quote: In his first televised debate, in which Bush challenged the well-spoken Richards, the novice was cool as a creek while dodging her attacks on his inexperience. But his strongest moment may have come when he was asked about casino gambling.
"I'm opposed to casino gambling," he answered. And shut up.
Richards spoke next. She said she, too, was against casinos, but then went on at length to explain all the exigencies of law and policy that might someday force her to change her mind. When she finally finished, the moderators asked Bush if he wanted to expand his answer.
Flashing his "what a blowhard" look, Bush declined. "I oppose casino gambling," he repeated.
I predict Bush will win the first two debates. Most voters are not interested in contingencies and complex policy solutions. They want a straight talker who seems likable and resolute.
Kerry will come on strong at the final debate. By the third act, Bush will no longer be able to dodge Kerry's attacks with simple Bushisms. Even if Kerry edge out a victory in the third debate, it will probably be too little too late.
I think someone here jokingly referred to the hurricanes in Florida as a conspiracy to reelect the president. There is some truth to that. Providing federal relief to a devastated state always make the incumbent look presidential. Sure, both candidates can tour Florida, but while Bush can say things like "I'm releasing billions of dollars in federal aid" what the heck can Kerry offer? Saving hamsters from the flood?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Kerry should have an advantage in all the debates, unless Bush can somehow keep the topic entirely off his record for the past four years.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
If Bush could actually answer a question straight... Most of the time when I hear him talk in conferences he doesn't... He repeats the same statements.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I get the point, but I can't conceive of how Bush could possibly have any advantage in a debate with Kerry, unless you've already made up your mind to vote for him. You could say it's my own biases showing, but aside from the record of the last four years, which, shockingly, some think is debatable, he is just not a good speaker. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think by comparison he is brilliant. But again, maybe that's my biases.
I don't think so, though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
People who are shocked that others can disagree with them are going to be shocked every day of their lives.
Dagonee
[ September 26, 2004, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
um, okay.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
it just seems very arrogant to think that close to half of likely voters are so wrong that their belief is shocking.
Dagonee
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Sorry.
What can I say to that? I don't think it's arrogant. I think it just reflects my belief that this election is as easy a choice as we've ever been presented with. Intellectually, I can grasp that some disagree, or that some see it as clear, but in a different direction. But is it arrogant of me to admit to my belief that one candidate is clearly superior? That's all I'm really saying. Don't we all believe in some things that seem intuitively obvious to us, which some people manage to disagree with? Is it arrogant to hold the belief that someone is clearly wrong, or is it merely arrogant to admit to it?
Dag, I respect you despite your apparent belief that Bush is the better choice. I'm sure that you must think I'm flat out wrong in some of my beliefs, and be bewildered by my persistence in such beliefs. I would not be offended if you said you couldn't understand how I could come to my conclusions, as long as you didn't say I was an idiot for feeling this way.
I don't think I have said anything insulting, simply that the pro-Bush mindset is alien to me at this time.
I apologize for the impact of my words on you, though I am not convinced I said anything wrong.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
And numbers don't have any bearing on my belief that a position is right or not.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's not the thinking that your right that seems arrogant, nor even the associated belief that others are wrong. It's the fact that you seem surprised by it. You're a smart guy. I know you're exposed to differing views that are presented fairly intelligently.
Maybe I read too much into the word "shockingly." The numbers thing was to point out that you are surprised by a very common behavior, which should make it less surprising.
And arrogant was too strong a word for me to use. Sorry about that. Certainly, I wasn't insulted or offended by your posts.
Dagonee
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
My shock comes from how out of step I feel with everybody else at this point; it's the very fact that close to half of the people seem to disagree with me that gives rise to it. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I think Kerry is going to have problems for the same reason listed at the top of this thread. He can't seem to answer questions simply, without modifiers.
And what will come across from Bush is the same thing that has come across the last four years. He utterly believes in his decisions and direction, and is charmingly surprised that anyone would question them when the advantages are so (to him) obvious. People respond to that.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Not when I do it.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Erm, I like Bush, I think he was a pretty good president... As such, I think I may have a few baises, but...
The way I have seen this campaining for quite some time is not Republican Vs. Democratic It's more like "I say this." Vs. "I take the opposite of whatever he says."
Bush may not be that great in a debate, but he is just persuasive. He just gives me the proud "I am an american" feeling.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Persuasive? Have you actually listened to him, not in a speech, but in a conference on television being asked questions coldly? The qay he stumbles over his words and doesn't even answer the question correctly? Stumbling over your words is one thing, many people do it all the time... But, with him... it's as if he lacks substance. He uses the simplest statements dripping with patriotism and emptiness...
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
He makes you feel good by, more or less, lying to you. He says we are always good when we are not, that our enemies are evil when they are not, that we are suceeding when we are not, that our actions are justified when they are not, and so on and so forth.
This is far easier to do in a prewritten speech than in a debate. In a debate you will have to answer to the facts.
This is why Bush will be at a serious disadvantage.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
This is not some high school Lincoln-Douglas debate where your judge is a nerdy college student with a subscription to the Economist who knows the GDP of South Africa.
Televised debates is about being likable. And regardless of what you think of Bush's policies, you have to admit that man comes across as a guy you would like to have a beer with.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Probably not a beer - Bush hasn't used the "A" word, but he was pretty loutish when he was drinking and reportedly hasn't drunk alcohol in many years.
(BTW, that isn't meant to be either a "plus" or a "minus" for Bush - just something that is pretty much standard background knowledge on Bush.)
I understand that Bush comes across as charming to at least half the population, but the "why" of it escapes me. Just because I don't get it, though, doesn't mean I should discount it. I try to understand what it is that others see that I don't.
