Stupidest Statement by a Presidential Candidate - Ever

[mathwonk]

mheslep, as i thought, apparently you are not joking.

 

[russ_watters]

Obama's statement at Univision's town hall, "The most important lesson I've learned is that you can't change Washington from the inside, you can only change it from the outside", is certainly a strange statement for a President to make, seeing as how he's about as inside Washington as one can get, but it has to be tied to a theme to actually mean anything. It has to be tied to the inability to get things done, not getting the wrong bills passed, for example.

I considered that one pretty serious since "Change" was pretty much the central theme of Obama's campaign last time around. So he's acknowledging that he can't do the main thing he told people to vote for him for. Seems like it should negate his primary advantage and have people questioning the wisdom in voting for him.

Romney's "47%" comment fits with peoples' preconceptions of him on both sides of the spectrum, while Obama's is against the preconceptions of his supporters, which is why, theoretically, Obama's should be more impactful.

 

[BobG]

I considered that one pretty serious since "Change" was pretty much the central theme of Obama's campaign last time around. So he's acknowledging that he can't do the main thing he told people to vote for him for. Seems like it should negate his primary advantage and have people questioning the wisdom in voting for him.

Romney's "47%" comment fits with peoples' preconceptions of him on both sides of the spectrum, while Obama's is against the preconceptions of his supporters, which is why, theoretically, Obama's should be more impactful.

Rule of gaffes #4:

A voter's gut feeling is never wrong! Not quite the same as a voter's preconceptions, but preconceptions are heavily influenced by a voter's gut feelings - the irrational side of the voter.

Gaffes don't affect ardent supporters or ardent opponents. They affect those that are undecided specifically because there's a conflict between their irrational side (their gut feelings) and their logic side.

Rule of gaffes #5:

Except when all of your friends have been telling you were wrong all along and the gaffe provides absolute proof. It's hard to stand against the current, so gaffes can cause a person to "conform to the norm". So, you're right that Obama's gaffe can cause some Republican defectors to come back (assuming they still have any Republican friends left).

But gaffes that go against a candidate's perceived image have a somewhat limited effect - especially when one viable solution is for the voter to simply shut up about who he supports.

 

[mikelepore]

"Stupidest Statement by a Presidential Candidate - Ever" -- I think the winner would be Barry Goldwater's proposal in 1964 to use atomic bombs in Vietnam.

 

[chemisttree]

"Stupidest Statement by a Presidential Candidate - Ever" -- I think the winner would be Barry Goldwater's proposal in 1964 to use atomic bombs in Vietnam.

I called this the stupidest because it was the wrong thing to say to a group of donors. You don't tell someone that you are conceding 47% to 49% of the voters to your opponent and instead focus on the remaining 51% to 53% of reasonable voters, ie., voters that pay taxes. That is plain stupid. There are so many ways he could have answered that without resorting to that 'canned' 47% of americans are beholden to big government nonsense. This isn't an insight to Romney's world view IMO, it's just his restatement of the question is an absolutely idiotic way. I wouldn't be swayed to donate to someone that told me to my face that 47% of the voters will vote for my opponent no matter what. He effectively told that prospective donor that he wasn't even going to try to convince everybody that they were going to have to take care of themselves. They were going to vote for Obama anyway.

He should have started his answer with, "Everybody has a stake in the success of America, especially those who count on the Government for benefits. Retirees, the poor, sick and disadvantaged deserve our support but we can only do so much and remain fiscally viable..."

 

[russ_watters]

He should have started his answer with, "Everybody has a stake in the success of America, especially those who count on the Government for benefits. Retirees, the poor, sick and disadvantaged deserve our support but we can only do so much and remain fiscally viable..."

No, he shouldn't have.

1. These were Republican donors.
2. Donors pay big money for private dinners to hear candid answers, not fluffy drivel.

He effectively told that prospective donor that he wasn't even going to try to convince everybody that they were going to have to take care of themselves. They were going to vote for Obama anyway.

This is naive. Both candidates are doing the vast majority of their campaigning in a very small number of states (9 I think). Both are aware that only a relatively small fraction of voters in those states are undecided. The rule of thumb is 40/40/20, so at worst he was off in the amount by 7 percentage points from the conventional wisdom. He's really not that far off on this. It isn't that bad of an answer given the audience. Yeah, we get that you think it is bad, but you weren't the target audience. What makes the quote bad is mostly the fact that it was leaked. Obama's open mic comment to Medvedev was the same way.

