Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,553 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6040
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC
Christie gets the spotlight because the national news media center in NYC is right outside his door, figuratively speaking. Do you think if he was a big mouth R Governor in Blue State Oregon, for example, anyone would pay attention to him?
yes. I honestly do. He is just that big of a personality.
And like i said, when he got into the national spotlight, he took advantage of it.
Christie gets the spotlight because the national news media center in NYC is right outside his door, figuratively speaking. Do you think if he was a big mouth R Governor in Blue State Oregon, for example, anyone would pay attention to him?
I think you are onto something here. I am sure a lot of his attention has to do with where he is, but a lot does have to do with his bigger than life personality. If he was from a small mid western state he would just be another governor.
Agree with you Ladies. Scott Walker for the most part speaks with his actions, and of course running for reelection. The many elections thanks to the unions and dems. But, the media otherwise ignores him. Just, your basic upper Midwest state. Chicago media pales in comparison to New Yauk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita
I think you are onto something here. I am sure a lot of his attention has to do with where he is, but a lot does have to do with his bigger than life personality. If he was from a small mid western state he would just be another governor.
Scott Walker for the most part speaks with his actions, and of course running for reelection. The many elections thanks to the unions and dems. But, the media otherwise ignores him. Just, your basic upper Midwest state. Chicago media pales in comparison to New Yauk.
Scott Walker has received plenty of national attention as a potential presidential candidate. His bigger problems are:
1.) He lacks charisma and isn't particularly good on the stump. Being the governor of a midsize or small state isn't disqualifying provided you've got it -- see Clinton, William Jefferson.
2.) Wisconsin's economy is not performing well by national standards. Yes, the unemployment rate is lower than the national average (as it was when Walker took office), but job, income, and GDP growth are anemic. The governor may or may not be to blame (likely not -- such things are baked into the cake decades in advance), but it'll be difficult for Walker to point to Wisconsin as a success story worth emulating at the federal level.
The reforms instituted via Act 10 take a while to seep through the economy. It is sort of like repairing a foundation manually and one brick at a time, versus ramjacking it .
I don't think the attention has been so much on Walker. Instead, it has been on the anti-Walker foes.
Agree, he is not a charismatic figure. That may be his undoing. Apparently, he can put together pretty solid campaigns though. Had Romney put together a solid campaign organization, strategy and tactics, he would have won in 2012. I think he stayed too much in traditional tactics and that was his undoing. But, I don't want to digress to much from the topic.
Actually, I much rather prefer steady, effective and thoughtful to charismatic and slippery as a greased pig. Tired of the results we get with image over substance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael
Scott Walker has received plenty of national attention as a potential presidential candidate. His bigger problems are:
1.) He lacks charisma and isn't particularly good on the stump. Being the governor of a midsize or small state isn't disqualifying provided you've got it -- see Clinton, William Jefferson.
2.) Wisconsin's economy is not performing well by national standards. Yes, the unemployment rate is lower than the national average (as it was when Walker took office), but job, income, and GDP growth are anemic. The governor may or may not be to blame (likely not -- such things are baked into the cake decades in advance), but it'll be difficult for Walker to point to Wisconsin as a success story worth emulating at the federal level.
The reforms instituted via Act 10 take a while to seep through the economy. It is sort of like repairing a foundation manually and one brick at a time, versus ramjacking it.
Act 10 isn't going to do a damn thing to improve the economy. It might have made sense in a state like Illinois, but Wisconsin's public pensions were the best-funded in the nation when Walker took office. I live in Minnesota, and according to Pew, our long-term pension obligations are $15.6 billion vs. $69.7 million in Wisconsin. But our economy is performing much better, largely on account of having a younger and better educated workforce. Walker should have focused there; it doesn't make sense to expend immense energy on piddling problems.
Agree, he is not a charismatic figure. That may be his undoing. Apparently, he can put together pretty solid campaigns though. Had Romney put together a solid campaign organization, strategy and tactics, he would have won in 2012. I think he stayed too much in traditional tactics and that was his undoing. But, I don't want to digress to much from the topic.
No, Romney lost because they were trying to wrap a Progressive in Conservative clothes, and then tried to sell it and not many bought it.
Nothing was going to help Romney get past his Progressive values and actions. Conservatives are educated people, not the ignorant that can be Grubered.
