching head!
Definitely agree with the laugh component in politics. A great response to spin is a loud guffaw.
c.i.
