Wed, 10/15/2008 - 1:47pm — gqmartinez
1. Claim the race is already over.
2. Use 1. above to say that the losing candidate needs to have a "game changer".
3. Make the debates such that no "game changer" is possible.
4. Declare that no "game changer" happened and so the losing candidate actually lost the debate.
Can anyone think of a debate "game changer" over the last 20 years?
NOTE: For the knee-jerkers, this is more about process than anything candidate specific. If the media uses this tactic now, they will use it again in the future. Perhaps on the "debate" of whether we should invade Iran.
»
- gqmartinez's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
today's campaign spin doc says exactly that--
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashotp.htm --
OBAMA CAMPAIGN ISSUES TALKING POINTS TO MEDIA AHEAD OF DEBATE
Yes, and the MSM will shamelessly spout those
word for word.
Its about more than this election
The media can help you--if, say, you're an Obama or Bush supporter--but it can cause havoc as well--when it comes to war and bailout bills and 9/11 hysteria. I try to ask questions about the consequences of our actions beyond this election, but it inevitably turns to Obama, when the consequences are likely to be more far reaching.
Obama's gonna coast-- all old stuff --
"... Mr. Obama, whose political advantages have expanded since the debating began late last month in Mississippi, is aiming to hold his position in the race. He is not expected to offer any new policy proposals, advisers said, or say anything he hasn’t already addressed. ..." -- http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/...
Speaking of Obama and the media
From Frontline on Obama's astonishingly quick rise to power:
I can't help but be deeply suspicious of a man who when he wins, wins so damn easily. Amazing "luck" isn't it?
Also, I love how the show didn't focus on the fact that in spite of every possible advantage, including bigotry and his Oh, So Amazing! personality, the DNC still had to rig it for him. The media and the DNC may have been absolutely desperate to have Obama, but the people chose another, especially in the big and battleground GE states where Lady Lucifer won all (exception: IL and MO where she lost by a hair).
yup--he still couldn't close the deal--
everyone else still has to do everything for him while he coasts, as usual.
That FrontLine interview is terrific
This part rings true:
The Village loves that, I'm sure. The problems are: (1) the so-called polar opposites are framed by the Overton Window, and (2) one of the "polar opposites" may be, er, the right thing to do. Like single payer.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Game changer
I am sure that folks at home are equating "game changer" with how to keep control of the remote control.
The only game changer I can see is if Americans dump the old paradigm of feeling sorry for everyone else while making sure that they are at the top no matter who gets fubared. Obama fills the role for them perfectly, someone they can feel sorry for and also feel as if he will fuck over others in order for them to get to the top.
It also gives folks a feeling of smug self righteous satisfaction. Sums up the US and pretty much is why the US will not last as a top power worldwide. Masochism is great in the bedroom but it pretty much sucks when we are the masochists in worldwide politics.
http://www.correntewire.com/ye_olde_writ... fiction link
http://www.correntewire.com/ye_olde_writ... fiction link
we're done as a superpower--
and we always were just a rich 3rd-world country in reality, and now we're not even that.
Title: Final debate: Game changer?
It's a twist on your model but thought you might find it amusing as the question is actually posed with the "game changer" terminology: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/16/fi...