Posted on 01/31/2016 12:04:53 AM PST by JediJones
I’m sorry, but I do not see any substantive differences. Can you highlight what you see as different for me?
100% agree. Let’s find something, ANYTHING to make the consistent Conservative look bad.
They say it’s effective but several variables are different:
* The impact and use of social media are more than ever. Moves like this one are less likely to go under the radar.
* People are peeved more than ever. Public tolerance for mailers like this are low.
* Fear levels are up, and public disclosure with statements indicating the receiver is being watched for “correct” behavior is scarier than ever.
And the one that makes me wonder how high the IQs of this team are:
* This is a CAUCUS, NOT a primary. At primaries, voters show up and simply cast a ballot. But a caucus is INTERACTIVE. Can you imagine the conversations that will ensue as people show up to caucus and these letters are discussed by fearful and angry people?
I really don’t think they considered the “conversation and discussion variable” when they decided to go with sending out these letters.
http://kcur.org/post/how-jeff-roe-went-kansas-city-bad-boy-running-presidential-campaign
SNICKER!!!!!!
There’s a lot of them here.
When kids get caught doing something they shouldn’t have, the first excuse they try is to point out that some other kid did the same thing and got away with it, so he should too.
“ANOTHER Harvard-educated lawyer with not even a full term in the US Senate being touted as a brilliant Constitutional lawyer?”
“deja vu”, absolutely.
Sad isn’t it...
Sometimes “tricks” are part of the script. I remember going to a campaign “school” and they discussed “techniques” (more like antics rather than even dirty tricks) that had been successful in previous elections. The Missouri materials look way too much like the Iowa papers to not be connected. And in the world of political consultants, there are only so many and they know what others are up to, especially within their own party. They use the same pollsters, dialers, etc. What works once may not work in the future.
“I’m sorry, but I do not see any substantive differences. Can you highlight what you see as different for me?”
Yes I could, but it would be a waste of time.
I asked an honest question. Your response is much less than helpful.
And your mind reader guild card is revoked. Lol
There is a lot of hostility on this site right now, and it clearly is undermining the level of debate and information exchange. On my first reading I did not see differences you clearly do see. So, I asked to see if I missed something.
So far, it appears I only missed condescension.
Fair enough and it is a major difference.
Cruz is scolding and shaming with the ‘F’ grade and ‘violation’ language.
The old one, while patronizing, gives the recipient a decent grade and encourages them to do better.
“I’d love to see more of you” versus, “Hop to it you failure”.
To me, the difference is obvious. Only the format is similar. They are two very different messages.
Thank you. I had overlooked that difference.
I still dislike the comparative disclosures about neighbors in both.
“I still dislike the comparative disclosures about neighbors in both.”
It’s horrible. Like being censured by hall monitors. I was briefly in the Soviet Union and some other Warsaw Pact countries in the mid ‘80s. The -pettiness- of the watching and criticizing was pervasive. This savors of that petty arm twisting, like scolding reluctant Subbotniks into showing up to ‘volunteer’ to pick up around the park.
My apologies for being curt earlier. I did not realize your question was sincere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.