Re: [TV orNotTV] On Trump, FNC, and TV

2015-08-02 Thread Tom Wolper 
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Brad Beam  wrote:

> *From:* tvornottv@googlegroups.com [mailto:tvornottv@googlegroups.com] *On
> Behalf Of *PGage
>
> *>*NPR's point was that most prudent business people (not sure if that
> description applies to Trump) would never put their own assets in any form
> on the line for a presidential election unless winning was a much more
> certain proposition than it is likely to be for Trump.
>
>
>
> FWIW, West Virginia’s richest man is in the running for next year’s
> Democratic gubernatorial primary. Jim Justice is a coal baron, owner of the
> Greenbrier Resort, and coach of the girls’ basketball team at Greenbrier
> East HS – a job he says he’ll continue if he wins, despite the statehouse
> being 115 miles from the GEHS campus.
>
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/11/jim-justice-wv-governor-race_n_7259696.html
>

PA Governor Tom Wolf (D) is a millionaire business owner who boasted of
financing his own election. He also has experience as a Secretary of
Revenue in the Rendell administration. It did not surprise me that Wolf had
the earliest TV ads on in late winter 2014, what surprised me was how
quickly he got endorsements from prominent democrats in the state.

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [TV orNotTV] On Trump, FNC, and TV

2015-08-01 Thread Brad Beam 
From: tvornottv@googlegroups.com [mailto:tvornottv@googlegroups.com] On Behalf 
Of PGage


>NPR's point was that most prudent business people (not sure if that 
>description applies to Trump) would never put their own assets in any form on 
>the line for a presidential election unless winning was a much more certain 
>proposition than it is likely to be for Trump.
 
FWIW, West Virginia’s richest man is in the running for next year’s Democratic 
gubernatorial primary. Jim Justice is a coal baron, owner of the Greenbrier 
Resort, and coach of the girls’ basketball team at Greenbrier East HS – a job 
he says he’ll continue if he wins, despite the statehouse being 115 miles from 
the GEHS campus.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/11/jim-justice-wv-governor-race_n_7259696.html
 
_  _
|_>|_>  Brad Beam- Belle WV
|_>|_>  http://www.facebook.com/74bmw

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] On Trump, FNC, and TV

2015-07-31 Thread Tom Wolper 
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 1:30 PM, PGage  wrote:

>
> I agree with your main point. Most of the clowns in the GOP Primary are
> not really trying to run for President. Some (like Bernie on the Dem side)
> genuinely want to raise points of principle that otherwise might get
> ignored. Most though are promoting themselves (I am most familiar with Ben
> Carson, who has zero chance of getting the nomination, and knows it, but
> allows himself to be used by the GOP to give themselves some diversity cred
> to hike up his own book sales and speaking fees). Rubio of course is just
> running for the Vice President Nom (a race he probably already has locked
> up). As I say, I think Trump is probably just trying to get cheap (at this
> point) PR and brand enhancement. I don't think we will ever see him dig too
> deeply into his own money, or borrow much against his own capital.
>
> NPR's point was that most prudent business people (not sure if that
> description applies to Trump) would never put their own assets in any form
> on the line for a presidential election unless winning was a much more
> certain proposition than it is likely to be for Trump.
>

When it comes to self-financing, I think campaign financing scales
differently for president than it does for other offices, even senator or
governor. A multimillionaire can run a self financed campaign for one of
those positions without immediately raising suspicions about how he will
get the money back. For president, though, we are talking over a billion
dollars and the electorate has to wonder if the candidate is just willing
to throw that money away, and what that says about his judgment, or if he
plans to recoup the outlay through graft with federal contracts or some
form of influence peddling.

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] On Trump, FNC, and TV

2015-07-31 Thread PGage 
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Tom Wolper  wrote:
>
> For me, the question that defines this GOP race is why there are 16
> declared candidates. Without the fragmentation of 16 candidates, it's quite
> possible that Trump would not be a front runner, and if he is not a front
> runner he may well lose interesting in continuing to campaign.
>
> So: why Rick Santorum? Santorum last won an election 15 years ago and he
> has spent the time since appealing to only a small sliver of the
> electorate. My guess is he runs because there is money in it for him.
> Whether it is just to build his brand for post-campaign economic
> opportunities or there is some way he can charge expenses for his campaign
> in a way he comes out loaded with cash, a futile campaign for him is still
> lucrative for him to pursue. And he has a billionaire backer keeping him in
> the race. What's true for Santorum is true for at least 8 or 9 other
> candidates. Running for president has become a money making opportunity in
> ways it hasn't in the past.
>
> My guess is that Trump is following the same opportunity. If he wanted to
> self-finance, he would borrow against his assets, not liquidate them. At
> some point, if he started winning some primary races, he would have to
> borrow larger sums without knowing how or where he would get the cash to
> pay the loans back. In a general election race it would hang over his head
> as the media would report on the size of the debt with the question of how
> he could come up with that cash while in office.
>

I agree with your main point. Most of the clowns in the GOP Primary are not
really trying to run for President. Some (like Bernie on the Dem side)
genuinely want to raise points of principle that otherwise might get
ignored. Most though are promoting themselves (I am most familiar with Ben
Carson, who has zero chance of getting the nomination, and knows it, but
allows himself to be used by the GOP to give themselves some diversity cred
to hike up his own book sales and speaking fees). Rubio of course is just
running for the Vice President Nom (a race he probably already has locked
up). As I say, I think Trump is probably just trying to get cheap (at this
point) PR and brand enhancement. I don't think we will ever see him dig too
deeply into his own money, or borrow much against his own capital.