Meeting with limited success so far, but it may come. I didn't get what other saw in Reagan either at the time - I do think I understand it now. Doesn't make me agree with Reagan's policies any more now than I did then, though. Whatever is working for Bush, though, isn't much like what Reagan had working for him. Bush is a lot more divisive, and talks less with people from both parties than the old gipper.
Edit to add: Decided long ago that Kerry is definitely the guy I'd rather have sitting next to me on a plane - he'd be more likely to leave me in peace with my book than Bush.
[ September 26, 2004, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
I think the only thing Bush would have going for him in a debate is he looks like the kind of guy you could trust. Kerry just looks like a typical politician liar while Bush looks more like an simple, average man. Of course looks shouldn't be important in a Presidential race but that doesn't mean it isn't.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Jaime, is it possible you are projecting that? Because I'm not sure how you could objectively come to the conclusion that Kerry "looks" dishonest while Bush looks trustworthy.
Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
Huh? That's just my opinion I wasn't saying it's a fact. What do you mean?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
When I hear Bush speak, he always sounds like a normal human being, instead of a polished politician . It's probably affected, but it makes me want to trust him more than if he sounded all slick like most people we see on TV.
On a side note, bev and I were watching the first season of Alias, and a new character shows up. Beverly said that we weren't supposed to like the guy because he had a speeach impediment, and he wasn't good looking enough. Sure enough, it turns out that we weren't supposed to like him. He wasn't pretty enough to be a good guy.
It's probably the contrarian in me, but the fact that Bush hasn't lost (I'm sure he hasn't lost it on purpose) the accent that so many people consider uncouth and ignorant really endears him to me.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Chill out, you're not being attacked.
quote: I think the only thing Bush would have going for him in a debate is he looks like the kind of guy you could trust.
I'm just wondering if you have to already like Bush or dislike Kerry to come to that conclusion. You did state it as pretty much a given.
Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
Well no, since he already served one term as President first impressions are gone but when he speaks I just think he looks and sounds more like the average, typical American instead of a politician who wants to be the President of the United States of America. That could be a good thing or bad thing. Would you rather have a proffesional man who you look up to as your leader or a guy who represents you as the normal American?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Who said anything about first impressions?
Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
I did?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
See, your position seems to indicate some assumptions. I don't think Bush represents me at all. I think you are generalizing your own impression, but I don't think it's as universal as you think.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: Well no, since he already served one term as President first impressions are gone . . .
I don't get the significance of this.
quote: I just think he looks and sounds more like the average, typical American instead of a politician who wants to be the President of the United States of America.
It's your dichotomy that seems false to me. Kerry doesn't sound like a politician, just like an intelligent, educated man with a decent vocabulary.
(Of course, now that will come across as a slam on Bush, and this will turn into a Kerry versus Bush thing. What can I do? But I'm just pointing out that this begs the question of whether or not Kerry in fact does not sound like a typical American. If you are blue class, or Southern, then you will say he does not. But that hardly is the extent of American diversity. I certainly feel that Kerry is more like me than Bush is.)
Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
I guess, I just thought the majority of people would be able to relate more to a simple man who doesn't use fancy words. I see what you mean, though.
[ September 26, 2004, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: JaimeBenlevy ]
Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
What I meant was that regardless of how he looks or sounds we already pretty much know who he is since we've had him for four years as our president.
That didn't sound like a slam on Bush but it sounded like your opinion, which is the opposite of mine.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I don't want a President who sounds like an average American. I want a President who sounds like the best of us, who sets a bar as that to which we should aspire.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
What do you mean by "average American?" I really dislike that phrase.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I think deep down inside we all want:
Clinton/Liberman vs. McCain/Schwarzenegger
Let's trade some constitutional amendments and get this ball rolling.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
What is Lieberman doing in your little dream match-up?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:but the fact that Bush hasn't lost (I'm sure he hasn't lost it on purpose) the accent that so many people consider uncouth and ignorant really endears him to me.
What accent....the Conneticut one?
After all, that is where he was actually raised, and spent most of his time growing up, in NE...not Texas.
He did'nt have the "enderaing accent" until he entered public life.
Ever notice the rest of his familiy doesn't have the accent?
Kwea
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Heard Jed Bush on Hannity. He doesn't have it...
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Bush will "win" the debates because the unbiased commentators will be too busy exclaiming over how much he's improved with his public speaking ability to condemn him except with trivial whines that diehard Bush voters are going to ignore anyway. Kerry has no such (what seems to be a) blindly loyal following, and will be shot down for his presentation, to say nothing of possible mistakes. And since I'd guess most voters would expect "mistakes" from Bush to be repeated dogmatically, there's really nothing to call him on but that they're, at best ,wrong -- and we're already expecting that from Kerry.
The Democratic ticket is fighting uphill. Ironic that this is, as Jose said, the easiest choice we've had in a long time.
Not that it matters. I think I'll start collecting bets -- maybe put down $200 on Bush "winning" the election, one way or another. Anyone want to take me up on it?
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
"What is Lieberman doing in your little dream match-up?"
Giving Clinton dirty looks whenever an intern walks by.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I might take that bet if it were for a far smaller amount.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: What accent....the Conneticut one?
After all, that is where he was actually raised, and spent most of his time growing up, in NE...not Texas.
He did'nt have the "enderaing accent" until he entered public life.
Ever notice the rest of his familiy doesn't have the accent? [Roll Eyes]
Actually, I did notice that. I guess I miss-spoke. I should have said that he purposely acquired the accent (which is not strong, but noticable), isntead of that he purposely has not lost it.
