Oprah as a Presidential candidate

[Ten oz]

Just now, Phi for All said:

How much does the average candidate in the UK spend to get elected? Do you have limits on how many ads they can buy, how much others can donate to them? How is lobbying handled in the UK? In the US, some of the largest companies can make more money lobbying politicians for subsidies than they make on some of their product lines. In the highest corporate circles, siphoning off taxpayer funds has become an art form.

How much did Trump spend to get 24/7 coverage on CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, and etc? Even today the coverage is endless. The Daily Show did a hilarious (in my opinion)  bit about how inescapable Trump's tweets are which ring very true:

 

 

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

How much did Trump spend to get 24/7 coverage on CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, and etc? Even today the coverage is endless. The Daily Show did a hilarious (in my opinion)  bit about how inescapable Trump's tweets are which ring very true:

 

 

This is the problem though(not the video, the 24/7 coverage).

Trump kept saying the news was turned against him and that it was unfair.

The news, in turn, provided 24/7 coverage letting America know which side they were on.

Think about it. The basically proved him right on that part, so people stopped trusting said media.

Some, not everyone stopped trusting them.

But still enough.

[EdEarl]

10 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Counties in smaller areas are already well rid of most corruption.

In the areas around where I live, every county has supervisors that virtually everyone already knows.

They're held accountable pretty much directly.

But once it reaches state and federal levels, officals are no longer directly held accountable by the people they represent.

Small voting districts were instrumental in electing Trump. It doesn't seem reasonable they are also free of corruption, unless you are saying they were conned by Trump and won't repeat their mistake. Perhaps there is another explanation. Although, a congressman is elected from each district, and virtually all congressmen and women took PAC money; thus, they are ethically corrupt because they are not doing things for the people, rather they do for their big donors at the people's expense.

 

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

One of the stunning things about 2016 for me was that way media willingly gave Trump billions in free air time.

"Media" means "an intervening substance through which something else is transferred". Since 1996, what's been transferred is 100% entertainment, with no requirements for even a small percentage of what we as Americans really need, which is information. Worse still, far too many people think the "news" has an obligation to inform, when your above example should make it clear that anything that keeps viewers tuned will take precedence over that which informs. It's only coincidence in this post-Telecommunications Act of 1996 environment when entertainment and information intersect.

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, EdEarl said:

Small voting districts were instrumental in electing Trump. It doesn't seem reasonable they are also free of corruption, unless you are saying they were conned by Trump and won't repeat their mistake. Perhaps there is another explanation. Although, a congressman is elected from each district, and virtually all congressmen and women took PAC money; thus, they are ethically corrupt because they are not doing things for the people, rather they do for their big donors at the people's expense.

 

Small voting districts were instrumental in electing Trump because they voted for him though.

Just because they voted for Trump doesn't automatically make them corrupt. 

Additionally, it was the voters, not the officials.

You're talking supervisors who meet once a week to discuss minor stuff. 

 

Now, that's what you said. I'm assuming you meant something different but I'm not sure what. 

[EdEarl]

20 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

"Media" means "an intervening substance through which something else is transferred". Since 1996, what's been transferred is 100% entertainment, with no requirements for even a small percentage of what we as Americans really need, which is information. Worse still, far too many people think the "news" has an obligation to inform, when your above example should make it clear that anything that keeps viewers tuned will take precedence over that which informs. It's only coincidence in this post-Telecommunications Act of 1996 environment when entertainment and information intersect.

IMO Phi understated the malevolent affect cable news has on people. Political messages are cleverly interspersed with the entertainment to get people to do things the rich want. Incredibly, the same is true for movies and other forms of entertainment. It is amazing how a $B propaganda campaign can sway people.

16 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Small voting districts were instrumental in electing Trump because they voted for him though.

Just because they voted for Trump doesn't automatically make them corrupt. 

Additionally, it was the voters, not the officials.

You're talking supervisors who meet once a week to discuss minor stuff. 

 

Now, that's what you said. I'm assuming you meant something different but I'm not sure what. 

