2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III - Page 6

Delphic Oracle · 8th January 2020, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I did defend my premise, I cited my years of expertise demonstrated on this forum.

And more importantly, there is no simple answer. Some things are like that.

Citing your credentials is not defending your premise.

I do, however, acknowledge that you have made tremendous efforts to make it clear that explaining what you mean by "effective" in reference to a political ad is just too great a burden to contemplate.

Delphic Oracle · 8th January 2020, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Just to review, you said this:I replied, I don't care if you share my opinion or not.

"It is an effective ad" is not a statement of opinion, it is an assertion.

"I like the ad, it made me feel good/hopeful/inspired."

That's an opinion.

But you are mightily versed in media stuff(tm), so I clearly didn't need to explain that difference. My apologies.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th January 2020, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Citing your credentials is not defending your premise.

I do, however, acknowledge that you have made tremendous efforts to make it clear that explaining what you mean by "effective" in reference to a political ad is just too great a burden to contemplate.

If by credentials you mean 14 years of posting here about campaign marketing, narratives, framing, persuasion and propaganda, then yep, I was citing that.

I'm not sure why a few people here would rather complain how dissatisfied they were with a particular person's statement about the effectiveness of Bloomberg's ads than they might be interested is simply giving their own opinion/observations of the ads.

Do people want to discuss me, or the ads?

Skeptic Ginger · 8th January 2020, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

"It is an effective ad" is not a statement of opinion, it is an assertion.

That's debatable.

Meanwhile, did you watch it? Do you disagree?

Delphic Oracle · 8th January 2020, 08:51 PM

Ok, maybe some visual aids will help so we can all have a common frame of reference.

Here's Judge Judy (yes that one) reading a punchy bullet-list of focus group pablum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bITEVXwHtI

Here's the bootstrapping job creator who will "rebuild America":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_1T_xPpAwo

This one had potential when I saw the exposition style, but they took the powerful devices of that style and the goal given is "defeat Trump":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmNiDCSofoc

Not a fan of the "Rebuild America" branding, not even a little bit. It strikes me as "MAGA lite." Enough with the damn boomers telling us we need to go back to their happy time.

Good lord, that took 10 minutes. I'm exhausted!

Venom · 8th January 2020, 08:54 PM

Based on my non-expert assessment of Bloomberg's ads over the past two weeks he's putting out some great looking ads.

It's those good producers paid big money.

Delphic Oracle · 8th January 2020, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

If by credentials you mean 14 years of posting here about campaign marketing, narratives, framing, persuasion and propaganda, then yep, I was citing that.

Was that discussed in the ad?

Because if not, then you still aren't discussing the ad.

Quote:

I'm not sure why a few people here would rather complain how dissatisfied they were with a particular person's statement about the effectiveness of Bloomberg's ads than they might be interested is simply giving their own opinion/observations of the ads.

I would love for you to give some statements ABOUT the ads.

Quote:

Do people want to discuss me, or the ads?

You're the one who, when questioned about the ads, refuses to discuss them further and instead list your credentials.

Soooo....

Delphic Oracle · 8th January 2020, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by Venom

Based on my non-expert assessment of Bloomberg's ads over the past two weeks he's putting out some great looking ads.

It's those good producers paid big money.

I liked one of them from an artistic perspective, but it felt wasted.

The rest look really thin and indistinguishable from most others, very paint-by-numbers.

YMMV, thanks for sharing your thoughts :9.

(that was easy, wasn't it?)

Aridas · 8th January 2020, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I don't know if Bloomberg's ads are playing in your area but the ones playing here other Democrats should be paying attention to.

Bloomberg is in the ads with 'the people' saying all the popular things he plans to do because he did them in NY.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

https://www.youtube.com/user/mikebloomberg

I actually don't have a TV (solely because I wouldn't use it), so I can only say that I haven't seen any on the other TVs that are on when I'm near them. Otherwise, I think that the ad that you just poked at was a good ad.

To poke elsewhere...

