shanen
shanen's JournalOut of touch ads
I agree that the out of touch ads are good, but I think that many of Romney's supporters think they can become rich, too. Yeah, all the statistics say that America is becoming less and less open to such social mobility, but they still want to believe it.
Let me add the caution that I can't understand anyone who would sincerely support Romney for any positive reason. I understand his votes from idiots who vote for the last TV ad. That's the same way they buy toothpaste.
I'm also unable to get inside the minds of the anti-Obama extremists, though I know that they are also eager to support Romney. I'm sure that such people think they are closer to Romney, so again I don't see how this ad would persuade any of them to think differently.
There will be change (reposted in the correct place?)
There Will be Change
An open letter to President Obama:
America is dying, and it's my fault. I'm not a powerful person, so the degree of my fault is relatively small. However, insofar as America is a representative democracy and my vote is as good as yours, then I share that degree of blame with you.
Insofar as you are a MORE powerful and influential person than I am, it is MORE your fault. In particular, if you are a professional politician using gerrymandering, lies, and the bribes you've received to make my vote ineffective, worthless, and meaningless, then your fault is just that much greater.
Insofar as President Obama is a much more powerful and influential person than you or I, it is much more his fault. He's supposed to be the leader of America, and he is not leading to positive change.
While we are alive, we change. Only in death does change stop--but America is dying.
There will be change. Good or bad?
President Obama campaigned on promises of good changes. He has not delivered those good changes. Pick your favorite promise and cry. Now Romney is campaigning on promises of bad changes. Romney promises to change back to policies that are already proven failures. Weep some more.
The choice of this election is apparently between empty promises and bad promises. Once again it's apparently a choice between bad and not quite so bad.
Does President Obama have a good excuse? Sort of. I believe he sincerely tried to help America and he at least tried to put America's good ahead of politics while his opponents put their personal hatred of Obama ahead of EVERYTHING else. There was a time when patriotic political opponents could still hope the president could succeed insofar as that was part of the success of America. Kind of hard to believe now. John Wayne probably said it best when he said "I didn't vote for him, but he's my President, and I hope he does a good job," but...
Is there any hope for America? I really doubt it, but I think there is only one path that might lead towards good change.
If President Obama wins a narrow victory and continues to face an obstructionist Congress, we know there will be no change. If Romney wins, he will change America for the worse.
The only path for good change is with a massive defeat of the neo-GOP Congress. You'd think that would be easy given the low approval of Congress--but they've rigged the system in favor of the incumbents. That's the ONLY thing all of the professional politicians can agree on.
President Obama should mostly ignore Romney. That's just forces a choice between lesser evils.
President Obama should campaign DIRECTLY and primarily against the neo-GOP Congress. He should go to the districts of the worst neo-GOP Congressmen and try to flip them from 'safe neo-GOP incumbent' to 'probable Democratic challenger'. He should speak directly to the voters in those districts and tell them that they have the power of change. Not likely, but at least that would be a possibility.
Here are some of the things he could do in a target district: (1) Give a speech in the district focusing on the harms of Congress and the specific harms of that Congressman and personal attacks from that Congressman. (2) Appear with and strongly endorse the Democratic challenger. (3) Make short forms for advertising in that district. (4) Put videos of all of the above on the Internet addressed to the voters of that district. (Of course he should use similar tactics for the Senate, going for 61+ Democratic senators.)
Two helpful side effects of these tactics. First, he would provoke massive (and therefore relatively visible) expenditures of black SuperPAC money in those districts--and the natural and relatively inexpensive response is to ask those voters "Are you for sale?" How much money can the neo-GOP waste in such an uneven struggle against the bully pulpit? Second, he would provoke Romney into linking himself more closely to the most extreme elements of the neo-GOP. The American voters actually dislike extremists, no matter how much Romney lies about his own extremism. My own favorite target would be that West character in Florida. What about King in New York? Even my own district elected a progressive Democrat for many years until the gerrymandering--but maybe it could be flipped. Some of these targets are quite soft. At least some of those neo-GOP politicians are really soft in the head.
The Republican Party is no more. Abe Lincoln's original Republican Party was progressive and liberal, NOT conservative. The GOP of Teddy Roosevelt and Ike (Eisenhower for you children) was moderate and balanced, in favor of national parks and infrastructure such as roads, NOT extremely conservative, quite mindless and proudly ignorant, and against EVERYTHING that America needs for the future. Today's neo-GOP is something new, but a change for the MUCH worse. The only chance for positive change in America, the only hope for America's future, is if the neo-GOP is decisively defeated and crushed.
There will be change.
Turning his back on Romney?
Still disappointed that this topic didn't elicit more discussion and some stronger ideas... However, now I've kind of changed my mind. I think that crushing the neo-GOP Congress is more important than beating Romney. Maybe Romney will beat himself, but if President Obama tries to fight him on his own terms... Well, we already know who has more money.