Oops. Hurry leads to poor quality.
Districts directly elect everyone except the president, who is elected by the Electoral College.
In most cases the Congressman take PAC money; thus, they are ethically corrupt.
If the Congressman from a district is corrupt, it is hard to imagine others in his party at that level are not corrupt or not wanting to be like the Congressman. Year after year freshman congress members have taken PAC money.

Edited January 10, 2018 by EdEarl

[Sensei]

3 hours ago, EdEarl said:

Oprah is a better choice than most already swimming.

The question is not whether she is better choice as a human (everybody can guess she would be worrying about minorities, women inequalities, etc. etc. but that's just tip of iceberg, the majority is below the sea level.. some clever CIA readers know what I meant ),

but whether she will be able to swim with the other "sharks" from other countries around the world, and not this world,

and what are her political opinions (and solutions) about f.e. global warming, (i)migrants, nuclear weapons, inequality around the world, etc. etc.

(if you play in the mud, you will get dirty)

 

I gave the first chance to Michelle Obama as candidate but her husband said she is not interested (no problem at all) couple days after that..

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/96844-michelle-obama-for-president/

but somebody else accepted nomination, it appears so (not Oprah).. and he will be the right person in the right moment.. I hope so..

 

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

"Media" means "an intervening substance through which something else is transferred". Since 1996, what's been transferred is 100% entertainment, with no requirements for even a small percentage of what we as Americans really need, which is information. Worse still, far too many people think the "news" has an obligation to inform, when your above example should make it clear that anything that keeps viewers tuned will take precedence over that which informs. It's only coincidence in this post-Telecommunications Act of 1996 environment when entertainment and information intersect.

The game have changed. Mega donor money to buy TV commercials or Radio ads doesn't cut anymore. Being viral is a requirement. Campaign finance reform can't fix that.

[Phi for All]

Just now, EdEarl said:

It is amazing how a $B propaganda campaign can sway people.

It shouldn't be though. Look what the Russians did to the 2016 elections with a few hundred thousand dollars. 

People in general claim to be immune to advertising ("I'm not fooled, I know they want to sell me something"). They claim they're too smart to fall for con games. They claim they can ignore clickbait on the web. They know what subliminal means in a vague way, but are confident they aren't affected. I think most people still believe they can sift through the "fake news" and somehow "logically" figure out what bits to trust. They believe they can be subjected to the media-hammer on an almost constant basis and not get dented. 

And when profit is the priority, it's hard to use the media to make folks aware of it. I think we need a TV/web show that resonates with those who want change, and arms them with the information they need in a way mainstream media fails to. Make sure the show is too popular to cancel, and we can use a roll of cash to choke the gold-egg-laying goose.

[Strange]

25 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

I think Phi's idea is more likely than yours, Strange.

I hope so.

23 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

How much does the average candidate in the UK spend to get elected? Do you have limits on how many ads they can buy, how much others can donate to them? How is lobbying handled in the UK?

You are right. These things are much more tightly regulated in the UK than the USA. There are (quite modest) limits on all these things. I don't know the figures (it would be quite easy to check) but I imagine it is possible that the total spent by all parties for a general election in the UK could be less than the amount donated (anonymously?) by one person to a single candidate in the US.

And even in the UK there are occasional calls to remove private election funding from parties and just give them a fixed amount of money from the state.

There would obviously be a lot of resistance to introduce such limits in the USA. But it would probably be a step in the right direction, if it could be done. I guess trying to limit the amount, timing or balance of political advertising would be objected to on the grounds of "free speech" but there doesn't seem any real impediment to limiting other things (apart from lobbying and money).

30 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

How much did Trump spend to get 24/7 coverage on CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, and etc? Even today the coverage is endless.

And that's another thing. In the UK, the broadcast media are regulated so that they have to give balanced coverage of all political parties. Obviously, this would be considered anathema to many Americans.

30 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

Small voting districts were instrumental in electing Trump.

Gerrymandering seems to be another major problem in the US. Again, in the UK this is handled by an independent commission (obviously, one can question exactly how independent they are but ...)