Biden: McConnell will become "Mildly Cooperative" if I'm elected

If he actually believes that despite the evidence at hand, well... he really, really isn't getting my primary vote. Not that that's changed, of course, but declaring faith in a guy who's shown profusely that he's untrustworthy and hostile sure looks like the epitomy of stupidity, to me. I think that I would take Bloomberg over him in a heartbeat, especially right after that ad.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th January 2020, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

....You're the one who, when questioned about the ads, refuses to discuss them further and instead list your credentials.....

This is a bunch of crap and here's something in particular: That is a false dichotomy. There are a lot of things to discuss about these ads besides asking me to write a term paper on the subject:

Originally Posted by angrysoba

May I ask what makes you think the ads are effective? Which ones? Where are they being broadcast? And how you come to the conclusion that he could not lose to Trump? Is there polling on this? Or do you know people who voted Trump who are swayed by Bloomberg?

Skeptic Ginger · 8th January 2020, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by Aridas

I actually don't have a TV (solely because I wouldn't use it), so I can only say that I haven't seen any on the other TVs that are on when I'm near them. Otherwise, I think that the ad that you just poked at was a good ad.

To poke elsewhere...

Biden: McConnell will become "Mildly Cooperative" if I'm elected

If he actually believes that despite the evidence at hand, well... he really, really isn't getting my primary vote. Not that that's changed, of course, but declaring faith in a guy who's shown profusely that he's untrustworthy and hostile sure looks like the epitomy of stupidity, to me. I think that I would take Bloomberg over him in a heartbeat, especially right after that ad.

Perfect example of Grandpa Biden's failure to grasp the situation we are dealing with.

And he frequently says "I can do it because I've done it before" but what he's talking about is akin to saying vote for me and the good old days will be back.

Compare that to Bloomberg describing his leadership accomplishments when he says he can accomplish a lot of things as POTUS.

Steyer cites being successful but he doesn't have the kind of experience to list like Bloomberg does. Keep in mind, he's probably padding that resumé and leaving out the bad.

Venom · 9th January 2020, 12:23 AM

Also here's a brilliant ad by Bernie Sanders.

Very brief and sharp; 30 seconds to make his point; 20 second to get to the punchline. Minimal stock footage and filler, all stuff from his rallies and "real Americans" shown next to him.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Very nice production in the footage below. Zooming in to emphasize people's faces and facial expressions. It's contagious and his campaign knows it.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

SezMe · 9th January 2020, 01:07 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

My criticism of that ad: The music is so loud it drowns out the voice-over. He needs a new video editor.

ETA: The same criticism applies to the first ad that Venom linked in the previous message.

Skeptic Ginger · 9th January 2020, 02:39 AM

Originally Posted by Venom

Also here's a brilliant ad by Bernie Sanders.

Very brief and sharp; 30 seconds to make his point; 20 second to get to the punchline. Minimal stock footage and filler, all stuff from his rallies and "real Americans" shown next to him.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Very nice production in the footage below. Zooming in to emphasize people's faces and facial expressions. It's contagious and his campaign knows it.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Those are good. He needs to broaden the issues but I'm sure he will.

Skeptic Ginger · 9th January 2020, 02:44 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

My criticism of that ad: The music is so loud it drowns out the voice-over. He needs a new video editor.

ETA: The same criticism applies to the first ad that Venom linked in the previous message.

I don't have a problem hearing the voiceover.

But this is the kind of issue that a focus group can resolve.

Delphic Oracle · 9th January 2020, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

This is a bunch of crap and here's something in particular: That is a false dichotomy. There are a lot of things to discuss about these ads besides asking me to write a term paper on the subject:

Nobody asked you to write a term paper, that was just you flailing about trying to victimize yourself over being asked to back up your statement.

carlitos · 9th January 2020, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I don't have a problem hearing the voiceover.

But this is the kind of issue that a focus group can resolve.

If an ad is already produced, you wouldn't use a focus group to tweak it. You'd want quantitative not qualitative research. Focus groups might be used at the beginning of the process, or in writing the campaign brief.

Skeptic Ginger · 9th January 2020, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Nobody asked you to write a term paper, that was just you flailing about trying to victimize yourself over being asked to back up your statement.

You're back to discussing me instead of the campaign ads.

Skeptic Ginger · 9th January 2020, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by carlitos

If an ad is already produced, you wouldn't use a focus group to tweak it. You'd want quantitative not qualitative research. Focus groups might be used at the beginning of the process, or in writing the campaign brief.