*gives nit*
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
So, there are lots of people (apparently) who believe that Bush comes across as an "Average American," a "guy like me," etc.
I personally find him to be a very bad public speaker, who seems startled when questions veer from his planned answers (that's why the whole "friendly audience" thing bugs the snot out of me). Regardless of how good he makes people feel, I don't think it's debatable that he uses a folksy persona as an attempt to push this "average guy" view. He doesn't use "fancy words" and makes plenty of grammatical (and, occasionally, factual) errors.
So, question: is the "Average American" perception part of the more general trend toward anti-intellectualism that seems to be SO prevalent in rhetoric of all kinds these days?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Okay, in all fairness and in the interest of bi-partismanship, I have recently taken the time to listen to some of Kerry's speeches (to see exactly where he stands on the issues).
Now -- all political agendas and issues aside for the moment -- how in the world do you guys stand listening to Kerry?
I mean his voice. While I agree that Bush isn't exactly a Charismatic speaker, and has made flubs, and least it doesn't bother me to listen to him. (although some say he sounds like Donald Duck). But Kerry! If he is president, I don't think I can religiously watch the State of Union address as I always have in the past, and stay awake!
His voice just kind of drones on me. It isn't irritating -- it is just lifeless. I can't read any emotion into it.
If he talks that way in the debates, it will ruin him.
Farmgirl
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Actually, Farmgirl, I haven't listened to a State of the Union since Bush became president for the same reason you can't listen to Kerry--I can't STAND to hear him talk! The folksy accent bugs me because it seems affected to me, and the flubs drive me crazy, because to me, it seems like an indicator that he hasn't actually thought about what he's saying. His voice drives me insane! I've turned on the radio or the TV with the express intention of listening to one of his speeches, but had to turn it off for that reason.
So, I guess what I'm saying is, I totally sympathize with you!
Seriously, I'd rather have a less emotional presentation of something intelligent than an emotional presentation of something that boils my blood.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: So, there are lots of people (apparently) who believe that Bush comes across as an "Average American," a "guy like me," etc.
I personally find him to be a very bad public speaker,
To tell you the truth, the fact that he is not a great public speaker is part of what makes him come across as a normal human.
If you look at most people we see on TV, movies, etc., most of them have two things in common -- they are really, really good looking (Zoolander quote), and they are all very good speakers.
When was the last time you saw somebody with a hair lip or cleft pallate or on TV or movies? If you think of one, it probably threw you for surprise, didn't it? When was the last time you saw a character with a speech impediment that wasn't a bad guy nor comic relief?
My point is that we are told the message over and over that "normal" people are pretty and well-spoken.
But we all know that's not the case. Many times I have noticed a pretty girl and then came to the realization that if she were an actress, she would be relegated (strongbad vocabulary) to play either the ugly chick or the fat chick.
Normal people aren't as beautiful or well-spoken as the characters we see in fiction. We all know this.
Politicians get away with not having to be pretty, but almost universally, they are all pretty smooth talkers. That's understandable -- words are their profession, just like words are part of the profession of actors.
This is why Bush sounds more like a normal guy than a politician. Heis not well-spoken like practically all other politicians.
This is not a good thing, nor do I think it's a bad thing. I'm just trying to explain why some of us, on a purely emotional level, automatically percieve him as more like us.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
MPH, that makes a certain amount of sense to me. I can't say that I agree with it as a voting criteria; like Irami said,
quote: I don't want a President who sounds like an average American. I want a President who sounds like the best of us, who sets a bar as that to which we should aspire.
Still, I'm curious about the perception of intelligent people that he is "like them." All of the intelligent people I know are quite well-spoken (regardless of their political leanings). So, when intelligent people have a gut reaction against good public speaking, I'm just curious as to why.
Maybe it isn't so much that he's an "average guy," as that he's not a typically well-spoken politician. Thus, his attraction is more for what he isn't than what he is. Again, I tend to a) question this as a criteria for voting, and b) wonder if it's part of a more general trend of anti-intellectualism.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Hmm. It would be interesting to see opinions on Bush and Kerry’s “more like me” appeal broken down by whether or not the poll-ee does any public speaking, professionally or for volunteer organizations. Or was in debate team, mock trial, and/or drama club in school.
I read somewhere that public speaking is the number one fear among American adults. It even ranked higher than fear of death. So are those of us who don’t share that particular fear less likely to find poor public speaking an endearing trait in others?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
That would be interesting, dkw. Although I have quite a bit of experience as a public speaker -- and as a instructor -- and have never been afraid of speaking before a crowd and was a member of Toastmistress for while...
Perhaps the reason Bush's voice doesn't bother me like it does some of the others is that we are from the same region? I mean - I'm from Kansas and he's from Texas -- everyone in the Plains often have the same "folksy" way of talking -- so perhaps that is why it sounds more normal to me?
Farmgirl
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
But I love southern accents. My objections to the way he speaks are not based on his alleged southern accent. I lived in the south, I've had southern teachers that I respected very highly; that accent has positive connotations for me. :dontno:
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Still, I'm curious about the perception of intelligent people that he is "like them." All of the intelligent people I know are quite well-spoken (regardless of their political leanings). So, when intelligent people have a gut reaction against good public speaking, I'm just curious as to why.
Well, you and I have very different experiences. I have known many intelligent people with speech impediments. I have a (very) slight stuttering problem myself.
(note that I'm not saying that Bush has a speech impediment -- he just a verbal clutz.)
I have also known a lot of people that are extremely well-spoken but aren't all that bright.