[EdEarl]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

And that's another thing. In the UK, the broadcast media are regulated so that they have to give balanced coverage of all political parties. Obviously, this would be considered anathema to many Americans.

Not so obvious to me. After the great depression hit, Franklin D. Roosevelt worked to regulate businesses and improve conditions for most Americans. However, the rich business leaders didn't stop working for conditions to favor them. It took many years, but they are persistent. We are now facing similar conditions to those before FDR; although, many things are different, too. Businessmen controlled the government before FDR and they do again. I think most people dislike the current state of the US, especially its economy. Unfortunately, propaganda has confused many and there is no consensus about what really needs to be done. Many cast votes for candidates that make their constituents lives worse, and they are reelected time and again. "Seeing is believing," but understanding is often difficult and sometimes impossible.

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

Not so obvious to me.

Good! 

8 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

Many cast votes for candidates that make their constituents lives worse, and they are reelected time and again. "Seeing is believing," but understanding is often difficult and sometimes impossible.

Interestingly, I have heard of a few examples in Britain that run the other way. Apparently objectionable politicians get repeatedly elected because they do great work for their local constituents. One example was Ian Paisley in Northern Ireland, who was load-mouthed and offensive, contributed to the outbreak of the "Troubles" and opposed the peace process. But apparently he worked really hard and effectively for his constituents which was one of the main reasons he remained in power.

[EdEarl]

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

Good! 

Interestingly, I have heard of a few examples in Britain that run the other way. Apparently objectionable politicians get repeatedly elected because they do great work for their local constituents. One example was Ian Paisley in Northern Ireland, who was load-mouthed and offensive, contributed to the outbreak of the "Troubles" and opposed the peace process. But apparently he worked really hard and effectively for his constituents which was one of the main reasons he remained in power.

There may be similar politicians here. One might say Bernie Sanders does things for his constituents and is reelected, but politicians like him are rare in Washington. Most want to avoid being seen thus, they blow smoke and abuse us from behind. Then they bribe us with a token and expect to be reelected.

Edited January 10, 2018 by EdEarl

[Ten oz]

34 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It shouldn't be though. Look what the Russians did to the 2016 elections with a few hundred thousand dollars. 

Yet another issue campaign finance alone doesn't address. It would take a whole series of changes to campaign laws, broadcasting laws, cyber security enforcement, and etc to get us moving in the right direction. None of those changes can happen till people who actually would like to make such changes get elected and they will have to campaign and compete with the rules as they are today. 

[MigL]

When R Reagan ran for the presidency, he hadn't been a media personality for about 30 yrs.
This all started with the clown President, D Trump, and don't kid yourself, the media may pretend to hate him, but he gets ratings and sells papers  ( he butters their bread ).

Most real politicians are boring, and most people don't like reading about, or watching them.
But America being what it is, I can see a bunch of back room Republicans or Democrats, picking a suitably popular person to run for the presidency, while they pull the puppet strings.

If the Democrats run O Winfrey, I can see the Republicans drafting K Kardashian for their candidate.
All they need to do is look good on TV, and generate lots of free publicity so that their name is recognised at the ballot box.

What a circus !!!

[iNow]

45 minutes ago, MigL said:

If the Democrats run O Winfrey, I can see the Republicans drafting K Kardashian for their candidate.

Is she a republican?

On another note, lots of speculation about Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson wanting to run, too. 

[MigL]

Doesn't matter if she's a Republican.
She can be bought.

And she has more 'exposure' on Daily Mail than anyone ( except maybe M Merkel, Prince Harry's squeeze ),

And I just lost all respect for the Rock also.
Why can't entertainers/media personalities stick to what they know ?

[EdEarl]

I think we should draft Alfred E. Neuman.

[Raider5678]

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

On another note, lots of speculation about Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson wanting to run, too. 

 

With this, I'm starting to realize that the seat of president is becoming a joke.

[Sensei]

38 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

With this, I'm starting to realize that the seat of president is becoming a joke.

