New Jerry Brown ad comparing Meg Whitman to Arnold Schwarzenegger

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw_0a54S8po

As far as content goes, I give this a 0/10 rating. But in terms of its effectiveness, I give this a 8/10. The only reason why it isn't higher is because Arnold may not be an effective governor and therefore not popular politically, he's still pretty popular personally.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Yes Arnold was not as effective as he could of been in reigning in bloat in the state due to a heavily dem dominated state senate and a few gop members who undermined his agenda of curving spending.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,599
1,001
126
Yes Arnold was not as effective as he could of been in reigning in bloat in the state due to a heavily dem dominated state senate and a few gop members who undermined his agenda of curving spending.

He actually tried...which is more than Meg Whitman or Jerry Brown will do. I hate both of them but honestly, I'm probably going to vote for Meg Whitman...or some third party candidate.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,454
6,545
136
We're going down in flames here in the land of fruits and nuts. Whitman or Brown. It's like choosing between lung or liver cancer, it's not about when we're going to die, it's a question of how fast and how much is it going to hurt.
It's so fucking depressing.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
He actually tried...which is more than Meg Whitman or Jerry Brown will do. I hate both of them but honestly, I'm probably going to vote for Meg Whitman...or some third party candidate.

Thats pretty sad if you vote for Meg. Did you know mshe has never ever voted at all?

Would you want somebody in office who has never thought it was important to vote?
 

mcmilljb

Platinum Member
May 17, 2005
2,144
2
81
Oh God, this one is even funnier. Its even set to a soundtrack. Again, no substance whatsoever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3CTNYv1YY0

It's easier to throw red herrings than to actually say what you believe. If you say what you actually believe in some detail, then people might find out you are bat shit crazy (think Sharron Angle or Christine O'Donell level of crazy). They would not vote for you. Can politicians afford losing votes because they might be crazy? I think not.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
It's easier to throw red herrings than to actually say what you believe. If you say what you actually believe in some detail, then people might find out you are bat shit crazy (think Sharron Angle or Christine O'Donell level of crazy). They would not vote for you. Can politicians afford losing votes because they might be crazy? I think not.
Perhaps we, the voters, should push for a one page personal statement on the application form for the job office that the candidate is running for.

:D
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Oh God, this one is even funnier. Its even set to a soundtrack. Again, no substance whatsoever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3CTNYv1YY0

You believe the ads that Meg has paid for about Jerry brown are truthful?
So far we know nopthing about Meg and what we are suppose to know about brown thanks to Meg has no bearing on his actual record.....

What bothers me the most is the fact -- FACT -- FACT - that voting was never important so meg, thus she never voted for 28 years....says alot to me!!
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Perhaps we, the voters, should push for a one page personal statement on the application form for the job office that the candidate is running for.

:D

That's not that useful. A page of fluff.

The only thing that seems more helpful is the candidates having to take positions on various issues, and responding to the 'good' press - and arguably some 'real' citizens.

Actually, I'm not impressed by the bus ad at all - so what two candidates on bus tours - compared to the previous one showing the empty campaign consultant fluff they copy.

The very carefully chosen phrases to parrot, 'rebuild California' and so on.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
What bothers me the most is the fact -- FACT -- FACT - that voting was never important so meg, thus she never voted for 28 years....says alot to me!!

I don't care that she hasn't voted. I care that she has policies for the wealthy that will hurt most Californians compared to the Democrats.

I don't even care that much that she is an ego candidate trying to buy the office, if she were good, but that's not the case.

I do care that the system rewards buying the office so well, though, which is a very anti-democracy setup. People like Jules above show the problem - money works.

The system needs improvement - what if Whitman were a great candidate and couldn't spend $140 million? It'd be hard for her to get known compared to established Brown.

Money is almost the only way to get votes. No one else has Brown's experience.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,625
136
Do you Californians really hate Arnold that much? There are a number of things I disagree with him on, but I enormously respect him as a politician. Frankly I think the California political system has so many structural problems built into it (such as a supermajority vote required for tax increases) that the greatest politician in the world can't solve your problems on his/her own.

It seems a stupid move to me to say Whitman is the same as Arnold-it vastly boosts her weak stock.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
That's not that useful. A page of fluff.

The only thing that seems more helpful is the candidates having to take positions on various issues, and responding to the 'good' press - and arguably some 'real' citizens.

Actually, I'm not impressed by the bus ad at all - so what two candidates on bus tours - compared to the previous one showing the empty campaign consultant fluff they copy.