 

[chemisttree]

Of course, I disagree. It was Reagan who said, "It is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work -- work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it. It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. ... We shall reflect the compassion that is so much a part of your makeup. How can we love our country and not love our countrymen, and loving them, not reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they are sick, and provide opportunities to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?"

I really miss Pres. Reagan.

 

[russ_watters]

Did Reagan say that to a group of high-paying donors in a private dinner?

 

[chemisttree]

Did Reagan say that to a group of high-paying donors in a private dinner?

He said that during his first inaugural address. The perfect answer doesn't need to be specific to a particular venue.

You should read something uplifting once in awhile.

 

[russ_watters]

He said that during his first inaugural address.

So no. That's my point.

 

[SixNein]

I called this the stupidest because it was the wrong thing to say to a group of donors. You don't tell someone that you are conceding 47% to 49% of the voters to your opponent and instead focus on the remaining 51% to 53% of reasonable voters, ie., voters that pay taxes. That is plain stupid. There are so many ways he could have answered that without resorting to that 'canned' 47% of americans are beholden to big government nonsense. This isn't an insight to Romney's world view IMO, it's just his restatement of the question is an absolutely idiotic way. I wouldn't be swayed to donate to someone that told me to my face that 47% of the voters will vote for my opponent no matter what. He effectively told that prospective donor that he wasn't even going to try to convince everybody that they were going to have to take care of themselves. They were going to vote for Obama anyway.

He should have started his answer with, "Everybody has a stake in the success of America, especially those who count on the Government for benefits. Retirees, the poor, sick and disadvantaged deserve our support but we can only do so much and remain fiscally viable..."

His argument was targeting rich people who had a bigoted view of the poor. Proportionally, people like him have it fairly made on taxes thanks to years of trickle down policy.

 

[chemisttree]

So no. That's my point.

Perhaps you forget that he was asked how he will convince everybody that they will have to take care of themselves. He was asked to describe his argument to others, not the gathered donors. It was a time for him to rise above the bare knuckles of the campaign and describe his direct argument to everybody that they need to take care of themselves. It wasn't a time to slice and dice the electorate based on whether they pay income tax.

Total fail IMO.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps you forget that he was asked how he will convince everybody that they will have to take care of themselves. He was asked to describe his argument to others, not the gathered donors. It was a time for him to rise above the bare knuckles of the campaign and describe his direct argument to everybody that they need to take care of themselves. It wasn't a time to slice and dice the electorate based on whether they pay income tax.

Total fail IMO.

You are so wrong, IMO. The first part of the answer was to define who he would be pitching his ideas to and who he would be ignoring. The answer to a different question might have started off (truthfully) 'Well, I'll be totally ignoring Pennsylvania, New York and California and 30 other states in my campaign...' That wouldn't have gone over well in a nationwide address either, but it would have been fine here -- and it is probably the right thing to do.

Romney doesn't need to convince "everybody" that they need to take care of themselves because some people already believe it and some never will. He started his answer by pointing that out.

Again, the audience at the fundraiser doesn't want to hear fluff, they want to hear the logic behind the fluff. And that logic starts with who the fluff is intended to speak to.

 

[Pythagorean]

According to Adam Curtis ("Century of the Self"):

Reagan and Thatcher were among the first major political players to design a campaign using the focus groups and psychoanalysis techniques that had been developed mostly for big business in the early 20th century by Edward Bernays. Bernays had developed the techniques in the US, but the UK was happy to have the Americans come over and teach them how to do it.

Both of them had campaign aides that new exactly what the swing voters wanted to hear as that's who they largely targeted in their focus groups. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair did the same thing to take their respective countries back in the 90's.

According to Curtis, the labor party in the UK was resistant to the idea of "appealing to people's desires" and thought the people should be led by their needs instead, but the new wave of appealing to people's desires that Reagan and Thatcher had brought was tough to compete with.

Of course, this is all from a documentary that has some anti-business undertones to it, but a lot of it can be verified by looking into the history of Edward Bernays (who admits to changing the word "propaganda" to "public relations" due to the distaste in the word during the Great War.)

