Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Politico and McCaskill Pull Back the Curtain
We all remember what a complete and utter disaster Todd Akin was. What we — or at least I — didn’t know is that his win in Missouri’s 2012 Republican senate primary was largely engineered by none other than Claire McCaskill, who would go on to beat him in the general election. So says Senator McCaskill herself in a smug and shameless article in Politico:
Using the guidance of my campaign staff and consultants, [my campaign team and I] came up with the idea for a “dog whistle” ad, a message that was pitched in such a way that it would be heard only by a certain group of people. I told my team we needed to put Akin’s uber-conservative bona fides in an ad—and then, using reverse psychology, tell voters not to vote for him. And we needed to run the hell out of that ad.
In the article, McCaskill lays out how she successfully manipulated Republican primary voters to get the general election opponent she wanted to run against. That it worked is surprising enough; that she and Politico are willing to tell us just how stupid and malleable they (correctly) assumed voters would be is nothing short of breathtaking. Akin’s subsequent and galactic stupidity was merely the bow on her gift bag .
Having seen some of Netflix’s House of Cards, and Starz’ The Boss, I get the feeling that the general public is starting to sense the cynicism, corruption, and contempt that characterizes American politicians in the 21st century. These shows portray them as among the worst examples humanity has to offer. They showcase not only the clichéd venality, greed, and dishonesty, but also reveal these politicians’ sense of impunity. I do what I want, and it’s your problem if you don’t like it. What are you going to do about it, anyway? What amazes me is that these two shows are actually closer to the truth than many of us thought possible. It appears that no suspension of disbelief is required; these aren’t dramas, they’re just documentaries with fictional names.
McCaskill played Missouri’s voters like she was Yo-Yo Ma sawing on a cello. Politicians haven’t been this open in their disdain of voters since … I don’t know, 1775 perhaps? The fact that they’re so comfortable rubbing our noses in it means that they think we really are governed by our Natural Masters rather than by Public Servants.
Published in General
Polls…
People share too much in polls.
The only people benefiting from Polls are democrats, because they only share the polls they want to share.
Part of me wants to start an “anti-Polling” crusade.
No one wants to hear your voice, they just want information to manipulate people with so they can gain power.
I’m pretty sick of these natural masters.
Yudanisha, the shocking thing is that this was known at the time–Akin’s opponents even pointed out that McCaskill’s forces were doing it. All the details weren’t known but the signs were obvious and much-commented on on the web.
Republicans, conservatives knew and they voted for Akin anyway. That’s the amazing thing; nobody had to lie to them. They drank the Kool-Aid voluntarily and enthusiastically.
Excepts:
Luckily, Republicans nationwide would not fall for a trick like that.
No, just 25%?
Same thing happened in Nevada last time Harry Reid was up, didn’t it? The Dems picked the weakest Republican opponent and pushed hard in the primary.
And I’m guessing Republicans don;t go out of their way to face the toughest opponent possible.
I don’t really think this is anything that new.
Does anyone wonder if the Clinton machine has chosen DT for the same reason? That the electorate is being played, while better candidates are having the energy sucked out of their fundraising, they can only get attention by standing against him, rather than focusing on their own strengths? It drives me to drink (fine Pacific Northwest microbrews, of course) to think that serious, informed candidates can’t get the air-time they need. DT is sucking the air out of the campaign space. He can’t lose either way: if he wins, good. If Shrillary wins, it is his gift to her. She’ll owe him, yuuuuuuge.
This is also one of those circumstances where principles are critical. If they had spent more time looking at the candidates records and positions and less time on the labeling or what McCaskill’s ads said, they might have picked a better candidate. It’s hard but you have to remain anchored to your beliefs. Your votes and your reasons make you conservative, not simply saying “I’m conservative” or Democrats saying “He’s an extremist.”
Interesting twist on this story
emphasis mine.
This is all KookEr KraZY tAlK and you’re all in violation of the CoC. Color with the crayons you’re given, not the ones you think are right.
Mayor Behan will be here to arrest you shortly.
I had read this at the time. I can’t believe she’s so open. Is she not going to try to run again? Does she realize this trick won’t work next time around? “Fool me once, shame on you — fool me twice, shame on me.” Missouri Republicans will be… highly motivated, and a little wiser.
I didn’t realize was that Huckabee backed Akin? Not that it surprises me.
And yes, it absolutely raises questions about Donald Trump. And if I were a desperate candidate in Iowa, I’d be making an ad out of it. Give a few shots of McCaskill’s talk and a few shots of Trump talking like a Democrat.