Or you could use the focus group for advice on the subsequent ads.

Delphic Oracle · 9th January 2020, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You're back to discussing me instead of the campaign ads.

I made several posts where I gave some thoughts about the ads.

You have responded to none of them.

I conclude you do not want to discuss the ads.

Donal · 9th January 2020, 01:25 PM

Who has come out with a statement regarding Iran? I saw Pete and Biden were fairly lukewarm. Warren did better and Bernie was pretty forceful.

Skeptic Ginger · 9th January 2020, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

I made several posts where I gave some thoughts about the ads.

You have responded to none of them.

I conclude you do not want to discuss the ads.

Not sure how my not responding has such broad implications.

Is this one of them?

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

I liked one of them from an artistic perspective, but it felt wasted.

The rest look really thin and indistinguishable from most others, very paint-by-numbers.

YMMV, thanks for sharing your thoughts :9.

(that was easy, wasn't it?)

I don't have any comments on this post. (That was easy.)

I'll keep looking to see if there were more.

Skeptic Ginger · 9th January 2020, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Ok, maybe some visual aids will help so we can all have a common frame of reference.

Here's Judge Judy (yes that one) reading a punchy bullet-list of focus group pablum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bITEVXwHtI

Here's the bootstrapping job creator who will "rebuild America":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_1T_xPpAwo

This one had potential when I saw the exposition style, but they took the powerful devices of that style and the goal given is "defeat Trump":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmNiDCSofoc

Not a fan of the "Rebuild America" branding, not even a little bit. It strikes me as "MAGA lite." Enough with the damn boomers telling us we need to go back to their happy time.

Good lord, that took 10 minutes. I'm exhausted!

No comment other than I have mixed feelings about the Judge Judy endorsement: I don't like her but the ad looks effective.

Couldn't find any more that weren't attacks on me because of a reply I posted to TP.

Donal · 9th January 2020, 03:17 PM

So, we're just round and round with this?

carlitos · 9th January 2020, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Or you could use the focus group for advice on the subsequent ads.

I suppose that's true. Political ads do have a relatively short shelf life compared to the products and services that I have experience with. Perhaps it's more of a constant churn and you never need to perfect a flawed ad, as you've already moved on by that time.

I hope that Mayor Bloomberg is going to optimize his Super Bowl ad like a consumer product would; that's a big stage for a :60 ad.

Anecdote alert - mrs. carlito, a Republican / swing voter, wants to learn more about Tom Steyer after seeing his ads in Nevada and Illinois.

Delphic Oracle · 9th January 2020, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

No comment other than I have mixed feelings about the Judge Judy endorsement: I don't like her but the ad looks effective.

Couldn't find any more that weren't attacks on me because of a reply I posted to TP.

Progress is progress, thanks for making the effort.

Skeptic Ginger · 9th January 2020, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by Donal

So, we're just round and round with this?

Trying not to.

Skeptic Ginger · 9th January 2020, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by carlitos

I suppose that's true. Political ads do have a relatively short shelf life compared to the products and services that I have experience with. Perhaps it's more of a constant churn and you never need to perfect a flawed ad, as you've already moved on by that time.

I hope that Mayor Bloomberg is going to optimize his Super Bowl ad like a consumer product would; that's a big stage for a :60 ad.

Anecdote alert - mrs. carlito, a Republican / swing voter, wants to learn more about Tom Steyer after seeing his ads in Nevada and Illinois.

I can't wait to see the ad, and now Trump is trying to buy time of his own.

Venom · 9th January 2020, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Those are good. He needs to broaden the issues but I'm sure he will.

Broaden the issues?

What hasn't he covered publicly that any of the candidates have?

racial equality/equity - check
global warming (which he calls the greatest crisis of this era) - check
income inequality - check
universal healthcare - check
education - check
foreign policy - check
voting rights - check
women's rights - check

Skeptic Ginger · 9th January 2020, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by Venom

Broaden the issues?

What hasn't he covered publicly that any of the candidates have?

racial equality/equity - check
global warming (which he calls the greatest crisis of this era) - check
income inequality - check
universal healthcare - check
education - check
foreign policy - check
voting rights - check
women's rights - check

I was talking about the ads, not his positions overall.

