Originally posted by Bicnarok
Wakey Wakey 😱Don´t tell you you fall for this sort of prepared, pre written by a bunch of experts, acted speech. She and other political tools should get Oscars for their performances sometimes.
Notice the key words, the mention of key players, key brainwashing phrases 😱 Its SOO obviously BULLSHIT its unbelievable
When politicians start actually doing something instead of waffling a load of crap with false crowds cheering and screaming in the background then I will be impressed.
She wrote most of her speech.
Obama also writes all of his own big speeches.
Originally posted by Robtard
"False crowds"?
A common political technique, arguably perfected by Hitler, in which you flood the place you're going to make an appearance with your supporters (or pay people to show up at your rally) so that it seems like you have a lot of support no matter where you go.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A common political technique, arguably perfected by Hitler, in which you flood the place you're going to make an appearance with your supporters (or pay people to show up at your rally) so that it seems like you have a lot of support no matter where you go.
I know what the meaning is, as it's self explanatory. Just don't see how that fits in with the DNC/RNC speech as they're open conventions.
Originally posted by Robtard
I know what the meaning is, as it's self explanatory. Just don't see how that fits in with the DNC/RNC speech as they're open conventions.
I think his point is that they get the chance to lobby their positions and policies to a HUGE audience those nights, and since the conventions are mostly full of supporters, it can create an effect where the person speaking is seen as having the favor/support of all the people, in such a way that it influences those who are watching.
And he's right.
The republicans will do the same thing.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot... In addition to this question being raised... since it's "Clinton Day" at the DNC... does it concern anyone that a voter may think:
On that note, does it concern anyone that a person may think:
"Is there a reason this ticket isn't reversed?"Essentially I wonder whether it will bring to voters mind: why does all of the above count for nil in the end against vague rhetorical prowess in determining the order of the names...
He does of course have the negatives of apparently verbosity, loose lips and boring old white man-ness...
*edit* @ Rob
It's both. It's of course a place for the supporters, and that's who you expect to be there.
But it also helps convey the impression to outside viewers that this person is well liked and has the best ideas if everything they say gets a applause or a standing ovation. It's more of a subconscience thing, I think.
And the republicans do it to.
It's kind of what conventions are for, really. To rally the base, and to show others how much support you have in an attempt to get them to...support you.
Well, you sort of have the right idea there, sith. Conventions are less about rallying the base and more about introducing a "new" party (the party platform is rewritten every election) and the ticket to the broader electorate (unless you're the 2004 GOP). That why there's such a thing as a convention "bounce" - there are less undecideds.
The delegates in the audience are obviously straight-ticket partisans who are there to basically cheer and eventually cast their ballot for the nominee.
Originally posted by RobtardNot so much the delegates. Rather ordinary voting public. Biden esssentially addresses less positives, and comes with the same negatives as Clinton probably would have. I'm pretty sure the Republicans are already working this angle though.
Because she failed to win over the super-delegates (though I think technically, she still has some chance in doing so)?
Edit: Oops. I think I misunderstood your comment. I don't really get how that responds to "If Biden... why not Clinton?" Biden performed poorly in Iowa caucuses then quit... giving him a total of zero delegates... If anything the delegates only further accentuate the "If Biden, why not Clinton?" question.