It is a myth that sell-spokenness is correllated to intelligence. It is a myth perpetuated by the well-spoken people people in media.
quote: Maybe it isn't so much that he's an "average guy," as that he's not a typically well-spoken politician.
That's exactly correct.
quote: Again, I tend to a) question this as a criteria for voting, and b) wonder if it's part of a more general trend of anti-intellectualism.
a) It's a stupid criteria for voting, but it does create an emotional reaction in me. I don't think I should vote according to my emotional reactions. But a lot of people do, without even realizing it.
b) I don't think so. I think that this question indicates a tendency in you to correlate intellecutalism with well-spokenness just like you seem to correlate intelligence with well-spokeness.
Of course, I could be wrong. If so, let me know. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I read somewhere that public speaking is the number one fear among American adults. It even ranked higher than fear of death. So are those of us who don’t share that particular fear less likely to find poor public speaking an endearing trait in others?
I'm actually a pretty good public speaker, so I guess I could be the exception that proves the rule.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: But I love southern accents. My objections to the way he speaks are not based on his alleged southern accent. I lived in the south, I've had southern teachers that I respected very highly; that accent has positive connotations for me. :dontno:
But Bush doesn't have a traditional Southern Gentleman accent that so many people find charming.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
MPH, I think you are probably correct that I correlate intelligence with well-spokenness. I know the two don't always go hand-in-hand. However, in Bush's case, the combination of verbal klutziness (unrelated to a speech impediment--I know plenty of VERY intelligent people with speech impediments) and outright factual errors bugs me because it seems to indicate a lack of deep consideration of the ideas he's discussing. To me, it isn't that he comes across as unintelligent; it's that he comes across as "selling a line" that he's been coached to say. When something doesn't fit that coaching he acts surprised, nonplussed...as if the temerity of the person asking a question that he wasn't prepared for completely takes him aback.
Alright, I have to go to class now. So, if I don't respond, it's not because I'm running off.
(this is what I get for posting in a serious thread!)
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Megan -- but what is your take on the way Kerry speaks? I mean, it is well-formatted, but almost always sounds rehearsed or "read" when I hear it...
Farmgirl
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
To be honest, (and this may be the very bias that MPH pointed out), I prefer well-formatted oratory to stumbling "just another guy" speech. However, I'm not basing my voting on who I perceive to be more like me (though, when it comes down to it, I do identify more with Kerry than Bush on that front).
My voting choice is based a whole host of other issues that, because I have class in nine minutes, I can't get into here. (Actually, I probably wouldn't get into them on Hatrack--there are people here much better able to argue for the issues I believe in, and those people tend to deal with the conflict much better than I do).
aagh! Eight minutes to class now! Must go! Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Yeah -- I wasn't talking about voting choice. I think everyone on Hatrack already has their ideas pretty set on who they are voting for.
I was only talking about speaking style alone. Period. And wanted feedbacks from others on the speaking style of the two.
It certainly isn't going to affect who I vote for.
Farmgirl
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: To be honest, (and this may be the very bias that MPH pointed out), I prefer well-formatted oratory to stumbling "just another guy" speech.
And yet you were just compaining that when Bush speaks, he "comes across as "selling a line" that he's been coached to say". Why do you like it when Kerry does it, but now when Bush does it? Is it something completely different, or does Kerry just do it better?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
John Kerry is a pretty bad public speaker too, he's just bad in another way. Both his delivery and his message are convulted and murky.
Here's a NYT article on pretty much that very thing. One of the big advantages President Bush has over Senator Kerry is in their public speaking. Republicans have spent billions of dollars since the early 90s trying to figure out how to package their message, generally into as few emotionally resonant words and/or images as possible. In contrast, it seems to me that, on the national level, the Democrats have relied largely on people's personal abilities, augmented by ad hoc PR consultants, with an often quite poor result. George Bush's message is a great deal more cohesive and polished than John Kerry's.
Also George Bush's poor public speaking is of an anti-intellectual type, whcih appeals to a large section of voting public to the point where they actually prefer his malapropisms to a more correct speaker. John Kerry's problems, on the other hand, reveal a pretty strong component of bs intellectualism, which pretty much only appeals to pretty low rate intellectuals. Despite what the conservative spin machine may tell you, there really aren't all that many of them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Republicans have spent billions of dollars
billions? Billions??? Are you sure about that number? (I'm assuming That 0.02 billion doens't count as billions in this case).
I don't know the answer, only that I will be shocked if I learn that you are correct.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Here's a portion of an article that explains what I was trying to say, much better than I said it previously:
quote: Robin Lakoff, a professor of linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, said that when she turns down the volume and just watches Bush and Kerry, "it clarifies why Bush is more effective. He has the nonverbal stuff, the facial expressions and gestures." He furrows his brows, he seems to look through the camera to make eye contact, she says.
Kerry, by contrast, "really has no facial expression," says Lakoff. "He just talks. ... I think Kerry's long sentences and lack of intonation and facial expression say, 'Yes, I'm very smart but I'm kind of phoning it in.'"
Yes, I think I personally key into body language and facial expression when "reading" someone, and if I turned off the volume and heard no words during the debates, I might still have the same opinion of both speaker's styles..
Farmgirl
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, If you take republicans as including groups made up of republicans and dedicated towards furthering the republican agenda then I'm comfortable with that number. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the Politcal Correctness campaign in and of itself.
PR expedentures are currently running very high in American society and some of the biggest clients are politically oriented.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: They spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the Politcal Correctness campaign in and of itself.