Steyer's my top choice but if his campaign is weak so far. It's a risk.

Brainster · 9th January 2020, 11:27 PM

Nate Silver is out with his projected chances of who will win the majority of delegates:

Biden: 40%
Sanders: 22%
Nobody: 14%
Warren: 12%
Buttigieg: 10%
Field: 2%

Kind of surprised to see that Nobody in there; we haven't had a contested convention in years.

Brainster · 9th January 2020, 11:47 PM

Steyer qualifies for Tuesday's debate in Iowa with a pair of surprising early state polls:

Quote:

In a new Fox News poll in Nevada, former Vice President Joe Biden leads Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), 23 percent to 17 percent. Steyer is tied for third place with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), with both at 12 percent.

Former South Bend (Ind.) Mayor Pete Buttigieg is a distant fifth at 6 percent, followed by Andrew Yang’s 4 percent.

In a second new poll, in South Carolina, Biden is well ahead with 36 percent of the vote. But Steyer is in second place with 15 percent, jockeying with Sanders (14 percent) and Warren (10 percent).

The article notes that Steyer has been advertising heavily in South Carolina, but wow, 15%?

Skeptic Ginger · 10th January 2020, 12:36 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Steyer qualifies for Tuesday's debate in Iowa with a pair of surprising early state polls:

The article notes that Steyer has been advertising heavily in South Carolina, but wow, 15%?

This is odd:

Quote:

Biden, Buttigieg, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Sanders and Warren.

What's with the "Sen Amy"? Do they think she doesn't have name recognition?

The Fox poll trivia is fun:

Quote:

Support for Steyer is up across the board, with some of his biggest gains among nonwhites, voters with a college degree, and moderates/conservatives.

White caucusgoers prefer Biden (22 percent), over Warren (14 percent), Sanders (13 percent), and Steyer (11 percent).

Among Hispanics, Biden (24 percent) and Sanders (24 percent) outperform Steyer (12 percent) and Warren (11 percent).

Biden’s best group is voters over age 65, while for Sanders it’s those under 30, for Warren it’s liberals, and moderates for Steyer.

By a 51-39 percent margin, caucusgoers prefer a candidate who will fundamentally change how the political system works in Washington over one who will restore the system to how it was pre-Trump administration.

Biden is the clear favorite among voters wanting to restore the system, while those preferring change give Sanders a slight edge, although their support divides between the top four.

“The fact that Nevada Democrats have a clear preference for fundamental change could make it difficult for Biden to grow his support as we get closer to caucus day and decision time approaches,” says Chris Anderson, a Democratic pollster who conducts the Fox News Poll with Republican Daron Shaw.

varwoche · 10th January 2020, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

...Steyer's my top choice but if his campaign is weak so far. It's a risk.

Same here, although I vacillate frequently. I definitely prefer him to the top 4.

Skeptic Ginger · 10th January 2020, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by varwoche

Same here, although I vacillate frequently. I definitely prefer him to the top 4.

I'm still vacillating. Some of my friends are still guilting tripping me about not supporting the Sanders Warren revolution.

Same friends keep telling me how atrocious Bloomberg is, but he looks like such a good candidate.

Steyer is still my current choice and I was pleased to see him rising in the state polls where the first elections are coming up.

Brainster · 10th January 2020, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

This is odd: What's with the "Sen Amy"? Do they think she doesn't have name recognition?

It's standard journalistic practice. The others' full names and occupations had already appeared in the article. That was the first mention of Klobuchar. Later on:

Quote:

A third Fox News poll released Thursday from Wisconsin does not count as a qualifying poll. Biden is at 23 percent to Sanders’ 21 percent. Warren is at 13 percent, Buttigieg is at 9 percent and former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg is at 7 percent.

Because Bloomie hadn't been mentioned before.

Brainster · 10th January 2020, 03:52 PM

Contra John Lennon, love is not all you need. Marianne Williamson drops out.

Delphic Oracle · 10th January 2020, 03:58 PM

Spoke wit a Yang supporter who says he's talked to local business owners who say $15/hr. will put them out of business or make them cut payroll and that's why UBI is better.