 

[mheslep]

According to Adam Curtis ("Century of the Self"):

Reagan and Thatcher were among the first major political players to design a campaign using the focus groups and psychoanalysis techniques ...

...

According to Curtis, the labor party in the UK was resistant to the idea of "appealing to people's desires" and thought the people should be led by their needs instead, ...

With even a superficial look at history prior the 1990s does the idea that Reagan and Thatcher were the first seem even remotely valid? Does Hoover's "http://hoover.archives.gov/info/faq.html#chicken not count in 1928 as an appeal to people's desires?

...Of course, this is all from a documentary that has some anti-business undertones to it, but a lot of it can be verified by looking into the history of Edward Bernays (who admits to changing the word "propaganda" to "public relations" due to the distaste in the word during the Great War.)

How does the history of only this PR guy verify he was original in any sense?

 

[Andre]

With even a superficial look at history prior the 1990s does the idea that Reagan and Thatcher were the first seem even remotely valid? Does Hoover's "http://hoover.archives.gov/info/faq.html#chicken not count in 1928 as an appeal to people's desires?

How about Juvenals analysis of Ceasar? http://www.capitolium.org/eng/imperatori/circenses.html

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

How about Juvenals analysis of Ceasar? http://www.capitolium.org/eng/imperatori/circenses.html

Noel.

 

[mheslep]

How about Juvenals analysis of Ceasar? http://www.capitolium.org/eng/imperatori/circenses.html

Bread and Circus! Should have been my go-to. Thanks Andre.

...Caesar organized these games by borrowing a lot of money that was in turn well invested into propaganda earning him important positions in office. Consequently, these postions enabled him to pay back every cent that he had borrowed. ... The people were grateful to him and showered him with honor and positions in large quantities. .

...10,000 men battled against 3,500 wild animals from Africa. Also, in 107 A.D., Trajan, on occasion of the victory against the Dacians, organized battles of over 10,000 gladiators that lasted 123 festival days and in which 11,000 wild animals were killed.

What have Madison Ave or political handlers ever had to surpass that show. If some candidate (or car/beer/smartphone company) starts talking about 123 festival days before an election ( or product release) then maybe we have something similar.

 

[Pythagorean]

I was referring to the combination of focus groups with psychoanalysis (as I explicitly said in my post). You bring up the former, though the modern version of focus groups were actually invented by Robert K. Merton. Of course some version of it existed in the past, but that's hair-splitting.

Bernays' uncle, Sigmund Freud, introduced the latter (psychoanalysis) and it was Bernays, using his uncle's insights before his uncle was ever talked about in academic circles, that implemented into the already existent field of crowd control theory. And yes, even Coolidge was a client of Bernays' long before Thatcher and Reagan (the "pancake breakfast"), but Curtis was referring to the magnitude to which the whole platform depended on what people wanted to hear for Thatcher and Reagan, not just advising into the presidents private image or help cleaning up a mess, but a whole party's new direction. Same with Clinton and Blair when they followed suit. FDR is said to have turned down Bernays' tactics in favor of the more objective Gallup polls (to which Bernays responded by turning to big business instead).

Bernays was referred to in his obituary as the father of public relations:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/08/16/specials/bernays-obit.html?_r=1

He's also the one that popularized Sigmund Freud (his uncle's book sales were hurting without the help of Bernay's public relations) and ignited the revolution of psycho analysis and focus groups in the US.

Anyway, regardless of the history, the point is that Reagan was telling people what they wanted to hear.

 

[Astronuc]

Romney's wife Ann's plane had to make an emergency landing Friday (Sept. 21) because of an electrical malfunction. Discussing the incident at a fundraiser the next day, he said: "When you have a fire in an aircraft, there's no place to go, exactly, there's no — and you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem. So it's very dangerous."

http://news.yahoo.com/why-plane-windows-dont-roll-down-romney-221323006.html

 

[AlephZero]

"When you have a fire in an aircraft, there's no place to go, exactly, there's no — and you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem. So it's very dangerous."

But if you opened the windows, you would let more oxygen into the plane and make the fire worse

 

[Galteeth]

That's taking the quote out of context -- and admittedly it was badly put: Romney was answering a question on tax policy, so all he really intended was to say that you can't win over a person on taxes if they already don't pay taxes (it is in the last couple of sentences in the quote). As I said previously, he's missing that people think they have a chance to move up, but otherwise, it isn't far from the mark.