How much of that money was spent on getting the message out, and how much was spent on trying to figure out how to package the message, which is what we are talking about?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, I have no idea and that's a good point. My wording was somewhat too loose. However, since many PR campaigns include a post campaign step of evaluating how effective the campaign was, I think you can include "getting the message out" as part of the studying how to package a message.
Look, if you have a problem with the exact number that I used (which I wasn't trying to be exact with) than how about framing it as they've made a conscious decision to make studying how to package their message a central priority and have poured huge amounts of resources into it. I can't substantiate exactly how much money has been dedicated to research by republicans in the past almost 15 years - I doubt anyone could - but I'm willing to bet saying billions is a better fit than saying millions.
edit: Does anyone know how to go about finding out how much conservative/republican think tanks spend? That might help put this issue in a better perspective. The data I've seen was from the PR end, and that only as a comparison of how much money goes to PR firms and loose categorization of what it was spent on.
[ September 27, 2004, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
MrS. OK, I see what you are getting at. Thanks for the response.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Does anyone know how to go about finding out how much conservative/republican think tanks spend?
and the Democrat think tanks, too, right? I mean, I'm sure you want to do a fair comparison.....
Farmgirl
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Oh and I should probably point out that I think that what the republicans have done is pretty much neutral. While I think that the culture of public relations is a deceitful and selfish one, I don't think using it to figure out what types of messages work is any better or worse than what preceded it or the more clumsy ways the democrats use it. In my opinion, the republicans have acted smarter in regard to PR, but the morality/ethics (which I think is pretty poor) of this is more or less much equal to what the democrats do.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Being equal to the Democrats does not make it okay.
The problem with both is that they intentionally trick people into accepting their views, which is a way of making the most truthful views lose out to the most deceptive. The fact that our political system (and perhaps society) is dominated by that sort of behavior is a huge problem for everyone involved.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
MPH, because in general I feel like the lines Bush is selling are lies, and ones he's been fed by his handlers at that. Again, my own political bias showing...sorry about that--I realize that you probably have no political bias to show.
Regardless of the content of the speeches, I prefer well-presented oratory to "aw, shucks" speeches. I want the leader I vote for to speak and seem intelligent, to display well-thought-out positions and a clear and profound understanding of those positions. These are all things I do not find in Bush, and things I do find in Kerry.
Now, I'm bowing out of this thread. It was a mistake, as always, for me to post in serious political threads. It never accomplishes anything.
*flees to the fluff*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
FWIW, Megan, I think you are doing a fine job on this thread. Well, except for the fact that you ran away.
Yes, I have a political bias of my own, but I am attempting to discuss how Bush comes across as a speaker, regardless of whether I like what he is actually saying.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I can't really understand anti-intellectualism either. I WANT an intellectual president. One who does research. Who looks at things from different perspectives. Who is willing to bend when it's better for the country. Who will show a bit of humility if he has made a mistake in judgement rather than trying to cover gapping wounds with tiny bandaids. I want a president who doesn't resort to... statements that just push patriotic buttons. It's a little hard to explain..
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I'm sorry, Megan, if we offended you. Didn't mean to come across in that way. Truly only trying to talk about delivery styles.
But perhaps you are right -- maybe it is impossible for ANY of us to listen to a speaker without our own paradigms affecting what and how we hear what is being said.
Farmgirl
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Synestasia -- the things you are talking about, to me, don't have anything to do with intellectualism nor the lack of it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Who will show a bit of humility if he has made a mistake in judgement rather than trying to cover gapping wounds with tiny bandaids.
^ Not a trait of most of the 'intellectuals' I know.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I wasn't offended, Farmgirl...more frustrated at my own inability to express what I believe. I still love you guys!
To be honest, this is why I rarely participate in serious threads of any kind, but especially political ones. I feel like I don't express my opinion very clearly, and it's a minority opinion at that, so that whenever the response comes, I feel all the little flaws of my argument magnified. But...it's just a personal thing, nothing against either you or MPH.
Anyway, I believe you (or myself, as interpreted by you?) to be right about this, the more I think about it:
quote: maybe it is impossible for ANY of us to listen to a speaker without our own paradigms affecting what and how we hear what is being said.
I can't hear Bush without thinking about how I feel about his presidency; it's almost as though when he speaks, I hear all his actions of the past four years. And though I agree with some of them, there are more of them that I disagree with. Perhaps it's THAT that I'm reacting to, rather than his speaking style, per se.
It may be that speaking style (regardless of the speaker) is just a surface issue, designed to draw people who decide their vote not on issues, but on things like a candidate's appearance and the "guy like me" appeal. I wonder if this is the majority of voters...if it is, that makes me kind of sad. I guess maybe the educated voter is going the way of the dodo.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
sorry for the double post, but...
quote:
quote: Who will show a bit of humility if he has made a mistake in judgement rather than trying to cover gapping wounds with tiny bandaids.
^ Not a trait of most of the 'intellectuals' I know.
This is kind of what I mean by anti-intellectualism. I know lots of intellectuals who have that trait, but people automatically react to the word negatively. I had an uncle who once got very, very upset with me, near the beginning of the Iraq occupation because I didn't support it. He sent a couple of angry emails to the family listserv, and then when I emailed him privately and apologized for offending him, he responded by accusing me of being a "liberal university intellectual," as if it was a curse. It's this attitude that I see so much that bothers me--the idea that being an intellectual means having your head and sand and PRETENDING like you know everything when REALLY you know nothing.
So, when I say, I wonder how much anti-intellectualism plays a role in the response to the speaking styles of both Bush and Kerry, that's what I mean--the folksy style of Bush is, in some ways, an appeal to those who believe that intellectuals are, fundamentally, idiots and phonies.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: It's this attitude that I see so much that bothers me--the idea that being an intellectual means having your head and sand and PRETENDING like you know everything when REALLY you know nothing.