I asked for the funding specifics and at first it was "make *insert evil tech company here* pay their taxes." I managed to get down to basics a bit more and heard VAT tax, carbon tax, and economic boost of UBI itself.

Which ends up with the same result, businesses will have increased expenses and have to cut payroll.

dudalb · 10th January 2020, 05:18 PM

Willaimson puts her campaign on hold which is pretty much dropping out in everything but name.
She will not be missed. Dems will be just as well off if not better off without a New Age Wackjob on the ticket.

theprestige · 10th January 2020, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Willaimson puts her campaign on hold which is pretty much dropping out in everything but name.
She will not be missed. Dems will be just as well off if not better off without a New Age Wackjob on the ticket.

Haters gonna hate. I would have voted for Williamson in a heartbeat.

8th January 2020, 08:29 PM	#201
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,293	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I did defend my premise, I cited my years of expertise demonstrated on this forum. And more importantly, there is no simple answer. Some things are like that. Citing your credentials is not defending your premise. I do, however, acknowledge that you have made tremendous efforts to make it clear that explaining what you mean by "effective" in reference to a political ad is just too great a burden to contemplate.
	Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 8th January 2020 at 08:30 PM.

8th January 2020, 11:40 PM	#211
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,883	Originally Posted by Aridas I actually don't have a TV (solely because I wouldn't use it), so I can only say that I haven't seen any on the other TVs that are on when I'm near them. Otherwise, I think that the ad that you just poked at was a good ad. To poke elsewhere... Biden: McConnell will become "Mildly Cooperative" if I'm elected If he actually believes that despite the evidence at hand, well... he really, really isn't getting my primary vote. Not that that's changed, of course, but declaring faith in a guy who's shown profusely that he's untrustworthy and hostile sure looks like the epitomy of stupidity, to me. I think that I would take Bloomberg over him in a heartbeat, especially right after that ad. Perfect example of Grandpa Biden's failure to grasp the situation we are dealing with. And he frequently says "I can do it because I've done it before" but what he's talking about is akin to saying vote for me and the good old days will be back. Compare that to Bloomberg describing his leadership accomplishments when he says he can accomplish a lot of things as POTUS. Steyer cites being successful but he doesn't have the kind of experience to list like Bloomberg does. Keep in mind, he's probably padding that resumé and leaving out the bad.
	Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 8th January 2020 at 11:44 PM.

9th January 2020, 12:28 PM	#218
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,883	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle Nobody asked you to write a term paper, that was just you flailing about trying to victimize yourself over being asked to back up your statement. You're back to discussing me instead of the campaign ads.
	Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 9th January 2020 at 12:30 PM.

9th January 2020, 01:25 PM	#221
Donal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,332	Who has come out with a statement regarding Iran? I saw Pete and Biden were fairly lukewarm. Warren did better and Bernie was pretty forceful.
Donal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,332	__________________ SuburbanNerd A blog for making tech make sense

9th January 2020, 02:50 PM	#222
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,883	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle I made several posts where I gave some thoughts about the ads. You have responded to none of them. I conclude you do not want to discuss the ads. Not sure how my not responding has such broad implications. Is this one of them? Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle I liked one of them from an artistic perspective, but it felt wasted. The rest look really thin and indistinguishable from most others, very paint-by-numbers. YMMV, thanks for sharing your thoughts :9. (that was easy, wasn't it?) I don't have any comments on this post. (That was easy.) I'll keep looking to see if there were more.
	Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 9th January 2020 at 02:52 PM.

8th January 2020, 08:33 PM	#202
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,293	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Just to review, you said this:I replied, I don't care if *you* share my opinion or not. "It is an effective ad" is not a statement of opinion, it is an assertion. "I like the ad, it made me feel good/hopeful/inspired." That's an opinion. But you are mightily versed in media stuff(tm), so I clearly didn't need to explain that difference. My apologies.

8th January 2020, 08:42 PM	#203
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,883	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle Citing your credentials is not defending your premise. I do, however, acknowledge that you have made tremendous efforts to make it clear that explaining what you mean by "effective" in reference to a political ad is just too great a burden to contemplate. If by credentials you mean 14 years of posting here about campaign marketing, narratives, framing, persuasion and propaganda, then yep, I was citing that. I'm not sure why a few people here would rather complain how dissatisfied they were with a particular person's statement about the effectiveness of Bloomberg's ads than they might be interested is simply giving their own opinion/observations of the ads. Do people want to discuss me, or the ads?