This also assumes that just because people don't pay the federal income tax, they automatically support it. I don't pay any federal income tax, but I am opposed to it.

 

[Evo]

http://news.yahoo.com/why-plane-windows-dont-roll-down-romney-221323006.html

But if you opened the windows, you would let more oxygen into the plane and make the fire worse

That one was SOOOO bad, I had to check it to make sure it wasn't a hoax meant to make Romney look like a moron. Nope, no hoax.

Then his wife Ann, complaining about the hardships (from fellow Republicans, no less) she and her hubby are enduring in order to campaign.

Ann Romney to Republican critics of Mitt: ‘Stop it. This is hard.’

Ann Romney is firing back at Republican critics of her husband's campaign, snapping in a radio interview: "Stop it. This is hard. You want to try it? Get in the ring."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...itt-stop-hard-article-1.1164698#ixzz27YD98KjP

 

[mheslep]

Of course, I disagree. It was Reagan who said, "It is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work -- work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it. It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. ... We shall reflect the compassion that is so much a part of your makeup. How can we love our country and not love our countrymen, and loving them, not reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they are sick, and provide opportunities to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?"

I really miss Pres. Reagan.

Yes from Reagan's 1st Inaugural. I contend the GOP should simply select that entire speech as its permanent platform, done, end of story.

Reagan also had his problems with appearing dismissive, as it was Reagan apparently that conjured up the http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-19/news/sns-201209181430--tms--poltodayctnyq-a20120919-20120919_1_mitt-romney-marc-leder-personal-responsibility. Romney would do well to follow those fund raiser comments with the tone of Reagan's inaugural.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I contend the GOP should simply select that entire speech as its permanent platform, done, end of story.
...
Romney would do well to follow those fund raiser comments with the tone of Reagan's inaugural.

Agreed!

 

[mheslep]

Agreed!

K, you run and I'll manage your campaign, at least until you fire me for an obsessive need to quote Reagan. M. Eng in 2016.

 

[SixNein]

Mr Romney is quite wrong, as it happens, about who those not paying income tax are, who those receiving “entitlements” are, and about how they all vote. Over half of those he condemned have jobs, and pay payroll taxes, but earn too little to be subject to income tax as well. Another 20% are retired. Only 8% of households pay no federal tax at all, usually because their members are students, disabled or unemployed. The biggest share of government benefits, meanwhile, goes to the elderly, in the form of Medicare and Social Security. (If you count tax breaks for mortgages and health insurance as government hand-outs, the rich are big spongers.) Only 13% of households receive food stamps, and only 5% benefit from public housing.

http://www.economist.com/node/21563343

 

[russ_watters]

The economist is misrepresenting Romney's statement and so what they say is factually wrong. As bad as Romney's statement was for the extension (these are the people who won't vote for me), I've seen lots and lots of media reports misrepresent it in the same way. Why do that if it is so bad on its own? To me, this is a benchmark issue for liberal media bias. They are inaccurately attacking the correct part of Romney's statement because of the political punch it has. I don't suppose they devoted the same space to attacking Obama's intentionally cherry-picked jobs claim, did they?

 

[BobG]

No, he shouldn't have.

1. These were Republican donors.
2. Donors pay big money for private dinners to hear candid answers, not fluffy drivel.

Romney's not the only politician that hasn't fully encompassed new technology (George Allen comes to mind), but is it actually possible today for a politician to talk solely to a small group of people? A candidate should assume that anything they say in any sort of public or semi-public environment is going to be presented to the entire public.

There is no such thing anymore as a private dinner for donors (and, to be honest, providing the "secret" scoop to donors while saying something completely different to the general populace probably decreases a candidate's credibility even among donors).

But that's a common problem for all politicians; not just Romney.

 

[SixNein]

The economist is misrepresenting Romney's statement and so what they say is factually wrong. As bad as Romney's statement was for the extension (these are the people who won't vote for me), I've seen lots and lots of media reports misrepresent it in the same way. Why do that if it is so bad on its own? To me, this is a benchmark issue for liberal media bias. They are inaccurately attacking the correct part of Romney's statement because of the political punch it has. I don't suppose they devoted the same space to attacking Obama's intentionally cherry-picked jobs claim, did they?

Care to source the facts?