Hot Nasties reunite!
It’s the Festival of Joy!
Be joyous! Also, give cash, using the handy PayPal button to the left!
Joy! Give joy!
KCCCC Day 10: if a debate fell in the forest, and no one was around to see it, would it matter?
[From this week’s Hill Times.]
The first debate has come and gone, and was seen by all the hacks in the land. Every politico was glued to their armchairs, watching Stephen, Thomas, Justin, and Elizabeth duke it out – and, occasionally, switching channels to take in some of the Republican presidential freak show.
But real folks? Joe and Jane Frontporch, as we call them?
They mostly didn’t watch.
As William L. Benoit wrote in his seminal book, Communication in Political Campaigns, “although millions continue to tune into debates, the number of voters – and the percentage of voters – who watch them has decreased over time.” And, as a CBC reporter asked prior to Thursday’s debate: “Will anyone watch an entire debate, or, will voters just see clips promoted in their Facebook feed?”
The answer, increasingly, is that many voters don’t watch leaders’ debates or presidential debates, at all. Mostly, this happens because debates provide fodder for the widely-held view that (a) politicians are badly behaved and (b) politicians would rather attack each other than come up with good ideas.
In 2000, I personally experienced this phenomenon close-up. I was on CTV with (the sadly, now-departed) Canadian Alliance spokesman, Rod Love, providing colour commentary. Rod was saying his guy was winning, and I was saying mine was, naturally.
The CTV host – disgraced broadcaster Mike Duffy, ironically enough – disagreed. He told us this: “Nobody is winning. My producers are telling me we are losing viewers in droves. They can’t stand all the shouting.”
Similarly, last Thursday night’s debate could have been noisier than Motorhead playing in a teacherless elementary school cafeteria at lunch time, and with about as much dignity, too. But it wasn’t too bad.
As in 2000, all the prime ministerial aspirants periodically shouted over each other – and they particularly sought to shout down Prime Minister Harper. It was not always pretty.
As such, Harper was the likely winner. He didn’t score any goals, per se, but he didn’t let the puck in the net very often, either. When three professional politicians are doing their utmost to take you into the boards, that’s about all you can hope for.
(Elizabeth May was well on her way to winning the debate – until the end, that is, when she shredded her own credibility on fighting terrorism.)
The objective, in any TV debate, is simple. It is twofold.
One, you need to look and sound prime ministerial – or, as the case may be, presidential. TV is a visual medium, and voters feel that debates give them an opportunity to evaluate a candidate by simply watching him or her. Thus, John F. Kennedy won in 1960, because he was calm, cool and handsome. His opponent, Richard M. Nixon, lost because he looked jowly and angry – and because he had a sweaty brow.
The second objective is equally simple: use the debate to ratify your campaign’s issues with those who are tuning in. As such, a leader should never be looking for the illusory “defining moment” – those are mainly a false media construct.
Instead, the objective should be ensuring that your issues (for Harper, security and economy; for Mulcair, serious progressive change; for Trudeau, change that isn’t radical) dominate the proceedings.
Figuring out who won any debate is pretty simple: first, watch it with the sound off, to see who looks like the right person for the job being sought. Then, review it with the sound on, to see whose issues occupied the most time during the entirety of the debate. There’s your winner, folks.
Now, in the mendacious modern era, lots of folks will claim to have watched the debate – when, in fact, they only saw a clip or two on Twitter or the aforementioned Facebook. To these voters, that is about as much time as they are prepared to commit.
The Conservative Party, with well-funded communications techniques that always aim for the lowest common denominator, is the party that tends to be better at this stuff. They know that fewer and fewer folks are tuning in, and the main task is therefore simply getting citizens to think about what you are saying for a minute.
By those standards – and when you consider how Joe and Jane Frontporch are increasingly tuning out – Stephen Harper likely won the debate.
The others, meanwhile, looked like they were auditioning for the jobs they already had: opposition leaders.
This made me laugh more than anything has made me laugh this year
Therein lies insight into my psyche. It isn’t pretty.
Who is winning the campaign so far?
KCCCC Day 9: scandals don’t matter anymore
- Yes, yes, yes: we all know. Former Harper Chief of Staff Nigel Wright is back in Canada, getting ready to testify in the interminable Mike Duffy trial. So what. In the larger scheme of things, it doesn’t matter.
- Two things.
- One, Nigel Wright. Almost two years ago, I wrote about him in the Sun. Here’s what I wrote.
- “Full disclosure: My ex-wife was Wright’s partner for many years. They met in the office of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.Wright and I didn’t socialize, me being a hardcore Alberta Liberal, and him being a hardcore Ontario Conservative. We weren’t friends.I didn’t ask my wife-to-be much about him. But, eventually, I learned a few things. A picture emerged.Nigel Wright was adopted and brought up in a loving, good family. His parents were not wealthy, and Wright worked hard for everything he got. He was a deeply religious Anglican who, for a time, contemplated the priesthood.He devoted himself to his studies and charitable causes, his faith and — almost as much — the Conservative party.
