The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Milkman

Yes, "change."

The term "change" has been studied a lot and still is. "Change" resonates, statistically.

In 1992, Clinton and Perot used "Change." It works. But it's not real. It's fake. But....as long as the term/slogan "change" is statistically effective, it will be used.

And in reality, there won't be any real change IMO. In the future, a GOP candidate may may use the slogan "change" if the polling is consistent with positive perceptions from the American public.

MM:
Texpat:
No reason to be impressed. I noted him because he make a major breakthrough in using polling for the masses. I didn't like the guy that much in our brief visit. But....the point is....he was a pollster who revolutionized polling. He used polling, and polling is a science when it is done correctly. Note: it has to be done honestly and correctly.

Not true. Let me clarify.

Yes, the majority of "almost all" voter are low-info voters - but this means voters with "education." "Education," meaning they have a certified BA/BS at the least.

"Low-info voters" include high school grads, and those with BA/BS degress and even MA/MS degrees.

"Low-info" just means they follow politics only 1. casually, but 2. they have high voter turnouts at the polls.

Presidential campaigns always have been, and still are now, targeted towards the low-info voter.

And it always will be.

You can go back in history.

__________________
Military men are dumb, stupid animals, to be used as pawns for foreign policy

Texpat

You've convieniently evaded the question.

Link patriotism or nationalism to education or being a highly-informed voter.

I personally think you're highly-informed, but quite subjective. I've got a few years of graduate-level polysci experience under my belt so my skepticism isn't mere speculation. Tossing about degrees is quite unendearing. Show me some stats where patriotism isn't a virtue and I'll shut up.

GooMaiRoo

Sorry to interfere in your spat with MM, but I couldn't resist mentioning several studies (Pew Research and University of Maryland) involving the viewers of America's most overtly patriotic/jingoistic news network, Fox.:

"The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals’ primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely."

The Hazards of Watching Fox News | AlterNet

Summary of Findings: Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions

GooMaiRoo

I don't want to suggest from my previous post that liberals have a monopoly on political truth. I've found that many of the best informed political writers and commentators, especially those with a strong sense of history, come from the old-line conservative movement. I would include people like Pat Buchanan and perhaps George Will. It's just that the neo-conservative Republicans and their strange version of patriotism seem to be either ill-informed, dishonest or denial-ridden when it comes to displaying political knowlege

Jet Gorgon

^ I'd be surprised if any low-income folks watch any political news broadcasts, especially on PBS. And only the diehards watch C-SPAN.
I think many folks just catch a few phrases, ideas and/or scandalous issues and those stick in their heads in regards to the candidate. Lower-income moms watching PBS? I doubt it. Soaps, the shopping channel and as MM noted, the talk shows. Oprah, Dr Phil and those other so-called self-help trash shows are the lifeblood of many a housewife.
In this campaign, race, charisma, and what are you gonna do about gas prices and my high shopping bills will be key. Then, taxes and Iraq. IMO. I think most older folks recognise that nothing much will change, same ole sh*t, different leader. I think the younger set like Obama coz he has charm, charisma, good looks, and the possible hope for a new US image. Dat's all. They'll be mad when taxes go up, tho.

Milkman

I did not intend to. Let me further clarify and I'll answer your question below regarding a) nationalism and b) patriotism.

Patriotism has different forms. I'll focus on "election patriotism" to appeal to the low-info voters. This form of election patriotism is the type of patriotism that uses images and symbols, and you wear it on your sleeve. Politicians have always use this election patriotism, in many different countries. Low-info voters respond to it more easily, and are less questioning of patriotic symbols being used to woo voters and provide good feelings toward a candidate. Dukakis tried it on the tank for the 1988 election, and it backfired against him big-time.

Nationalism is used also. This is why symbols and imagery. Nationalism can also be related to economic policy: protectionism and "protecting jobs."

We all have our biases, and I'm aware that I have my preferences. I do want to hear opposing and new viewpoints and I'm willing to learn them.

I only noted that low-info voters include high school grads, BA/BA and BS/MS holders, etc. Many people with schooling don't follow politics very closely, but they do go to the polls.

The statistics and research studies were in academic political science textbooks. There in a box in the USA. I am not sure if these books are available on Amazon, but googling could produce some stats, perhaps.

No need to "shut up." Discussion is good.

Norton

Apparently so. I am always puzzled when many of the so called "patriots" take the position anyone criticizing the policies of the government is "unpatriotic".

These so called patriots need to be reminded the people they all claim to be the prototype patriots were people like George, Thomas, Benjamin and the lot that founded the country. All were critics of the ruling government and expressed their criticism verbally, followed by armed resistance to what they believed injustice.

__________________
There is such a thing as a nation being so right that it does not need to convince others by force that it is right.

Woodrow Wilson

Jet Gorgon

^ Ruling govt? You mean the Brits?
Unfortunately, Sabang, and as I think you mentioned before too, Norts, the GOP will need to flock off and rebuild. Basically, just let the dems muck up for a couple of years and then retake Congress. Shoe-in for a new prez. They better find a good posterboy/girl next time around. But, I won't give up yet if Obama keeps reneging on his pledges. Heard another commentator say BO was noted as being an elitist snob at Harvard, but hey, that was yesterday and I don't remember the dam broadcast.

Norton

Yes they do. The party I joined oh so many years ago has absolutely nothing in common with their antics of the past 8 years. I do truly hope the GOP finds it's roots again because it pains me deeply to be forced into the position of favoring a Democrat over a Republican for the Presidency.

