Wednesday, December 17, 2014

How to find the best political candidate.

There are political insiders and political outsiders, and then there are those who scramble for votes by trying outdated tactics of tailoring their messages to distinctly contradictory groups, as if the Internet and the news media were still run by the Pony Express and one group wouldn't hear what was said to the other group.

Fair Weather Politics

The 2014 election for Democrats who tried to ping-pong the divide between Progressives and Conservatives, or more accurately between Wall Street and Main Street, was an utter disaster. Many Democrats were hoodwinked into believing a myth that President Obama's approval rating was "plummeting" and would be toxic to their campaigns so they ran away.
Democrats have ceded the territory of reality to Republican fantasy. Need a specific example? The media of late have been touting the story of "Obama's dropping approval ratings" noting that his "approval ratings have plunged to record lows" and have "plummeted" and are "sinking to historic lows." Only one problem with this narrative: it is factually and demonstrably false. Here is the verifiable truth: from January 1, 2014 to October 30, 2014, Obama's approval rating fell from 42.6 percent to 42 percent. The year's peak was 44 percent, and the low of the year was 41 percent. A drop of about one-half of one percent does not constitute numbers that are "plummeting" or "sinking" or even "dropping." Yet the Democrats sit by and let this nonsense flow forth with no fight.
The result of the propaganda was best encapsulated by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, but the publisher of this article, maintained the myth of Obama's waning approval ratings, but that's not the point of this post.
 Jon Stewart Compares Democrats’ Desperate Attempts Of Avoiding Questions About Obama To A Murder Deposition
In the end, the Democrats who tried Republican-Lite politics disenfranchised their base.

Political Insiders

Political insiders have two channels of communication. One more public with the majority of their voting base, and the other, less public, with their donors, But they too seem to be oblivious to the Internet. When the two channels of communication become dissonant, the true motivations of the candidate become suspect. Alright, it's "Two-Faced." Clear enough?
First, Clinton appeared at a private fundraiser for Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), an embattled incumbent who favors construction of the massive Keystone XL oil pipeline opposed by environmentalists.
Just two hours later, Clinton appeared on a different stage to deliver a speech to the League of Conservation Voters — a mainstream environmental group that strenuously opposes Keystone.
When the public channel of communication goes entirely silent, the objectives become implicitly self-serving, most often alienating a huge swath of the public.
Where was Hillary when the Cromnibus reared its head? As Politico made clear, "Clinton has not commented on the $1.1 trillion spending bill, which Warren claims will undo (financial) reforms made under the Dodd-Frank law."
Political Outsiders

The rules of deception, by the way, also include deception by omission, or silence. Silence however appears to be a standard rule for not upsetting campaign donors and potential post-political employers and high-cash speaking engagements, The rule of silence or motivated self-censorship have no appeal or intimidation for Senator Elizabeth Warren:
Elizabeth Warren was told to stay quiet, but she didn’t – and it’s paying off
Senator Warren's behavior indirectly shines a harsh spotlight on Insider Politics. Without naming names, her straightforwardness alone is creating a glaring example of honesty for the rest of us to compare to other political behavior.

“I’d love to see [Clinton] match [Warren’s] talking points in terms of the economy, just reforming Wall Street,” said Nick Moe, a political and environmental activist from Alaska. “She’s been absolutely silent as the Dodd-Frank legislation is being rolled back. Where was she?”
Some media outlets have discovered the potential for using "Guilt by Association" tactics to try an ruin a politician's future by asking questions that will inadvertently insinuate the politician into the snake pit of another politician whose behavior has proven questionable at best. I was deeply saddened when I read this:

Al Franken Realizes Mid-Sentence That He's Endorsing Hillary Clinton
It was said that Al Franken was a straight-shooter on his campaign and didn't fear being associated with President Obama's accomplishments over the last six years. Senator Al Franken  falls into the same class of politician as Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders. His ethics held up against a deluge of false propaganda from his opponent.

Throughout his campaign, McFadden has worked hard to link Franken to the low approval ratings of President Obama, emphasizing repeatedly that Franken votes with the president 97 percent of the time. But that criticism does not appear to have hurt Franken’s job-approval rating, which has risen slightly, from 53 percent in September to 55 percent now. That’s the same approval rating Franken had in February and is far above his career low of 41 percent in September 2009.
I hope you find this information helpful for identifying your candidate of choice for the 2016 elections. Look for those who are not afraid of speaking out against those who exploit the working people and the poor.