For whatever it is worth, my threat called "There will be change" is focused against Congress with ads from Obama using the bully pulpit against the worst of the little pricks.
There will be change
There Will be Change
An open letter to President Obama:
America is dying, and it's my fault. I'm not a powerful person, so the degree of my fault is relatively small. However, insofar as America is a representative democracy and my vote is as good as yours, then I share that degree of blame with you.
Insofar as you are a MORE powerful and influential person than I am, it is MORE your fault. In particular, if you are a professional politician using gerrymandering, lies, and the bribes you've received to make my vote ineffective, worthless, and meaningless, then your fault is just that much greater.
Insofar as President Obama is a much more powerful and influential person than you or I, it is much more his fault. He's supposed to be the leader of America, and he is not leading to positive change.
While we are alive, we change. Only in death does change stop--but America is dying.
There will be change. Good or bad?
President Obama campaigned on promises of good changes. He has not delivered those good changes. Pick your favorite promise and cry. Now Romney is campaigning on promises of bad changes. Romney promises to change back to policies that are already proven failures. Weep some more.
The choice of this election is apparently between empty promises and bad promises. Once again it's apparently a choice between bad and not quite so bad.
Does President Obama have a good excuse? Sort of. I believe he sincerely tried to help America and he at least tried to put America's good ahead of politics while his opponents put their personal hatred of Obama ahead of EVERYTHING else. There was a time when patriotic political opponents could still hope the president could succeed insofar as that was part of the success of America. Kind of hard to believe now. John Wayne probably said it best when he said "I didn't vote for him, but he's my President, and I hope he does a good job," but...
Is there any hope for America? I really doubt it, but I think there is only one path that might lead towards good change.
If President Obama wins a narrow victory and continues to face an obstructionist Congress, we know there will be no change. If Romney wins, he will change America for the worse.
The only path for good change is with a massive defeat of the neo-GOP Congress. You'd think that would be easy given the low approval of Congress--but they've rigged the system in favor of the incumbents. That's the ONLY thing all of the professional politicians can agree on.
President Obama should mostly ignore Romney. That's just forces a choice between lesser evils.
President Obama should campaign DIRECTLY and primarily against the neo-GOP Congress. He should go to the districts of the worst neo-GOP Congressmen and try to flip them from 'safe neo-GOP incumbent' to 'probable Democratic challenger'. He should speak directly to the voters in those districts and tell them that they have the power of change. Not likely, but at least that would be a possibility.
Here are some of the things he could do in a target district: (1) Give a speech in the district focusing on the harms of Congress and the specific harms of that Congressman and personal attacks from that Congressman. (2) Appear with and strongly endorse the Democratic challenger. (3) Make short forms for advertising in that district. (4) Put videos of all of the above on the Internet addressed to the voters of that district. (Of course he should use similar tactics for the Senate, going for 61+ Democratic senators.)
Two helpful side effects of these tactics. First, he would provoke massive (and therefore relatively visible) expenditures of black SuperPAC money in those districts--and the natural and relatively inexpensive response is to ask those voters "Are you for sale?" How much money can the neo-GOP waste in such an uneven struggle against the bully pulpit? Second, he would provoke Romney into linking himself more closely to the most extreme elements of the neo-GOP. The American voters actually dislike extremists, no matter how much Romney lies about his own extremism. My own favorite target would be that West character in Florida. What about King in New York? Even my own district elected a progressive Democrat for many years until the gerrymandering--but maybe it could be flipped. Some of these targets are quite soft. At least some of those neo-GOP politicians are really soft in the head.
The Republican Party is no more. Abe Lincoln's original Republican Party was progressive and liberal, NOT conservative. The GOP of Teddy Roosevelt and Ike (Eisenhower for you children) was moderate and balanced, in favor of national parks and infrastructure such as roads, NOT extremely conservative, quite mindless and proudly ignorant, and against EVERYTHING that America needs for the future. Today's neo-GOP is something new, but a change for the MUCH worse. The only chance for positive change in America, the only hope for America's future, is if the neo-GOP is decisively defeated and crushed.
There will be change.
Is that an endorsement of the pastiche video?
I can really imagine Romney saying "Vote for me so that government of the corporations, by the lawyers, for the richest 0.1% of Americans, shall rule the earth."
It's really hard to relate Lincoln's progressive Republican Party or Teddy Roosevelt's GOP to Dubya's neo-GOP run amok.
But in terms of advertising?
We could argue about which religion is worse, but I don't see how to map the topic to an effective ad. In fundamental terms, the religious lunatics are anti-Obama, and there's no reasoning with them, and I think that extends to advertising.
To me the significant aspect of Mormonism is the requirement for missionary work. I think they are fundamentally teaching how to lie, and the core of it is lying to themselves. That's probably the most important part of it, actually. Given the resources the Mormons pour into missionary work, the actual return is abysmal.