NPR's point was that most prudent business people (not sure if that
description applies to Trump) would never put their own assets in any form
on the line for a presidential election unless winning was a much more
certain proposition than it is likely to be for Trump.

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] On Trump, FNC, and TV

2015-07-31 Thread Tom Wolper 
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:19 PM, PGage  wrote:

> NPR had an interesting story on Morning Edition this morning regarding the
> impact of Trump's Billions on the campaign.
>
>
> http://www.npr.org/2015/07/31/427857932/are-donald-trumps-pockets-deep-enough-to-fund-his-campaign?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150731
>
> First, there continues to be disagreement over how many billions Trump has
> (Trump has claimed that he has $8B or $9B or most recently, $10B, Forbes
> estimates $4B, Bloomberg $2.9B). One of my theories has been that one
> reason Trump is in the race is to create an enhanced perception of his net
> wealth. Also, the Trump campaign has billed various Trump enterprises for
> more than half a million dollars in services over the last three month; in
> itself this is not a game changing amount (though every dollar helps) but
> it does not include an estimate of the value in advertising and marketing
> to having the Trump name on television so much, along with the logos for
> the hotels and stuff.
>
> ME also points out that Romney and Obama each spent a total of $1.2B on
> their campaigns in 2012. Trump has enough wealth to cover that from his
> pocket (though how much of that is really liquid?), but they point out that
> "Historically, self-financed candidates have usually been successful
> businessmen, who often end up handling a long, drawn-out campaign like an
> investment gone bad: They pull the plug." Unless even a protracted and
> unlikely campaign is generating a lot more business benefits than I can
> imagine, it seems that even Trump would not just pour mountains of his own
> cash into the enterprise.
>
> But the main point of the piece is the equalizing role of the SuperPacs.
> The other GOP candidates may not have the personal wealth Trump does, but
> many have friends who are his equal or more, and the SCTOUS decision they
> purchased some years ago allows them to give as much as they want to the
> SuperPacs. This is not quite as valuable as Trump's own money (he can give
> as much as he wants to himself, and he gets a discount rate for TV ad time,
> while SuperPacs pay the full rate), it does mean that there are effective a
> lot of really rich guys running for president, and Trump is probably not
> the richest. 
>

For me, the question that defines this GOP race is why there are 16
declared candidates. Without the fragmentation of 16 candidates, it's quite
possible that Trump would not be a front runner, and if he is not a front
runner he may well lose interesting in continuing to campaign.

So: why Rick Santorum? Santorum last won an election 15 years ago and he
has spent the time since appealing to only a small sliver of the
electorate. My guess is he runs because there is money in it for him.
Whether it is just to build his brand for post-campaign economic
opportunities or there is some way he can charge expenses for his campaign
in a way he comes out loaded with cash, a futile campaign for him is still
lucrative for him to pursue. And he has a billionaire backer keeping him in
the race. What's true for Santorum is true for at least 8 or 9 other
candidates. Running for president has become a money making opportunity in
ways it hasn't in the past.

My guess is that Trump is following the same opportunity. If he wanted to
self-finance, he would borrow against his assets, not liquidate them. At
some point, if he started winning some primary races, he would have to
borrow larger sums without knowing how or where he would get the cash to
pay the loans back. In a general election race it would hang over his head
as the media would report on the size of the debt with the question of how
he could come up with that cash while in office.

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] On Trump, FNC, and TV

2015-07-31 Thread PGage 
NPR had an interesting story on Morning Edition this morning regarding the
impact of Trump's Billions on the campaign.

http://www.npr.org/2015/07/31/427857932/are-donald-trumps-pockets-deep-enough-to-fund-his-campaign?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150731

First, there continues to be disagreement over how many billions Trump has
(Trump has claimed that he has $8B or $9B or most recently, $10B, Forbes
estimates $4B, Bloomberg $2.9B). One of my theories has been that one
reason Trump is in the race is to create an enhanced perception of his net
wealth. Also, the Trump campaign has billed various Trump enterprises for
more than half a million dollars in services over the last three month; in
itself this is not a game changing amount (though every dollar helps) but
it does not include an estimate of the value in advertising and marketing
to having the Trump name on television so much, along with the logos for
the hotels and stuff.