Why does it bother you that people have this perception? Have you considered why people might have that perception? Do you feel like there is no reason? Do you feel that those that feel that way are just idiots?
Just saying that you want people to think a different way isn't terribly useful.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I suppose it bothers me because I know plenty of "liberal university intellectuals" whose views are just as well-considered as any "average joe"--if not moreso. In a way, I guess it's because, as someone going into an utterly academic profession, I consider myself to be an intellectual.
As for why people have this perception, I'm not honestly sure. I think some people are following party line--i.e., the "liberal intellectuals" say thus and such, but the "average American" knows better! In a way, it's as much a bugbear as corporate America is to the liberal way of thinking. Other people, I suppose, have had bad experiences with those intellectuals who are exactly as the stereotype describes--phonies who really only know their field, and that only narrowly.
It's still a stereotype, though, and not a useful one, either. You can't assume that an intellectual is going to be the smartest or best person for the job, but neither can you assume that that same intellectual is an idiot and a phony.
Edit: I don't feel that the people who think this way are idiots; I think they're subscribing to a stereotype. And since I'm one of the ones being stereotyped, I tend to respond rather strongly to it.
[ September 27, 2004, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Megan ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'll take that on. If you use a big word or a precise term m_p_h (and I know you yourself love precise terms) but it is too "big" a word and someone who isn't as erudite doesn't understand the meaning of the word, (even if you don't realize it) they think you are being a phony snob.
AJ
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You think so? I don't know. I have a larger than average vocabulary, and I am a big fan of using precise terms for precise meanings, but I don't think I come across as a snob.
Beverly, what do you think?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
MPH, I think Banna was saying that the appearance of snobbery depends largely on the understanding of your audience. If your audience knows the word you use, they don't consider you a snob. If they don't know the word you use, then they do. Thus, it may be possible to come across as a snob without realizing it (I've done this before, not on Hatrack (I hope), but in other online situations).
[ September 27, 2004, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Megan ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
What exactly is a snob? Does that mean sounding pretentious? An old friend of Porter's once said that he is the most unpretentious person she has ever met. I am not quite sure what *she* meant by that, but to me Porter just seems to be who he is. He doesn't ever try to pretend to be something he is not.
I think there is more to being pretentious than using big words. There has to be an actual sense that the person is trying to sound more impressive than they actually are. I think that comes across in subtle ways that are difficult to pinpoint.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: the folksy style of Bush is, in some ways, an appeal to those who believe that intellectuals are, fundamentally, idiots and phonies.
Well, Megan, I don't think you were trying to stereotype those of us who like Bush..... .....but
I come from a whole family of intellectuals (most much brighter than me, even though I was a straight A student, and have a college degree, but I'm the only one in my surrounding family that doesn't have a graduate degree ) and I don't think any of us think well-educated intellectual people are idiots and phonies.
I know I often don't show any intellectual side while on Hatrack. Because that just isn't the way I come across -- probably most people here think of me as a hick. *shrug* Sometimes I prefer it that way...
Farmgirl
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I thought an intellectual was simply someone who gravitated more to analytical thought than the average human. So many people seem to be unable to think analytically or to not enjoy doing so. I think it is because they were raised to not value it.
I was raised in a family that did not value analytical thought. They valued emotional conviction far more. But I myself gravitate towards analytical thought by nature. As a result, I have always felt out-of-place in my family, and yet also out-of-place also amongst those who were raised to think analytically because I am a "late comer". I consider myself and intellectual with a non-intellectual background.
My point being: I do not feel a negative association with the word "intellectual". I guess I have heard it used derogatorally, but it never carried that meaning for me.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Now, I don't believe all people who like Bush believe that all people who are intellectuals are frauds. I didn't mean for it to come off like that; I tried hard to see that it wouldn't, but ...ah, well. What I was trying to say is that I think that his particular speaking style is calculated to attract those people who believe that intellectualism is bad, in some way. Why those particular believe it's bad, I do not know. I know the stereotype is there, though, because I've experienced it firsthand. And I was just pondering whether that stereotype had spilled over into political discourse.
Farmgirl, I never once thought you were a hick. Actually, with few exceptions, I think EVERYONE on Hatrack comes across as somewhat intellectual, to my way of thinking.
Sorry if that offends anyone... You big, goofy group of intellectuals!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Political strategists I have heard say that the first debate is the most important, because more people watch it. Only half as many or less tune in to the second or third debates.
That being the case, the Bush team gained a real advantage by having the debates dedicated to specific topics, with the first one being devoted to the War on Terror/War in Iraq, where Bush is the strongest according to all the polls; and where Kerry cannot help but alienate at least a third of his supporters by taking a clear, definitive stand on what to do in Iraq--since his supporters are sharply divided on what to do.
The Bush team also negated any psychological advantage Kerry might have from being three inches taller than the president, by stipulating that both candidates must sit down for the debates, rather than stand.
Many media commentators claim that past debates have been won on how much the candidates seem likeable, confident, and connected to their audience. Here is where Bush has a natural advantage over Kerry. He knows how to make direct, simple responses, while Kerry seems addicted to "naunce" and lengthy explanations.
The fact that the president and his team agreed to three debates has to indicate that they have considerable confidence that Bush will come off better than Kerry, and that the more people see of Kerry, the more people will be turned off from him. Past incumbents who were ahead in the polls have generally chosen to skip one of the debates and only have two, in order to minimize the risks of saying something disastrous, and to minimize the psychological effect of having the challenger on the same stage with the president, which tends to elevate the challenger to equal status. So the Bush people must be fairly certain they will gain a lot in the debates.