8th January 2020, 08:44 PM	#204
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,883	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle "It is an effective ad" is not a statement of opinion, it is an assertion. That's debatable. Meanwhile, did you watch it? Do you disagree?

8th January 2020, 08:51 PM	#205
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,293	Ok, maybe some visual aids will help so we can all have a common frame of reference. Here's Judge Judy (yes that one) reading a punchy bullet-list of focus group pablum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bITEVXwHtI Here's the bootstrapping job creator who will "rebuild America": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_1T_xPpAwo This one had potential when I saw the exposition style, but they took the powerful devices of that style and the goal given is "defeat Trump": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmNiDCSofoc Not a fan of the "Rebuild America" branding, not even a little bit. It strikes me as "MAGA lite." Enough with the damn boomers telling us we need to go back to their happy time. Good lord, that took 10 minutes. I'm exhausted!

8th January 2020, 08:54 PM	#206
Venom Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: United States Posts: 4,861	Based on my non-expert assessment of Bloomberg's ads over the past two weeks he's putting out some great looking ads. It's those good producers paid big money.

8th January 2020, 08:55 PM	#207
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,293	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger If by credentials you mean 14 years of posting here about campaign marketing, narratives, framing, persuasion and propaganda, then yep, I was citing that. Was that discussed in the ad? Because if not, then you still aren't discussing the ad. Quote: I'm not sure why a few people here would rather complain how dissatisfied they were with a particular person's statement about the effectiveness of Bloomberg's ads than they might be interested is simply giving their own opinion/observations of the ads. I would love for you to give some statements ABOUT the ads. Quote: Do people want to discuss me, or the ads? You're the one who, when questioned about the ads, refuses to discuss them further and instead list your credentials. Soooo....

8th January 2020, 08:56 PM	#208
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,293	Originally Posted by Venom Based on my non-expert assessment of Bloomberg's ads over the past two weeks he's putting out some great looking ads. It's those good producers paid big money. I liked one of them from an artistic perspective, but it felt wasted. The rest look really thin and indistinguishable from most others, very paint-by-numbers. YMMV, thanks for sharing your thoughts :9. (that was easy, wasn't it?)

8th January 2020, 11:32 PM	#210
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,883	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle ....You're the one who, when questioned about the ads, refuses to discuss them further and instead list your credentials..... This is a bunch of crap and here's something in particular: That is a false dichotomy. There are a lot of things to discuss about these ads besides asking me to write a term paper on the subject: Originally Posted by angrysoba May I ask what makes you think the ads are effective? Which ones? Where are they being broadcast? And how you come to the conclusion that he could not lose to Trump? Is there polling on this? Or do you know people who voted Trump who are swayed by Bloomberg?

9th January 2020, 02:44 AM	#215
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,883	Originally Posted by SezMe My criticism of that ad: The music is so loud it drowns out the voice-over. He needs a new video editor. ETA: The same criticism applies to the first ad that Venom linked in the previous message. I don't have a problem hearing the voiceover. But this is the kind of issue that a focus group can resolve.

9th January 2020, 07:58 AM	#216
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,293	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger This is a bunch of crap and here's something in particular: That is a false dichotomy. There are a lot of things to discuss about these ads besides asking me to write a term paper on the subject: Nobody asked you to write a term paper, that was just you flailing about trying to victimize yourself over being asked to back up your statement.

9th January 2020, 09:57 AM	#217
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: USA! USA! Posts: 22,779	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I don't have a problem hearing the voiceover. But this is the kind of issue that a focus group can resolve. If an ad is already produced, you wouldn't use a focus group to tweak it. You'd want quantitative not qualitative research. Focus groups might be used at the beginning of the process, or in writing the campaign brief.

9th January 2020, 12:30 PM	#219
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,883	Originally Posted by carlitos If an ad is already produced, you wouldn't use a focus group to tweak it. You'd want quantitative not qualitative research. Focus groups might be used at the beginning of the process, or in writing the campaign brief. Or you could use the focus group for advice on the subsequent ads.

