A PBS host was interviewing the Chairwoman of the American Communist Party about why the Communists weren’t fielding a candidate in 2016. Shocking, only to the unenlightened, the Chairwoman replied candidly: “Because the Communist Party believes our goals are well represented in the Democrat Party platform this year.”
"As a winning political campaign consultant, I’ve even advised my candidates to skip attending debates altogether, knowing there would be no consequence as long as the campaign was attending to the work that really matters.
"Those candidates all won, by the way.
"Alarmingly-precise voter data-targeting, the ability to instantaneously place political “info-bytes” into people’s hands digitally, and countless modern voter-contact techniques have rendered televised debates “a thing of the past” for impacting election outcomes.
"In truth, debates haven’t been pivotal to campaign outcomes for decades. Today, debates “ratify” existing viewpoints, they don’t change them. Fact: If a particular candidate is deemed to have “won” a debate, it results in a very small polling “bump.” which dissipates a few days later.
"In short, they have no impact.
"So, why do TV networks still host them? And why do candidates still attend them?
"Answer: The TV cable channels want sound-bites for their news shows, and hoped-for ratings to help sell advertising. The candidates believe they can increase their name identification, with the hope it translates into better fundraising opportunities, or a Cabinet appointment.
"But edifying voters is not a real goal of the debate process or of the candidates." . . .
Cartoons from The Week added by TD
No comments:
Post a Comment