Is that really what’s going on? Don’t know. But the fact that it’s even a legitimate question matters.
One thing I can’t get out of my head is the way Trump attacked Walker. If he really thought like a conservative, he could come up with a conservative or neutral line of attack. But he didn’t. He took a very specific talking point about the fake “budget deficit,” straight from the Wisconsin Left. So who’s doing his opposition research?
I think all the intrigue can create a web of unexpected consequences, especially when the Main Stream Media is not on our side.
Unless there is evidence that Trump is a plant (is that what is being suggested?) it seems unwise to suggest it, or use the McCaskill story to defuse Trump.
Though, we certainly can do opposition research on his supporters and expose Trump’s non-conservative positions. Highlight his incoherently delivered platform to our advantage.
It seems like Trump is gaining visibility with the supporting hand of the media. Our best defense against Trump, or other Democrats, is to use facts about HIM, that can’t be manipulated into damaging sound bites, memes or Gifs.
With all the criticism about HRC and her emojiis, sadly, too many people function on that level.
I wouldn’t expect a serious candidate to do it.
But it’s relevant. It’s very relevant as evidence that Republicans should think very closely about what they are doing, that nominating a candidate simply because of his political incorrectness may indeed benefit the Democrats.
Rand Paul is trying. I have reservations about him that I wish I didn’t have because where he is great, he is terrific.
And yes, the reasons for his attack on Walker bugged me too.
Incidentally, I have been wondering if McCaskill is going to run again. I don’t know how you can seek re-election after that.
I know that some people think she engaged in improper campaign coordination. I hope the next administration (which I hope is Republican) takes an interest.
yes, definitely relevant, and an inside discussion, not as a public campaign strategy.
To be clear, I’m not aware of any evidence that the Clintons are actually coordinating with Trump (other than allegedly encouraging him to run on that phone call). It is rather clear that Democrats would love to see him be the nominee, or run third-party, or simply continue prominent — and I do think the media is playing him up deliberately. It wouldn’t seem bizarre for Rand Paul’s PAC to make a point out of it and remind everyone how that ends up.
Because I find McCaskill to be a disgusting human being it’s tempting to say this is just one more thing that makes her so. But choosing one’s fights is always a wise thing for anyone to do, and if you can choose your opponent in a fight that’s even better. So while I’d like to accuse her, it is really the fault of the Republicans, especially those in a position to have recognized what was happening.
Wasn’t Akin leading McCaskill in the polls before he allowed himself to get into an abortion discussion which he handled badly? If I’m right he blew an opportunity to turn the tables on McCaskill. That would have been delicious.
Republicans were suckered the same way into nominating McCain and Romney. Democrats clearly wanted both of these opponents while Republicans believed they were the ones with the best chance to win. In reality, they were the ones most likely to lose.
There is no point in blaming Democrats when this happens. The blame goes to the Republicans who are so easily manipulated. The Republicans simply need to learn to play the game. They need to learn that in every conflict the aggressor makes the rules, and Democrats are always the aggressors. It’s in their DNA. You have to play by their rules.
What galls me is her obvious giddiness in sharing her evil plan. It’s so Claire. We all thought that she might run for Governor in 2016 but she says she’s not. So not sure what she has up her sleeve but you can bet whatever it is won’t be in the best interest of the good citizens on Missouri. Wish I could tell you that our state GOP has plans for her should she run again but I sincerely doubt it.
This is what bothers me too. The tone of the article is her breathless eagerness to show us just how she got one over on her state’s voters. My outrage is somewhat tempered by Gary McVey’s comment that this was known and commented upon at the time. I’m just embarrassed that Sen. McCaskill basically made suckers of the Missouri GOP; apparently with their full knowledge and consent.
Both parties have done it, but it’s rare when someone actually brags about it.
I actually agreed with one social conservative’s advice to Akin if he was determined not to drop out; maybe it was here on Ricochet. Maybe it was one of you. He knew that the really damaging end of Akin’s statement was the claim that “the female body has ways of shutting this down”. That’s what sunk him. The SoCon writer also knew that there were once false legends about women being able to control their fertility by sheer will. So, he sighed, someone authoritative in the pro-life movement needed to sit Akin down, explain that these theories had been discredited a long time ago, and give him some better talking points. It was good advice.
He didn’t take it.
Akin had been in the legislature, either at the state or federal level, since George H.W. Bush was president. It was a basic and obvious question on a major issue. It’s not like so much has changed regarding the arguments in that time. Lack of basic preparation. People outside of Missouri probably thought he was an amateur.