Hmm... Actually, I just did think of an angle that might work, but it would depend on the crazy extremist endorsement... Of course you know who I'm thinking of, and so far Romney has dissuaded the lunatic from endorsing his fellow Mormon.
P.S. No one responded, but I was thinking about Glenn Beck, of course. You KNOW he hates President Obama, and he certainly wants to endorse Romney, even apart from the religious thing. However, I think that Romney has actually contacted Beck and said something like "As one Mormon to another, please don't endorse me in public. I already have the votes from your audience, but your endorsement could be used against me with some of the rational voters."
How about a rich and poor douchebag series of ads?
Wasn't originally thinking this way, but I must like comparative ads. The idea would be to pick a rich and poor douchebag and compare them. Of course the rich douchebags should be neo-GOP supporters or even politicians, but the contrasting poor douchebag can be selected more or less at random. Perhaps any popular news story about a poor fool?
However, the point of the ad would be a wrap-up about the cost incurred by the two douchebags, with especially focus on how much money the rich douchebag is taking from the government in contrast to the poor douchebag's minimal costs, probably for medical care or imprisonment.
Kind of disappointed that there isn't more interest in these topic of effective advertising, since I'm increasingly convinced that too many American voters are too easily manipulated by insincere and lying ads. The neo-GOP can buy LOTS of ads.
Wasting time on the rightwing base
The rightwing base is a bunch of cowards and haters, so they should not be a concern. The rabid neo-GOP voters are going to vote against Obama even if he had Jesus as his VP and the Stalin was the Republican candidate.
However, maybe you can change my mind with an interesting and concrete idea? However, to me it would be less important if the ad scares the neo-GOP than it persuades the weirdos in the middle. I'm not sure which is more mysterious: (1) Lincoln Republicans who support the neo-GOP. (2) GOP voters who still support the neo-GOP. (3) Undecided voters, given the vast differences between the parties.
The vulture capital theme is good
However, I actually think that's the angle that President Obama's SuperPAC is going to focus on. Coordinated? Of course not. I'm not denying that it will be effective with some voters, but I think Romney is a really big target with MANY flaws.
Then again, I personally hate liars. Even allowing for the political reality of lies, I think Romney is the biggest and baddest LIAR I've ever seen. It's not the flip-flopping, it's the lies.
I do agree that if Romney believes anything, it's that rich people are MORE important than anyone else. That's why I suggested the closing theme of my original idea... However, I'm not sure if Romney really believes that, either...
I was considering a suggestion about religious fanaticism, but I can't really think of a good theme along that line. Also, I think that Obama is going to stay far away from the Mormon thing. At the same time, I do think the Mormons are one of the worst bunches of fanatics out there. The Jehovah's Witnesses are worse, but there aren't many others.
What would be the most effective ad against Romney?
I suggest we have a kind of contest to devise the best ads to insure that Romney leads the neo-GOP to a MASSIVE defeat this year. Perhaps it could be done via YouTube and other websites in the form of video ads that go massively viral? Subjectively, I think it's too late, but I hope I'm wrong.
It would also be good to consider criteria for effective ads. However, right now I can only think of one: The best kind of ad should have a big multiplier to offset Citizens United and the vast pool of black money behind Romney. By "big multiplier", I mean that a small amount of money spent on the ad should encourage Romney's side to spend much more money trying to negate the ad. That might mean viral ads, but I think a good ad will need to be well produced and have at least some distribution on commercial stations. Of course the ultimate AMD (Ad of Mass Destruction) would be a "black hole" ad where NO amount of money would negate the ad, so that any response ads would just be throwing money into a black hole.
Here's my first candidate for such an ad:
My suggestion would be a series of two-part ads. In the first part, the theme would be "What does Romney believe?" I'd suggest using a vertical split screen. The left side would start with Romney taking one side of some issue, then it would freeze on Romney's face and show a big diagonal word for the theme of that side. The right side would then show Romney taking the OTHER side of the same issue, finally freezing with the opposite word plastered over his face. There are LOTS of these self-contradictions and they can make various versions for different audiences and to make a longer or shorter version. It might be especially amusing to close the first part with Romney taking three different positions on one issue. He's so dishonest and unprincipled that I'm sure he has done that, too.
Then in part two of the ad, the theme (in a top banner) would be "What does Romney really believe?" or "What we think Romney REALLY thinks". The bottom would be a pastiche video of Romney saying "Elect me so that government of the corporations, by the lawyers, for the richest 0.1% of Americans, shall rule the earth." The audio should be smooth enough to be heard clearly, while the video is herky jerky enough to show that there is no pretense that Romney actually said it--though at this point I really believe it is close to what he's really thinking.
THAT is actually a project I'd be interested in supporting. Romney looks so presidential and he has so much money! How can we stop him? Really effective ads could make it clear what a colossal LIAR Mitt Romney really is.
Profile Information
Name: Shannon JacobsGender: Male
Hometown: Big Stupid Texas
Home country: Alice's Wonderland
Current location: Mars
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 349