Norton

Yep, they the ones. And their great leader.

Milkman

It's not going to work this way, IMO.

The GOP is different that it was in 1994. The '94 Repubs are long gone - this was 14 years ago.

Dems muck up? How is the GOP any different?

The current National Debt is $9 Trillion. SS and Medicare is starting its roll downhill as the first boomer started collecting on Jan., 1, 2008.

As I've said before: both parties are more similar than different and basically support the same major foundational things.

FayeQuarry

Interesting comparisons have been made between the risky, leather and bleeding edge dress style of 'over 50' Cindy McCain; and the Wal-mart, retro sleeveless style of Michelle.

I notice Michelle often wears sleeveless, Elizabeth Montgomery (Bewitched)- 60s style dresses, as she did on Colbert and on the View. At 5'11" she is statuesque and would look good in anything. Her arms are, as you say, not petite, and at 44, she is probably past her sell-by date to wear those sleeveless numbers. But, those styles do make her sexy and desirable, and she still pulls it off.

At the same time, Cindy gets away with wearing stuff that Pat Benatar might have worn on stage.

Michelle hasn't learned how to carry herself yet, nor how to define her style. She also stoops apologetically, as tall girls often do. This is bad. As far as facial expressions, her smiles do look contrived, and, sort of in a French way, she sports a smile, but the top half of her face and eyes look stern.

I think her basic personality shows through all of this. She needs work.

At the same time, after wearing this number on The View, the dress sold out nationwide within hours.

Milkman

^ Michelle Obama appearing on "The View" is one of many example of an attempt to identity with and appreal to, low-info voters

FayeQuarry

Intentional rip off of a beautiful national treasure, complete with the pearls?





Or,

Is this the real Michelle?

Jet Gorgon

I wouldn't wear that dress to water my garden.
Maybe she's doing the sexy style to prove Bambam is not a muslim. Not very First Ladyish, is it? She needs alot of work. Call in the Vogue mag gals; they remade Princess Diana.

FayeQuarry

Hardly humble: Michelle's childhood home in Chicago

Mrs O: The truth about Michelle Obama's 'working class' credentials | Mail Online

All contrived.....

sabang

Here are 10 quick facts about Mrs. Obama:

Quick Fact Number 1: She was born January 17, 1964 and grew up on the South Shore area of Chicago

Quick Fact Number 2: Michelle Robinson majored in sociology at Princeton University, after she graduated from Whitney Young High School

Quick Fact Number 3: She is a Harvard Law School graduate

Quick Fact Number 4: She is Vice President for Community and External Affairs for the University of Chicago Hospitals

Quick Fact Number 5: Michelle Obama is a devoted supporter of the Women's Treatment Center located on the West Side of Chicago. The facility is for the treatment and detox of women dealing with substance abuse. The facility also takes care of children while their mother's go through detox and offers a program where children can live with their mothers during recovery.

Quick Fact Number 6: She enjoys early morning work outs

Quick Fact Number 7: The founding executive director of the Chicago office of Public Allies, President Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps 1993

Quick Fact Number 8: The Obama Family travels mostly every year to Hawaii to visit Senator Obama's grandmother and sister

Quick Fact Number 9: Craig Robinson, Michelle's brother is head coach of the men's basketball team at Brown University

Quick Fact Number 10: And like most little girls she enjoyed playing with her Barbie Dolls and Easy Bake Oven as a child


10 Quick Facts About Michelle Obama - Associated Content

Can't really fault her resume' as First lady.
No doubt they'll have fashion consultants on the job to make her look the part.

__________________
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

FayeQuarry

In the years Michelle went to Harvard Law, there were about 3 ways to get in.

1. Have long standing monied family connections and fairly passable LSAT scores & GPA, but nothing exceptional.

2. Have LSAT scores and GPA in the top 1-5% of all students nationwide. In other words, be a genius.

3. Find a way in through affirmative action, with passable LSAT and undergrad GPA. Otherwise, normally, the best one could obtain would be entrance to a decent State University.

There were a few other categories of people who got in because of exceptional life circumstances. Those are few.

You figure out how she went to Harvard.

sabang

Her post grad degree was at Harvard, so basically she got in on the basis that her undergrad degree had good grades. She graduated cum Laude from Princeton- that'll get you into any Ivy League uni you want for post graduate study. No AA required there.

Obviously Princeton is no slouch to get into either, I've never heard any mention, or for that matter any denial, whether this was under some Affirmative action quota.

FayeQuarry

^Her brother went to Princeton for undergrad, and that does help a lot to have a sibling to get into there. For sure, her grades were good. And, to be sure, she graduated with distinction cum laude from Princeton, which together with a superior LSAT score, and given the nature of the undergrad institution, could have been enough for her to be admitted to Harvard doctoral law program.

That is possible.

There are many reports around the web that her actual entrance was due to an affirmative action application, though nobody has proof I guess at this point. It doesn't much matter.

I don't subscribe to the crap that a JD from Harvard is any more intelligent than a JD from any other good University, public or not. I've seen it in many years of working intimately with top lawyers.

What I do think needs to be discussed, is the real roots, and the real life of these people, as opposed to some contrived image they are trying to project. In this respect, Cindy McCain scores many more points. She never tries to pretend she is not a millionaire heiress.

The same candor cannot be said for Michelle. She keeps trying to pretend she's a working class hero and it ain't playin'.