Bush has the additional advantage that even if he does say something dumb, it can be dismissed as another "Bushism." He even made fun of himself about his "mastery" of English when he noted in his acceptance speech that he knew he was in trouble when even Arnold Schwarzenegger began correcting him on how he spoke.
Some people say that Kerry has a history of rallying at the end in his campaigns, and expect that he will somehow miraculously "pull it out" in the debates. But it must be remembered that all his past election campaigns have been in the liberal state of Massachusetts. His one national election success was only in the Democratic primaries, and he never seemed any better than any of his opponents in the primary debates.
How he ever won the nomination rather than Dean, who started out in the lead for the nomination, remains a mystery, although some suspect that the Clinton wing of the Democratic party engineered and manipulated the whole thing so the Democratic Party would select the weakest candidate, so Hillary can have a clear shot to be the party's presidential nominee in 2008. Dean probably would have beaten Bush easily.)
[ September 28, 2004, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Kerry can win these debates if he goes in with a simple phrase: "You didn't answer the question Mr. President."
Every single time Bush avoids the real question in favor of a pat and misleading answer, Kerry needs to come out with that, explain why as quickly as possible, then shut up (or explain his own position quickly and succinctly, depending on format).
If he keeps it up, he'll give Bush a boil like the one he got on election night, make him lose his temper in public, and handily win the debate.
Bush has built his administration on a framework of not speaking unscripted and not answering questions, and if Kerry calls him on that he'll win.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
OK, 30 minutes to go time. Any last minute predictions? So far, besides Chris and myself I think the predictions have pretty much followed partisan lines.
I support Kerry but I think Bush will come across as the more likable candidate tonight. Hope I'm wrong though. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I predict that Bush supporters will believe that Bush “won” and Kerry supporters will believe that Kerry “won.” Both sides will think that the win is obvious and not understand how anyone could possibly disagree, unless they are a completely brainwashed liberal/conservative. Both sides will have arguments for their position, which will be seen by the other side as side issues or nitpicking, while in the substantive issues their candidate was clearly superior.
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
Not to try to sound like I'm patting myself on the back, but I have been called very intelligent. BUT! I have an annoying habit of speaking 'lazy'. At times I find this to be advantageous. It causes people to underestimate me. And it takes them by surprise when I take a turn towards 'seriousness'. This doesn't show so much in this medium as I tend to type correct english. But if you were to hear me speak (most of the time) I will lay the southern accent on pretty heavy. And trust me, I can lay it on THICK.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:How he ever won the nomination rather than Dean, who started out in the lead for the nomination, remains a mystery, although some suspect that the Clinton wing of the Democratic party engineered and manipulated the whole thing so the Democratic Party would select the weakest candidate, so Hillary can have a clear shot to be the party's presidential nominee in 2008. Dean probably would have beaten Bush easily.)
I want to live in your world. You make reality seem dull and lifeless in comparison. Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
For the record, my prediction was a bust:
quote:Both CBS and ABC released quickie reaction polls. The CBS survey of 200 "fence sitters" showed 44 percent said Kerry won, 26 percent said Bush won and 30 percent said it was a tie. The ABC numbers were similar in that 45 percent gave the edge to Kerry while 36 chose Bush and 17 percent said it was a tie.
Stephanie Cutter, the Kerry campaign communications director, told FOX News that their internal flash polling showed Kerry's favorability going from 43 to 68 percent. The Kerry campaign usually doesn't release internal polls.
quote: I predict that Bush supporters will believe that Bush “won” and Kerry supporters will believe that Kerry “won.”
Well, not always.
Having been a debate judge for the local high school -- overall, I would have to say Kerry "won" the debate, as far as presentation (not necessarily as far as facts -- but this debate was not to see who could "tell the truth" the most, but who could sway the listeners -- in other words, who presented better).
Kerry was smoother and more articulate, I will admit, and Bush got irritated at Kerry and let it show on his face. I will give you that.
However, it did not sway ME as a voter (as you expect) but it might have had impact on fence-sitters.
Overall, from my end though, I felt Kerry did a lot of finger-pointing as to everything he feels Bush has done wrong, but without any kind future-looking plan as to how he is going to do it differently or better. There were a couple of exceptions to this, but I'm talking about overall. Some people may be turned off by Kerry's constant negativity and "gloominess" he is using to portray this nation (in order to show Bush faults) when people want hope. It will be intersting to see how people react to this.
Waiting for Debate #2
FG
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Having been a debate judge for the local high school
Farmgirl.
Bless you for volunteering. I volunteer at my high school's debate camp every summer and we could never find enough interested parents to act as judges.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:The fact that the president and his team agreed to three debates has to indicate that they have considerable confidence that Bush will come off better than Kerry, and that the more people see of Kerry, the more people will be turned off from him. ... So the Bush people must be fairly certain they will gain a lot in the debates. --Ron Lambert, above
Hmm, I thought the Bush Jr team was refusing to commit him to three debates. Was I wrong on this?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sara, one thing that developed was that the Bush campaign used the desire of the Kerry campaign for three debates as leverage to get many details they wanted, such as dividing the debates into topics with Iraq and the War on Terror being the topic for the first one, which is always the most-watched, as well as other things like the time lights that prevented Kerry from dominating the debate by running over like he has with others in the past.
I really cannot say that either candidate won last night's debate. They both scored some points. Kerry was effective on the offensive at first, but then Bush counter-punched well.