Did you miss this.. ?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/112596-idiocracy-sequel-in-the-real-world/

 

ps. If you would vote for Jesus in either USA, and Russia, for president, then it will be impossible to have nuclear war between these two countries..

 

Edited January 11, 2018 by Sensei

[DrP]

16 hours ago, Strange said:

If she were suitably qualified and experienced, why not?

OK  -  is she suitably qualified?

17 hours ago, iNow said:

Not a valid comparison. Brain surgery requires very specific knowledge about very specific things and very specific background experience and practice. Leadership and the ability to direct others and coordinate a nation as an executive is much more abstract and open to much different styles and approaches.

Are you sure it's that simple a job to be POTUS? I would have thought it a very delicate specialised position requiring superb diplomatic skills.... I would feel happier knowing the person taking the job has some training and qualifications. That's just me though I suppose.  Presumably though they get a thorough briefing of what is expected of them when they reach the White House anyway so that you don't get some idiot in power who doesn't know what the rules are going around sacking everyone that disagrees with him, trying to run it like a dictatorship, spreading false information and lies to the public so that their business interests and those of friends and family can benefit without any regard for the poor or the environment or worse case scenario, start a nuclear war by threatening and sabre rattling with the worlds unstable dictators.  - I mean that would be awful, no sane country would promote anyone like that to power surely.

 

17 hours ago, EdEarl said:

Is there any president whom you would have trusted to perform such surgery. This question is out of place in this discussion.

No of course I wouldn't (unless they had prior training in brain surgery).  - Maybe it was a poor comparison...  it is an obvious strawman but I think it proves a point. You don't employ a plumber to groom your horse or an Olympic swimmer to do your company accounts. Why employ a chat show host to be the pres? It is trivialising the office! I hear TenOz's comment about them having to have people skills and celebs obviously have - but it is becoming a joke. You must have experienced politicians with people skills.  If she runs she'll get in because the majority of the voting people will see her and get excited.... like what happened last year - this could lead to someone currently not in the public eye missing out on the chance to lead and lead well because the public will say 'oooh! Oprah! vote for her' without even considering anything political and then whatever her whimsical opinionated factless based policies will shine through like they have with this current guy. It is totally embarrassing imo.

 

[Ten oz]

12 hours ago, Sensei said:

but whether she will be able to swim with the other "sharks" from other countries around the world, and not this world,

and what are her political opinions (and solutions) about f.e. global warming, (i)migrants, nuclear weapons, inequality around the world, etc. etc.

(if you play in the mud, you will get dirty)

Humility and cooperation are essential to being an effective President in the U.S.. There are people who have worked at the State Department for decades, Justice Department for decades, Senate, education, health, commerce, and etc, etc. A President must lean on people's expertise and not just demand everything they think be treated as gospel. Additionally the President is merely the head of a 3 branch system nationally and their are many other local governments beyond that. People hyper focus on who the President is yet many of the things which most directly impact individuals throughout their daily life are things decided by state legislators, county boards, and etc. The President of the U.S. was never meant to be comprable to a king or dictator. Congress is required by the Constitution to do things like pass budgets and declare wars, not POTUS. 

If Winfrey ran and is the type to recruit intelligent people to help manage the administration I think it would be fine. My issue with Trump isn't that he personally doesn't have all the answers but rather  he doesn't seem to care about answers and has surrounded himself by Generals who had previously forced to retire over various unsuitability issues, family members without govt experience, and bigots. Had Trump tapped Kasich for VP, Romney for Sec of State, McCain for Sec of Defense, etc, etc, and actually listened to them and let them do their jobs I would sleep much better at night. POTUS is a package deal in my opinion. Under Obama I was comfortable with people like Susan Rice, Clinton, Kerry, Biden, Holder, etc helping to make tough decisions. If as President Winfrey tapped people like Warren, Sanders, Booker, Kaine, Gillibrand, and etc to help her lead and she was willing to listen to them I think she'd be just fine. 

[swansont]

43 minutes ago, DrP said:

 Are you sure it's that simple a job to be POTUS? I would have thought it a very delicate specialised position requiring superb diplomatic skills.... I would feel happier knowing the person taking the job has some training and qualifications.  

