BloggeRhythms

An article by Ryan Struyk and Shushannah Walshe this morning @abcnews.go.com/Politics, via Drudge caught my eye. The headline was: "ANTI-TRUMP AD SPENDING TOPS $63M..."

 

The text begins: “Broadcast advertising dollars aimed at toppling GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump has soared 900 percent since his first primary victory in New Hampshire - a total of more than $63 million -- according to an ABC News analysis of CMAG/Kantar Media data. 

“The total haul aimed at blocking the real estate mogul is now three times as much as what Trump has spent on his whole campaign and twice as much as the behemoth super PAC Right to Rise spent during its tenure supporting Jeb Bush.” 

The information in those two paragraphs had me scratching my head. Because the first question popping to mind was that in today’s day and age, who watches ads any of any kind? Much less political noise, promises or childish smears of rivals. 

Myself, and those in my household, get almost all of their news on the web today, where intruding ads are clicked off instantaneously without recognition or thought. And as far as TV goes, all shows are recorded to be watched later on, including the news. That way, all ads are fast-forwarded, fly by in a blur, and haven’t been seen in quite a few years now, certainly more than 10. Even Jeopardy goes by in fifteen minutes, when it takes only seconds to zip right by the commercials and boring contestant interviews by Alex.  

Additionally, viewers wear headphones at my home, so all unwanted sound is easily muted. However, even if they were seen or heard, what rational person anywhere would believe anything said or promoted in any kind of an ad, regardless of the subject? The answer is: No one with an IQ higher than their shoe size. 

And then, the very next paragraph in the article confirmed my belief that ads for anything mean very little, more likely nothing, to anyone, anywhere any more and haven’t for a very long time in the past. 

The authors wrote: “And while anti-Trump forces have ramped up their attacks in recent weeks as the prospect of a Trump nomination has gotten more and more likely, Trump has largely continued his string of primary and caucus victories.” 

Which means that the advertisers could have set fire to their $63 million and gotten the same result.  

PS: If anyone out there does believe what’s said in advertisements, I’ve got his bridge that connects Manhattan to Brooklyn, which I’ll sell to you for an incredibly low price. Call me at 555-1212.  

And then, in a truly remarkable coincidence, after finishing the previous paragraph about having the Brooklyn Bridge for sale, I came across a link on Drudge, saying: “Iran to build statue of captured US sailors...”

 

Ahmed Vahdat @telegraph.co.uk, writes: “Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is planning to build a statue of the US sailors who were captured in Iranian waters earlier this year, a senior officer said. 

“The provocative proposal is likely to cause outrage in the US and be seized on by Republicans opposed to President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. 

Commander Ali Fadavi, the head of the Guard’s naval forces, told Iran’s Defense Press news agency: “The monument of the surrendering Americans would be a “tourist attraction” Going on, “There are very many photographs of the major incident of arresting US Marines in the Persian Gulf in the media and we intend to build a symbol out of them inside one of our naval monuments.” 

So, indeed, there are certainly  a few people out there naïve enough to believe things such as ads offering things like the Brooklyn Bridge for sale, and perhaps even make an offer. It’s just one wouldn’t expect that depth of gullibility from someone occupying the Oval Office. However, his Secretary of State is a major league dupe and Hall of Fame kind of sucker altogether, as his life-long track record indicates. For proof, ask any Iranian or Cuban.

Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

Something unusual seems to be starting in the media, which may be an early indication of things to come. 

Joe Klein’s known the Clinton's for 25 years, writing favorably about both since 1992 in his New York magazine cover story on Bill. 

While agreeing with Bill’s wife’s self-assessment of not being a natural politician, he goes much further in weighing a Trump matchup, saying: “Clinton seems particularly ill equipped for the task. She is our very own quinoa and kale salad, nutritious but bland. Worse, she’s the human embodiment of the Establishment that Trump has been running against… 

“Indeed, her real problem is that she’s too much of a politician. She still speaks like politicians did 20 years ago, when her husband was President. This year, the candidates who have seemed the most appealing–Trump, Sanders, John Kasich–don’t use the oratorical switchbacks that have been beaten to death since John F. Kennedy.” 

“There is an odd new law of U.S. politics: You can lie, as Trump does all the time, egregiously, but you can’t temporize. You can’t avoid a position on the XL pipeline or the Trans-Pacific trade deal, as Clinton tried to do in the campaign. You can’t try to please too many people too much of the time. Raising your voice to make a point–which Clinton does all the time, disastrously, because it seems such a conscious act–won’t get you anywhere unless you’re really angry. 

“In the end, I’m not at all certain that Clinton can beat Trump.” 

Thus, while even Klein, who’s steeped in”inside” information can’t really predict what will happen in the coming election, or even who will eventually earn nomination, he certainly has more of a sense of real probability than others. Therefore, with 8 long political months left to go, there’s obviously a lot remaining to be seen yet, regarding all presidential candidates and their vulnerabilities. 

Raising the ongoing question again: Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?     

That’s it for today folks.     

Adios