Mark Halperin’s telling graphic the psi-ops of the left

Readability

Mark Halperin's telling graphic the psi-ops of the left

In Time Mag­a­zine Mark Halperin hand­i­caps the 2012 repub­li­can nom­i­na­tion. For­get­ting that there is no actual sci­en­tific way to mea­sure these things there are three points I’d like to note:

1. The Mike Huck­abee announce­ment auto­mat­i­cally makes this graphic obsolete.

2. Assum­ing his book­mak­ing is cor­rect (it’s not) If the odds of Mitt Romney’s nom­i­na­tion are 31 that means there is one chance in three that he will win the nom­i­na­tion, con­versely that means there are 2 chances in 3 that he will not. Michael Gra­ham will be pleased.

3. Any chart that shows Jon Hunts­man in the top 5 (now top four) repub­li­cans to win the nom­i­na­tion is not to be taken seriously.

These points con­cern­ing the lat­est attempt to spin this elec­tion are all impor­tant, but the most impor­tant points con­cern who is miss­ing from this chart and who is at the bot­tom of the list. Open up the Graphic in another tab and look at it again.

Rule one in the MSM is strong repub­li­can women have to be mar­gin­al­ized or mocked and ridiculed. Note that the strong repub­li­can woman on the list are put at the very bot­tom. This is highly nec­es­sary, we can’t have any­one think­ing that the GOP might be think­ing of nom­i­nat­ing a woman let alone a strong one.

Note also that the more con­ser­v­a­tive the can­di­date, the far­ther down the list. Can’t sug­gest that a con­ser­v­a­tive might win the nom­i­na­tion, have to dis­cour­age that kind of thought.

And finally note who isn’t even included, the Repub­li­can can­di­date who has made the most splash lately in cam­paign­ing and in debates. Her­man Cain! We don’t dare men­tion Cain, or show Cain or give any odds on Cain. What would the read­ers of Time Mag­a­zine or the view­ers of Morn­ing Joe say if the it was admit­ted that a Black Repub­li­can, who unlike the cur­rent pres­i­dent has an actual record of accom­plish­ing things before he ran, is a GOP base favorite? It would not only mess up the tem­plate but it would bring out the racists on the demo­c­ra­tic side who would pop­u­late the com­ment sec­tions of these sto­ries with cries of “Uncle Tom” or “Oreo” etc etc etc. Can’t let the pub­lic see democ­rats for what they are.

The bot­tom line, this graphic and these odds are sim­ply a demo­c­ra­tic wet dream, it has the same pur­pose as this tweet I saw this morning:

Yet another dec­la­ra­tion of GOP impo­tence. What is it for, to try to con­vince the GOP and the base that we can’t win. With Pres­i­dent Obama at the top of their ticket their best chance for vic­tory is to demor­al­ize us because they don’t have a record of suc­cess to run on and the one sig­na­ture suc­cess this crowd has man­aged invokes mem­o­ries not only of another pres­i­dent but of poli­cies that they abhor.

This is all Psi-​ops and bluff, con­sid­er­ing the real­i­ties that’s all they have. Our best response?


Ride right through them, They’re demor­al­ized as hell!

Update: Stacy Links and tweets and says:

Don’t out­source your polit­i­cal think­ing to a bunch of know-​it-​all pun­dits.

Don’t fall for the Psi-​ops.

Update: Et Tu Fox?

In Time Magazine Mark Halperin handicaps the 2012 republican nomination. Forgetting that there is no actual scientific way to measure these things there are three points I’d like to note:

1. The Mike Huckabee announcement automatically makes this graphic obsolete.

2. Assuming his bookmaking is correct (it’s not) If the odds of Mitt Romney’s nomination are 3-1 that means there is one chance in three that he will win the nomination, conversely that means there are 2 chances in 3 that he will not. Michael Graham will be pleased.

3. Any chart that shows Jon Huntsman in the top 5 (now top four) republicans to win the nomination is not to be taken seriously.

These points concerning the latest attempt to spin this election are all important, but the most important points concern who is missing from this chart and who is at the bottom of the list. Open up the Graphic in another tab and look at it again.

Rule one in the MSM is strong republican women have to be marginalized or mocked and ridiculed. Note that the strong republican woman on the list are put at the very bottom. This is highly necessary, we can’t have anyone thinking that the GOP might be thinking of nominating a woman let alone a strong one.

Note also that the more conservative the candidate, the farther down the list. Can’t suggest that a conservative might win the nomination, have to discourage that kind of thought.

And finally note who isn’t even included, the Republican candidate who has made the most splash lately in campaigning and in debates. Herman Cain! We don’t dare mention Cain, or show Cain or give any odds on Cain. What would the readers of Time Magazine or the viewers of Morning Joe say if the it was admitted that a Black Republican, who unlike the current president has an actual record of accomplishing things before he ran, is a GOP base favorite? It would not only mess up the template but it would bring out the racists on the democratic side who would populate the comment sections of these stories with cries of “Uncle Tom” or “Oreo” etc etc etc. Can’t let the public see democrats for what they are.

The bottom line, this graphic and these odds are simply a democratic wet dream, it has the same purpose as this tweet I saw this morning:

Yet another declaration of GOP impotence. What is it for, to try to convince the GOP and the base that we can’t win. With President Obama at the top of their ticket their best chance for victory is to demoralize us because they don’t have a record of success to run on and the one signature success this crowd has managed invokes memories not only of another president but of policies that they abhor.

This is all Psi-ops and bluff, considering the realities that’s all they have. Our best response?


Ride right through them, They’re demoralized as hell!

Update: Stacy Links and tweets and says:

Don’t outsource your political thinking to a bunch of know-it-all pundits.

Don’t fall for the Psi-ops.

Update: Et Tu Fox?