9th January 2020, 01:16 PM	#220
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,293	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger You're back to discussing me instead of the campaign ads. I made several posts where I gave some thoughts about the ads. You have responded to none of them. I conclude you do not want to discuss the ads.

9th January 2020, 02:54 PM	#223
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,883	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle Ok, maybe some visual aids will help so we can all have a common frame of reference. Here's Judge Judy (yes that one) reading a punchy bullet-list of focus group pablum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bITEVXwHtI Here's the bootstrapping job creator who will "rebuild America": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_1T_xPpAwo This one had potential when I saw the exposition style, but they took the powerful devices of that style and the goal given is "defeat Trump": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmNiDCSofoc Not a fan of the "Rebuild America" branding, not even a little bit. It strikes me as "MAGA lite." Enough with the damn boomers telling us we need to go back to their happy time. Good lord, that took 10 minutes. I'm exhausted! No comment other than I have mixed feelings about the Judge Judy endorsement: I don't like her but the ad looks effective. Couldn't find any more that weren't attacks on me because of a reply I posted to TP.
	Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 9th January 2020 at 02:57 PM.

9th January 2020, 03:17 PM	#224
Donal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,332	So, we're just round and round with this?
Donal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,332	__________________ SuburbanNerd A blog for making tech make sense

9th January 2020, 03:36 PM	#225
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: USA! USA! Posts: 22,779	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Or you could use the focus group for advice on the subsequent ads. I suppose that's true. Political ads do have a relatively short shelf life compared to the products and services that I have experience with. Perhaps it's more of a constant churn and you never need to perfect a flawed ad, as you've already moved on by that time. I hope that Mayor Bloomberg is going to optimize his Super Bowl ad like a consumer product would; that's a big stage for a :60 ad. Anecdote alert - mrs. carlito, a Republican / swing voter, wants to learn more about Tom Steyer after seeing his ads in Nevada and Illinois.
	Last edited by carlitos; 9th January 2020 at 03:38 PM.

9th January 2020, 03:42 PM	#226
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,293	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger No comment other than I have mixed feelings about the Judge Judy endorsement: I don't like her but the ad looks effective. Couldn't find any more that weren't attacks on me because of a reply I posted to TP. Progress is progress, thanks for making the effort.

9th January 2020, 04:11 PM	#227
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,883	Originally Posted by Donal So, we're just round and round with this? Trying not to.

9th January 2020, 04:12 PM	#228
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,883	Originally Posted by carlitos I suppose that's true. Political ads do have a relatively short shelf life compared to the products and services that I have experience with. Perhaps it's more of a constant churn and you never need to perfect a flawed ad, as you've already moved on by that time. I hope that Mayor Bloomberg is going to optimize his Super Bowl ad like a consumer product would; that's a big stage for a :60 ad. Anecdote alert - mrs. carlito, a Republican / swing voter, wants to learn more about Tom Steyer after seeing his ads in Nevada and Illinois. I can't wait to see the ad, and now Trump is trying to buy time of his own.

9th January 2020, 04:47 PM	#229
Venom Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: United States Posts: 4,861	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Those are good. He needs to broaden the issues but I'm sure he will. Broaden the issues? What hasn't he covered publicly that any of the candidates have? racial equality/equity - check global warming (which he calls the greatest crisis of this era) - check income inequality - check universal healthcare - check education - check foreign policy - check voting rights - check women's rights - check

9th January 2020, 08:30 PM	#230
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,883	Originally Posted by Venom Broaden the issues? What hasn't he covered publicly that any of the candidates have? racial equality/equity - check global warming (which he calls the greatest crisis of this era) - check income inequality - check universal healthcare - check education - check foreign policy - check voting rights - check women's rights - check I was talking about the ads, not his positions overall. Steyer's my top choice but if his campaign is weak so far. It's a risk.