Wright conquered on Bay St. as a lawyer and a dealmaker, to be sure, becoming a millionaire at a very young age. But blue Tory blood ran through his veins — and there are only a handful of unelected people in this country who gave as much to conservative causes. Fundraising, policy, organization: Nigel Wright did it all.
On Tuesday, while Stephen Harper cast him as a liar and a wrongdoer in the privileged confines of the House of Commons, Nigel Wright maintained a stoic silence, as he has throughout this sordid affair. While the most powerful man in Canada attempted to destroy his reputation, Wright said nothing.
Unable to believe what I was witnessing, I tweeted that he needed to fight back. Part of my motivation for doing so was empathy. During the federal Liberal civil wars, some of Paul Martin’s thugs had attempted to destroy the reputations of those of us who remained loyal to Jean Chretien. I knew a little of what Wright must be feeling.
But, mostly, I could not believe this was happening to — of all people — Nigel Wright. If there is anyone of my generation who has devoted themselves more selflessly to the Conservative party, I do not know who it is.
It goes without saying, I don’t know the full facts in the Senate scandal, which has become a cancer on the government. But I do know that blaming Nigel Wright for all of it is not merely dishonest — it is disgusting.”
- Me and Nigel weren’t drinking buddies or anything, but I knew him by reputation. And I knew him to be a decent and honest man. He doesn’t deserve what Donald Bayne, Duffy’s lawyer, is going to be doing to him commencing this week.
- That’s Nigel. But what about scandal? Does all this incessant histrionics about Duffy scandal stuff matter, at all? To me, it matters as much as any scandal does, these days: that is, not at all.
- Here’s something else I wrote about the subject of scandal, back in March, with bonus caps to better express my exasperation:
- “Scandal-mongering DOESN’T WORK.Cole’s Notes version as to why:1. The media/politico chattering class call EVERYTHING a scandal, and always append “gate” to the end of same, to no discernible effect.
2. The public ALREADY think EVERYONE in politics is a crook, so the breathless revelation that someone involved in politics is a crook ISN’T A REVELATION TO THEM.
3. Joe and Jane Frontporch, the aforementioned public, HAVE HEARD THE HYSTERIA AND HISTRIONICS TOO MANY TIMES, and don’t believe any of it UNTIL THE PERP IS LED AWAY IN AN ORANGE PANTSUIT AND HANDCUFFS.
4. Joe and Jane believe THE REAL SCANDALS are things like the lack of a JOB, or having to lay in a hospital corridor to get HEALTH CARE, or spending BILLIONS ON SECURITY and deranged, lone-wolf fanatics still figure out a way to kill innocent people – those are THE REAL SCANDALS, not someone expensing something by bona fide mistake, or consensual adults with zipper problems.”
- Bottom line: you can’t fabricate a scandal involving Nigel Wright. And, even if I’m wrong, scandals don’t matter anymore.
- Carry on as you were, which you were planning on doing anyhow.
KCCCC Day 8: this is my view
If you think I’m thinking about politics, you’re crazy.
KCCCC Day 7: it’s the weekend, dammit
- Up at the cabin FOR MY LAST WEEKEND AS A SINGLE GUY IN CANADA, so I’ll keep this one brief. You don’t pay me for this stuff, you know.
- Eastern Dipper Sinks Western Dippers: It’s hard, running a truly national political party, and Linda McQuaig has reminded us why. From her perch in Deepest Rosedale, it seems Linda wants Tom Mulcair to (a) conduct the election campaign on a bicycle and (b) sink every NDP candidate in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Not smart.
- Fed-Prov Slugfest! The Wynne/Notley vs. Harper grudge match is something, but it ain’t something new. Remember Danny Williams vs. Paul Martin? Mike Harris vs. Jean Chretien? Several Dozen Premiers vs. Pierre Trudeau? These grudge matches happen all the time, and they aren’t usually in any way relevant. I don’t know of many Queen’s Park staffers (Liberal or PC) who have taken leaves of absence to work on the federal campaign. That should tell you plenty.
- And the winner is…: No one! Those of us in the punditocracy love to declare winners – and hate it when we can’t. But the fact is there was no clear winner in Thursday’s leader’s debate: every one of them had ups and downs. Leaving the commentariat in a quandary, and leaving citizens to – SHOCK AND HORROR – make up their own minds!
- Survey says: Per my theory that not as many people watched the Great Debate as you might think, I did a survey of my staff – at a, you know, political consulting firm. A quarter of them didn’t even watch it. With politically-inclined pals, the numbers – accurate 19 times out of 20 – were even higher: most watched the Jays sweep the Twins, or went to see Tom Cruise at the movies, or whatever. By the time the 2015 Long March Campaign™ is over, no one will remember that single debate, either.
The view, coming in to the dock
Not too bad.