The very carefully chosen phrases to parrot, 'rebuild California' and so on.
If the candidate decides to write a page of fluff, then that too reveals a lot about the candidate, does it not?
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
<reads thread>


Oh.... I thought it was an ad debating whether Meg's Pecs are saggier than Aaaahnold's...



How's *that* for a visual? D:
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Do you Californians really hate Arnold that much? There are a number of things I disagree with him on, but I enormously respect him as a politician. Frankly I think the California political system has so many structural problems built into it (such as a supermajority vote required for tax increases) that the greatest politician in the world can't solve your problems on his/her own.

It seems a stupid move to me to say Whitman is the same as Arnold-it vastly boosts her weak stock.

I think you have some good points, but there are at least a couple counterpoints.

One is that the exaggerated points Arnold made (e.g., I am rich and paid for my campaign and own no one - and then going on to take more special interest money than the guy he replaced he was implicitly criticizing) - apply to Whitman too, it reminds people these talking points sound good but can be false.

A second is that when the voters are highly anti-incumbent and dissatisfied with how it's going, this can be good politics.

Either Whitman is going to tar Brown as 'incumbent career politician' and take advantage, or Brown is going to at least counter that with 'Whitman is just like the incumbent'.

It also exposes how much her campaign is a cookie cutter campaign consultant bought and paid for "parrot these phrases" type campaign to expose her as a 'phony'.

This in turn plays to Brown's advantage as a thoughtful politician, right or wrong, who doesn't say the consultant-directed phrases.

On your point about the 2/3 budget vote, let's hope voters do the right thing and repeal it, IMO it's the most important ballot initiative (Yes on 25).
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
We're going down in flames here in the land of fruits and nuts. Whitman or Brown. It's like choosing between lung or liver cancer, it's not about when we're going to die, it's a question of how fast and how much is it going to hurt.
It's so fucking depressing.

Sadly that's probably true. Brown may actually be the better choice. Neither candidate is going to be able to save California; Brown will continue the same policies, Whitman will oppose them and get nowhere. The only difference is likely to be the amount of shrill squealing and finger-pointing while the ship goes down.

One bright side - California is economically a VERY large ship, so she can sink a very long time before she actually slips beneath the waterline. It's always possible that something will happen to redeem the land of fruits, nuts and flakes. (Unfortunately it's more likely that Obama will borrow more money from the ChiComs and send it to California so that we can all enjoy supporting its dying gasps.)
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Yes Arnold was not as effective as he could of been in reigning in bloat in the state due to a heavily dem dominated state senate and a few gop members who undermined his agenda of curving spending.

Actually spending has not increased much faster than inflation in California since a big bloat in the late 1990's in the tech sector which caused the state government to go on a spending spree. Then we had a revenue shortfall in the tech bust recession that hit CA disproportionately, and now we're having another in this recession. However, spending has not increased substantially since 1997-1998. My feeling is that Arnold has done fine. It's just that the economy sucks here so he isn't that popular.

That ad is pathetic BTW. Politicians and candidates speak millions of words publically. You could probably create an ad comparing two politicans from opposing parties and make them sound identical just by culling through thousands of hours of video to find phrase matches.

- Dave
 

AznAnarchy99

Lifer
Dec 6, 2004
14,695
117
106
I liked Arnold a lot actually and wished he was still eligible to run instead of these two..

He wasnt able to get much done with the State legislative going against him on everything.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
That ad is pathetic BTW. Politicians and candidates speak millions of words publically. You could probably create an ad comparing two politicans from opposing parties and make them sound identical just by culling through thousands of hours of video to find phrase matches.

- Dave

That's exactly what I was thinking. You could make a video of Obama and Bush repeating the same random words, if this is an actual campaign ad, it is very desperate.
 

OBLAMA2009

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2008
6,574
3
0
if you think jobs are the number one issue in the state why would you elect someone who exported jobs to india and took hundreds of millions of dollars for herself? or someone who was caught lying numerous times. jerry brown had an earlier ad that did a really good job of pointing all of this out. she is a bad person who shouldnt be allowed to buy the presidency.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
That ad is pathetic BTW. Politicians and candidates speak millions of words publically. You could probably create an ad comparing two politicans from opposing parties and make them sound identical just by culling through thousands of hours of video to find phrase matches.

- Dave

I disagree for a couple reasons, but the main one is that the ad is telling an important underlying truth, even if you were technically right about what could be done.

Even if the words could be found - and I doubt it this closely - the ad is exposing lies from both these campaigns that are very similar.