9th January 2020, 11:27 PM	#231
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,168	Nate Silver is out with his projected chances of who will win the majority of delegates: Biden: 40% Sanders: 22% Nobody: 14% Warren: 12% Buttigieg: 10% Field: 2% Kind of surprised to see that Nobody in there; we haven't had a contested convention in years.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

9th January 2020, 11:47 PM	#232
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,168	Steyer qualifies for Tuesday's debate in Iowa with a pair of surprising early state polls: Quote: In a new Fox News poll in Nevada, former Vice President Joe Biden leads Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), 23 percent to 17 percent. Steyer is tied for third place with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), with both at 12 percent. Former South Bend (Ind.) Mayor Pete Buttigieg is a distant fifth at 6 percent, followed by Andrew Yang’s 4 percent. In a second new poll, in South Carolina, Biden is well ahead with 36 percent of the vote. But Steyer is in second place with 15 percent, jockeying with Sanders (14 percent) and Warren (10 percent). The article notes that Steyer has been advertising heavily in South Carolina, but wow, 15%?
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

10th January 2020, 12:36 AM	#233
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,883	Originally Posted by Brainster Steyer qualifies for Tuesday's debate in Iowa with a pair of surprising early state polls: The article notes that Steyer has been advertising heavily in South Carolina, but wow, 15%? This is odd: Quote: Biden, Buttigieg, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Sanders and Warren. What's with the "Sen Amy"? Do they think she doesn't have name recognition? The Fox poll trivia is fun: Quote: Support for Steyer is up across the board, with some of his biggest gains among nonwhites, voters with a college degree, and moderates/conservatives. White caucusgoers prefer Biden (22 percent), over Warren (14 percent), Sanders (13 percent), and Steyer (11 percent). Among Hispanics, Biden (24 percent) and Sanders (24 percent) outperform Steyer (12 percent) and Warren (11 percent). Biden’s best group is voters over age 65, while for Sanders it’s those under 30, for Warren it’s liberals, and moderates for Steyer. By a 51-39 percent margin, caucusgoers prefer a candidate who will fundamentally change how the political system works in Washington over one who will restore the system to how it was pre-Trump administration. Biden is the clear favorite among voters wanting to restore the system, while those preferring change give Sanders a slight edge, although their support divides between the top four. “The fact that Nevada Democrats have a clear preference for fundamental change could make it difficult for Biden to grow his support as we get closer to caucus day and decision time approaches,” says Chris Anderson, a Democratic pollster who conducts the Fox News Poll with Republican Daron Shaw.

10th January 2020, 09:20 AM	#234
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 15,372	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger ...Steyer's my top choice but if his campaign is weak so far. It's a risk. Same here, although I vacillate frequently. I definitely prefer him to the top 4.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot. My authority is total - Trump

10th January 2020, 02:59 PM	#235
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,883	Originally Posted by varwoche Same here, although I vacillate frequently. I definitely prefer him to the top 4. I'm still vacillating. Some of my friends are still guilting tripping me about not supporting the Sanders Warren revolution. Same friends keep telling me how atrocious Bloomberg is, but he looks like such a good candidate. Steyer is still my current choice and I was pleased to see him rising in the state polls where the first elections are coming up.

10th January 2020, 03:48 PM	#236
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,168	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger This is odd: What's with the "Sen Amy"? Do they think she doesn't have name recognition? It's standard journalistic practice. The others' full names and occupations had already appeared in the article. That was the first mention of Klobuchar. Later on: Quote: A third Fox News poll released Thursday from Wisconsin does not count as a qualifying poll. Biden is at 23 percent to Sanders’ 21 percent. Warren is at 13 percent, Buttigieg is at 9 percent and former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg is at 7 percent. Because Bloomie hadn't been mentioned before.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

10th January 2020, 03:52 PM	#237
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,168	Contra John Lennon, love is not all you need. Marianne Williamson drops out.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

10th January 2020, 03:58 PM	#238
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,293	Spoke wit a Yang supporter who says he's talked to local business owners who say $15/hr. will put them out of business or make them cut payroll and that's why UBI is better. I asked for the funding specifics and at first it was "make insert evil tech company here pay their taxes." I managed to get down to basics a bit more and heard VAT tax, carbon tax, and economic boost of UBI itself. Which ends up with the same result, businesses will have increased expenses and have to cut payroll.

10th January 2020, 05:18 PM	#239
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 49,994	Willaimson puts her campaign on hold which is pretty much dropping out in everything but name. She will not be missed. Dems will be just as well off if not better off without a New Age Wackjob on the ticket.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.