One can look back at who has been president and what their career path has been.  

Up until Trump, I think they all had some sort of public service, but not all of them had been elected officials, and the career paths have been quite varied. Eisenhower was military, and he's not the only flag-rank officer to be elected. Generals and Admirals have to deal with politicians and policy; they are not strangers to the process.  Some presidents have had foreign relations experience, some have not. Some have had legal training, some have not. But the decent (or better) ones have had a capacity to learn.

One could argue that the two presidents who have had extensive business experience (Bush II and Trump) have been two of the worst presidents since WWII started. They also had the least amount of public service under their belts of any recent president. 

[Ten oz]

36 minutes ago, DrP said:

Why employ a chat show host to be the pres? It is trivialising the office! I hear TenOz's comment about them having to have people skills and celebs obviously have - but it is becoming a joke. You must have experienced politicians with people skills.

It is well known Kennedy had health issues and sexual escapades which were hidden from the public. In 1992 (3yrs after leaving office) Ronald Reagan was interviewed by the special counsel investigating Iran Contra and during that interview Reagan could even remember who his Sec of State had been because his mental state was no deteriorated. From Washington's dentures to FDR hiding his disabilities history is full of Presidents with various compromised situations. Winfrey's history as a business person isn't automatically disqualifying. It doesn't automatically mean she would be unable. When you say "must have experienced politicians" what does that mean; Roy Moore was experienced. Roy Moore had been elected to the bench in AL 3 separate times. Sarah Palin was formerly a Mayor of a city and Governor of a state do you feel she is qualified? Being POTUS isn't akin to being a Plumber, Olympic athlete, or any of the other jobs you listed. There are specific testable skills required for one to become those things. I would trust a narcissistic, chauvinist, who believed in UFOs and Bigfoot to perform plumbing at my home provided they were licensed because a plumbers dispossession and world view is irrelevant.

 

[EdEarl]

47 minutes ago, DrP said:

OK  -  is she suitably qualified?

Are you sure it's that simple a job to be POTUS? I would have thought it a very delicate specialised position requiring superb diplomatic skills.... I would feel happier knowing the person taking the job has some training and qualifications. That's just me though I suppose.  Presumably though they get a thorough briefing of what is expected of them when they reach the White House anyway so that you don't get some idiot in power who doesn't know what the rules are going around sacking everyone that disagrees with him, trying to run it like a dictatorship, spreading false information and lies to the public so that their business interests and those of friends and family can benefit without any regard for the poor or the environment or worse case scenario, start a nuclear war by threatening and sabre rattling with the worlds unstable dictators.  - I mean that would be awful, no sane country would promote anyone like that to power surely.

No of course I wouldn't (unless they had prior training in brain surgery).  - Maybe it was a poor comparison...  it is an obvious strawman but I think it proves a point. You don't employ a plumber to groom your horse or an Olympic swimmer to do your company accounts. Why employ a chat show host to be the pres? It is trivialising the office! I hear TenOz's comment about them having to have people skills and celebs obviously have - but it is becoming a joke. You must have experienced politicians with people skills.  If she runs she'll get in because the majority of the voting people will see her and get excited.... like what happened last year - this could lead to someone currently not in the public eye missing out on the chance to lead and lead well because the public will say 'oooh! Oprah! vote for her' without even considering anything political and then whatever her whimsical opinionated factless based policies will shine through like they have with this current guy. It is totally embarrassing imo.

My first choice was Bernie Sanders, but he didn't get the Democratic nomination. I don't know of any other professional politicians who don't take PAC money and have a chance to be elected, whether or not I think they are competent to be President.

In the future, I have reduced my critical requirements to three: can he/she win, will he/she work to eliminate PACs and big money in politics, and will he/she work to stop greenhouse emissions. If there were multiple candidates to choose from that satisfy my critical requirements, I have secondary issues to determine which I'd like better.

Has there ever been a presidential candidate that satisfied my three critical requirements?