5 ms·
Love it how basic and down to earth his ad is.
by busymom0 5y ago
Love it how basic and down to earth his ad is.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y agosort of like how GW Bush was the one you'd rather have a beer with (than Al Gore)? When will Americans realize that being "the sort of down to earth person you'd rather have a beer with" is not a qualification for political office?
- FredPret 5y agoBeing on the same wavelength as the people is a critical quality in a leader. Otherwise you end up with arrogant technocrats
- onemoresoop 5y agoSure, but how about a clueless puppet you can have a drink with in the office?
- FredPret 5y ago"man from a lower social class than you" = "clueless puppet"? Yikes
- onemoresoop 5y agoNot in a pejorative way but certainly don't expect a trucker to be a good politician. I really hope he'd prove me wrong
- BuyMyBitcoins 5y agoLikability has always been a factor in democracies. It serves as a proxy for trust and a proxy for similarity. Both major political parties try to use the “down to earth/have a beer with” PR move. AOC was celebrated for being a bartender prior to being elected. She was quite literally someone who you could share a beer with.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y agoI've never encountered a bartender that would drink on the job, so I doubt you could have shared a beer with AOC, at least not while working.
- BuyMyBitcoins 5y agoI thought I was being clever with that idiom but yeah it’s not quite accurate if the other person isn’t also drinking. I guess I was trying to capture the idea of “having a beer in the company of”.
- kelnos 5y agoDepends on the bar. I've been to many where the bartender will share a drink with you.
- wyager 5y agoThis truck driver has a bit more credibility when signaling “down to earth” than GWB. People like down to earth politicians because it’s less likely they’re aspirational psychopaths who will sell out their selectorate.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago> This truck driver has a bit more credibility when signaling “down to earth” than GWB. GWB won a national election for the presidency against a man a least twice as smart as he was. I'd say GWB had immense credibility at signalling his "I'm the guy you'd want to have a beer with" credentials. > It’s less likely they’re aspirational psychopaths Why is it less likely? "Down to earth" is just as likely to be an affectation as anything else. People like "down to earth" because * it gives the impression that the candidate is not that much smarter than the voter, and American voters hate people who seem to be smarter than they are. * it gives the impression that the candidate is "just like" the voter, even though this is incredibly unlikely to be true. American voters love the idea of leaders who are "just like us".
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- busymom0 5y agoCareer politicians like Bush vs Gore comparison to a truck driver isn't fair. The "down to earth" doesn't just mean how someone talks. A career truck driver isn't highly likely to get into politics to seek power and money unlike career politicians.
- TMWNN 5y ago>GWB won a national election for the presidency against a man a least twice as smart as he was. And who would this twice-as-smart person be? Is it Gore? No; Gore's grades at Harvard were comparable to that of Bush at Yale. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/19/gores-grades-belie-image-of-studiousness/5da4b9e3-a017-4dd5-9bb5-bfc68f0b4eb5/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/19/g...> Is it Kerry? No; Bush (Yale '68) had a slightly higher GPA than Kerry (Yale '66). <https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/kerry-grades-near-bushs-while-at-yale.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/kerry-grades-nea...> I ask again, who is this mystery person that George W. Bush defeated for the presidency despite the handicap of 50% less brains?
- xboxnolifes 5y agoWhen the non-down-to-earth types act in office in such a way to win their vote.
- tootie 5y agoThat's not the outcome I'd actually want. I want voters to be rational. Not candidates who are better at appeals to emotion.
- CWuestefeld 5y agograndparent didn't say anything about appeals to emotion. The meaning could just as easily be "down to earth gives me just the facts without a lot of spin" - ie, the opposite of what you're thinking.
- tootie 5y agoThat's the perception of someone who has charisma. They typically don't actually speak facts but use their mannerisms and tone to convince people of lies. That's what I mean by appeal to emotion.
- CWuestefeld 5y agoI assume that "rather have a beer with" is a proxy for "has similar values to me" and "seems honest". Those seem reasonable qualifications for at least some offices. What would you place higher, for which offices?
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y agoI'd rank higher than beer-ability: * ability to hold, and describe, contradictory ideas * ability to convey complex policies in a way that doesn't bore people * ability to pick the right people to work with, and specifically the avoidance of a "yes-men" bubble * ability to listen to and have a reasonable understanding of scientific advice * previous independent out-of-country, out-of-language travel experience * display a clear understanding of the full scope of political ideology, and of why their positions are what they are * be awesome in the media of the day
- woah 5y agoSounds like this is your own beer-ability criterion, except you have a taste for more intellectual drinking buddies than most.
- CWuestefeld 5y agoLet me note that you didn't cite what office these qualifications hold for. I don't mean to single you out here: it seems that this is usually how it goes. But I'd like to suggest that there are very different qualifications for executives, legislators, and parts of the judicial system (when they are electable). Like, maybe a legislator needs to have that ability to work with science that you mention, in order to devise the best possible policies. But that seems much less important for an executive, who needs more of your anti-yes-man quality than does a legislator. And so forth.
- Fezzik 5y agoI think most people, even here on HN where folk are relatively educated, are woefully unawares as to what goes in to governing (diplomacy, financial literacy on a massive scale, legislating, and so forth). Sam Harris summarized the problem well 13 years ago in general terms: “Ask yourself: how has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth—in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn't seem too intelligent or well educated.” https://www.newsweek.com/sam-harris-sarah-palin-and-elitism-88595 https://www.newsweek.com/sam-harris-sarah-palin-and-elitism-...
- busymom0 5y ago> have a beer with A truck driver being down to earth is very different from career politicians like Bush.
- UnpossibleJim 5y agoI don't think Tipper Gore's crusade against profanity in music helped push "Democratic Ideals" that AL Gore was saying he exemplified, either.
- renton_wal 5y agoSpoken like a true technocrat
- nosianu 5y agoBut he uses the same tricks as everyone else. I only heard a few statements, one that immediately caught in my filter: "seven out of every ten moves are leaving the state" -- which is a meaningless metric if left by itself like in the video, unless you know what is normal, and also how many are moving in?