Whitman was known a bit, but not nearly as much as Christie. Corzine had national attention prior to him being Governor, since he was a Senator and CEO of Goldman Sachs prior.
The big media markets have some impact, but I think the bigger issue is some seek out the media, others don't. Granted you do have some boring type of candidates such as Romney and Kerry, but it typically takes a certain kind of personality to make a big national name for yourself, a more laid back candidate has less of a chance of making a big name for themselves. Large media market states tend to have those type of candidates more than some of the small market states simply due to the fact you tend to need that personality in the larger market states to get elected in the first place, you really don't in the smaller market states.
Also it's not like we haven't had small state and small media market Governor's gain a big national profile. Clinton did, as has Huckabee, Jindal. Schweitzer in Montana is often labeled as a potential Presidential candidate for the Dems in 2016.
I see you are in NY. When I lived in and grew up in NY (mostly on LI) all I got was NY and DC news focused stories and assumed the rest of the country thought just like I did. I lived in the DC area, too (DC media - TV, newspapers and radio) for 12 years. I'm very attuned to the exposure bias favoring politicians in close physical proximity to the media hubs in NYC and DC.
Let me tell you something. A couple of elections ago, the media was dropping the names of Bloomberg and Pataki as potential candidates for President. Both MSNBC and Fox News (not sure about CNN) were all buzzing about it like little schoolgirls. They were buzzing about it on some syndicated radio shows, too. That's because in their little NY - DC bubble, Pataki and Bloomberg were big deals. I was living in Tennessee by then. The rest of the country is thinking, "Who the heck is Pataki?" and "Bloomberg who?" (this was before the mayor had his nanny gene explosion) at the same time the national news media were ga-ga over the prospect. (Personally, I think, they think this might give them an advantage if the guy ever becomes President but I digress.)
Representative Peter King is all over the news as the go-to guy on this or that issue. Why, other than that he's from NY and works in DC so they all know him? He's nothing special that would make him a sought out Congressman for his opinion. I think that he thinks he's a bigger deal than he is simply because the media asks for his opinion all the time or why else would he be considering running for President? In fact, I bet a lot of people outside of NY know who he is simply because he's on TV so much and he's a Republican in NY. (He's probably your Congressman, I lived further east.)
When the media in NY and DC were all over the Christie bridge story like a rabid dog with a piece of raw meat, do you really think the rest of the country cared about some lane closure on a NY/NJ bridge? As a person who lived in NY and DC, I know that bridge is a big deal but to everybody else the bridge lane closing and reason behind it were small potatoes.
I'm willing to bet the proximity to the media was one of the factors Hillary Clinton considered when the Clintons decided to live in NY. Maybe not the main reason, but one of them.
No, Romney lost because they were trying to wrap a Progressive in Conservative clothes, and then tried to sell it and not many bought it.
Nothing was going to help Romney get past his Progressive values and actions. Conservatives are educated people, not the ignorant that can be Grubered.
Romney lost because its nearly impossible to beat an incumbent President without the President being challenge in the primaries by his party. A sitting President with no primary challenge has ALL the advantages since he doesn't have to spend money in the primaries and has a huge advantage using the bully pulpit of the Presidency to get $$$$$$ or doesn't have to fight campaigning in his party early or get bloody up like the party out of power has to do.
No conservative would have beat Obama in 2012. He had too many advantages from money and the media on his side. Not even Reagan would have won his own state of California in 2012.
Reagan beat President Carter in 1980 because Ted Kennedy challenged a sitting President within the party in the primaries and weaken Carter and divided the party. That's were the Reagan Democrats left the party and voted for Reagan. You can thank Ted Kennedy for that.
Bill Clinton beat Bush Sr. a sitting President in 1992 because Buchanan challenged the sitting President in 1992 GOP Primaries and Ross Perot a conservative challenger divided the conservative vote in the general. Without that, Bill Clinton would had never been President, since he was a weak candidate in 1992.
Romney got nearly 61 million votes, under the circumstances he did good. Romney got more votes than Bill Clinton.
Last edited by Hellion1999; 12-17-2014 at 08:27 AM..
I will question the sanity of anybody that wants to be the next President and have to clean up the mess this present loser has created. No matter what they do, they will look bad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