At first I was going to say that neither candidate obviously shot himself in the foot, but on reflection, it is possible Kerry may have shot himself in the foot when he said that he favored the idea of using the military in pre-emptive attacks when necessary, "but only after passing a global test." That was immediately pounced on by the President, and was a major point in his speech this morning in Pennsylvania where he said he would not allow "defending America's national security interests to be subject to a veto by France." We will likely be hearing about this for the rest of the campaign. Kerry will be forced to explain away the remark (or else be laughed and booed into oblivion), and in doing so once again reinforce the impression most people already have of him that he is a flip-flopper.
We will see in a few days what the polls say, but I think that after the debate has been digested by voters, Kerry's "global test" gaffe could go down in history with President Gerald Ford's gaffe when he said emphatically, "there is no communist domination in Poland."
Considering the fact that Bush came into the debate ahead in the polls and gaining in momentum especially in key battleground states, Kerry needed to score a clear and decisive win in this debate. His failure to do that in itself is a loss.
While future debates will be dedicated to topics where many feel Kerry will be stronger, it has also been typical in the past that less than half as many viewers tune in to the second and third debates. The first debate is always the one with the highest viewer ratings. Thus if polls show in the next few days that Bush continues to increase his lead, there will be little Kerry can do in the next two debates to pull it out. If the polls do not start going Kerry's way in the next few days, then democratic candidates around the country are going to start jumping ship and distancing themselves from the Kerry campaign, urging voters to split their ticket lest they be pulled down with a Kerry debacle. When that starts happening, the Kerry campaign will be done for.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Isn't the notion of passing the global test before a preemptive strike exactly what Kerry means to say, though? That's his position in a brief statement.
We can't fault him for not being clear and then also fault him for presenting his position too clearly.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And if the opposite happens, Ron, will you eat your hat? Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Part of the job is looking deeply into the issue and explaining it. It's why we Chris Bridges, Sara Sasse, Scopatz, and TomD on a political board.
There is also a persuasive school of thought that says that if you can't lay out an issue through words, then you don't understand it. I'm not the most eloquent speaker or writer, but I do believe that there is something to this criticism. If you don't speak to the issue in its depth, there is reason to believe you are not thinking about the issue in its depth.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Your sentence no verb.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Maybe my airhat, Tom.
But yes, it could well be that Kerry actually meant what he said, and will be laughed and booed into oblivion for it.
The statement does harken back to his statement to the Harvard Crimson back in 1970, soon after Kerry returned from Vietnam and had organized the Vietnam Veterans Against the War antiwar protest movement, that he believed that it would be better if in the future the U.S. military is only sent abroad to engage in action at the direction of the United Nations. This was of course an extreme statement for which he was ridiculed even by liberals, and since then he has tried to explain away that statement as "youthful exuberance" or some such thing, and that he does not believe that now. But doesn't he? He just said basically the same thing again with his "global test" statement.
If he does not retreat from the statement, like he did from the Harvard Crimson statement, liberals and conservatives alike are going to deride him, and Republicans are going to hammer him unmercifully for it until election day.
quote:Kerry said that the United Nations should have control over most of our foreign military operations. "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As you pointed out, Kerry said that 34 years ago. I would love a record of what Bush was saying 34 years ago.
Secondly, his world test thing is not the same, his position now is that the US can act unilaterally and at the prerogative of the President, but when it comes time to put the cards on the table we need to be holding good ones. Before his position was we needed approval before we went to war.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
I must say I didn't watch the debates. I am tired of the two party system. Why weren't any of the other candidates invited to debate? Why can't we have several more debates allowing more of the candidates to participate?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Why can't we have several more debates allowing more of the candidates to participate?"
Because one of them might actually win.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Out of interest, Ron, on your planet, is there any possible reality in which Kerry does not wind up exposed as a fraud, defeated handily, and derided by millions? Just asking. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I think Kerry's statement from 30 years ago is dead on. If people aren't attacking us, we should only be attacking them if the world agrees it is right - same as one person attacking another in the U.S.
However, Kerry's statement from 30 years ago bears no resemblence whatsoever to his policy today, or his record. He now states flat out that America does have the right to invade whomever it chooses whenever it chooses. He said that as recently as last night. His remark about the "global test" was referring to a standard of decent behavior that mankind as a whole has accepted in the past. It's a standard along the lines of saying you have to have proof your preemptive target is a real and immediate threat. This is "global" in the same way that the standard rules of war are global.
But to try to characterize that as claiming other nations get to decide when we have passed that test is a rather obvious misrepresentation, given Kerry has specifically rejected that idea during the campaign on multiple occassions and explained it during the debate as specifically not that.
Truthfully, I think he'd be a wiser leader if he did say we are bound to the U.N.'s decisions when it comes to preemptie strikes, because that is how it should be. But the fact remains he quite clearly did not say that, despite whatever words Republicans want to put in his mouth. It's clear enough that I think most average voters would immediately see through such attacks.
[ October 02, 2004, 02:00 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Tom, stop putting smilies on the ends of your biting, acerbic posts. It removes power from your otherwise masterful writing.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
If it makes you feel better, feel free to think of them as sarcastic, derisive smirks. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
But that taints the wholesome goodness of the smiley.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
quote:"Why can't we have several more debates allowing more of the candidates to participate?"
Because one of them might actually win.
I knew there was a good reason Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
In answer to your question, Tom, probably the only planet in which Kerry would not wind up exposed as a fraud, defeated handily, and derided by millions would be "Planet Hollywood."
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Oddly enough Ron, that is the same planet where Bush would win all three debates, as you first claimed he would...
It might be the only planet where Bush could make it through an entire televised debate without making a word up or misusing one that really exists.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)