ME also points out that Romney and Obama each spent a total of $1.2B on
their campaigns in 2012. Trump has enough wealth to cover that from his
pocket (though how much of that is really liquid?), but they point out that
"Historically, self-financed candidates have usually been successful
businessmen, who often end up handling a long, drawn-out campaign like an
investment gone bad: They pull the plug." Unless even a protracted and
unlikely campaign is generating a lot more business benefits than I can
imagine, it seems that even Trump would not just pour mountains of his own
cash into the enterprise.

But the main point of the piece is the equalizing role of the SuperPacs.
The other GOP candidates may not have the personal wealth Trump does, but
many have friends who are his equal or more, and the SCTOUS decision they
purchased some years ago allows them to give as much as they want to the
SuperPacs. This is not quite as valuable as Trump's own money (he can give
as much as he wants to himself, and he gets a discount rate for TV ad time,
while SuperPacs pay the full rate), it does mean that there are effective a
lot of really rich guys running for president, and Trump is probably not
the richest.



On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:35 PM, PGage  wrote:

> Responding to both Joe and Adam's comments on Trump.
>
> Joe noted that Trump exposes a rare disconnect between the interests of FN
> and the RNC. I agree that it is not the norm, though maybe not quite as
> rare as Joe suggests; the mainline Republican Party has never been all that
> happy with the airplay FN gave the Tea Party in its hey day, but FN's real
> money demo is not the Wall Street Journal crowd, or even the Chamber of
> Commerce Crowd, which together have been two thirds of the modern
> Republican Party. FNC's sweet spot has always been the more populist,
> angry, disaffected rural, southern and southern-ish nativists that have
> provided the margin of victory in most of the GOP's presidential victories
> since Richard Nixon. This is the Sarah Palin crowd, and the Ted Cruz crowd.
> Trump is appealing to them - though, more interesting to me than the split
> with mainline Republicans is how Trump splits these hardliners from
> fundamentalist Christians. The most important part of the story out of Iowa
> this weekend was how Trump either doesn't know how, or doesn't care about,
> the traditional Christian code language and dog whistles. That, and not his
> racism or veteran-bashing, is what is quashing his mellow among a big part
> of the Republican rank and file.
>
> The RNC has an ambivalent relationship with FN - they are happy to use
> them to heat up the passions of the shock troops on the ground, but are
> always worried they will go too far, either fouling the Republican brand
> for moderates, or turning the true believers against Republican incumbents
> deemed to be part of the problem for their years of compromising and, well,
> governing. All of which to say I agree with Joe that Trump does a good job
> of illustrating these fissures in what liberals often assume is a solid
> conspiracy.
>
> Joe and Adam both commented on the role Trump's wealth will play on the
> race. While I think Joe is right that Trump's wealth allows him the option
> to stay in the campaign long after the point that inevitable gaffes and
> blemishes forced (and will force) the other clowns off the train when the
> fund raising dries up, I think Adam is on to why Trump is unlikely to
> choose to stay all that much longer. First, as Adam notes, there is a limit
> on how much of his own money it would be prudent for him to spend. This
> limit may be higher than Adam assumes though, because Trump is profiting
> both in personal PR (and he literally has valued his "brand" in the
> billions) and because he has been able to game the FEC financial disclosure
> rules to make himself appear to be worth more than he actually is (which
> may just be narcissistically valuable, but also may have some

Re: [TV orNotTV] On Trump, FNC, and TV

2015-07-23 Thread Bob Jersey 

The Hairpiece *almost* apologized to Billo for the McCain comments... 
seemed more like a dog making a spot for himself to lie down, methinks... 
Deadline 

 
(link)

Meanwhile, Roger Ailes denies media beliefs that Rupert's on his back to 
dial down the Donald coverage... a cable-news-watching researcher notes 
Trump's had less mentions there in the last week than at CNN or MSNBC... THR 
 
(link)

B

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] On Trump, FNC, and TV

2015-07-21 Thread PGage 
Responding to both Joe and Adam's comments on Trump.

Joe noted that Trump exposes a rare disconnect between the interests of FN
and the RNC. I agree that it is not the norm, though maybe not quite as
rare as Joe suggests; the mainline Republican Party has never been all that
happy with the airplay FN gave the Tea Party in its hey day, but FN's real
money demo is not the Wall Street Journal crowd, or even the Chamber of
Commerce Crowd, which together have been two thirds of the modern
Republican Party. FNC's sweet spot has always been the more populist,
angry, disaffected rural, southern and southern-ish nativists that have
provided the margin of victory in most of the GOP's presidential victories
since Richard Nixon. This is the Sarah Palin crowd, and the Ted Cruz crowd.
Trump is appealing to them - though, more interesting to me than the split
with mainline Republicans is how Trump splits these hardliners from
fundamentalist Christians. The most important part of the story out of Iowa
this weekend was how Trump either doesn't know how, or doesn't care about,
the traditional Christian code language and dog whistles. That, and not his
racism or veteran-bashing, is what is quashing his mellow among a big part
of the Republican rank and file.

The RNC has an ambivalent relationship with FN - they are happy to use them
to heat up the passions of the shock troops on the ground, but are always
worried they will go too far, either fouling the Republican brand for
moderates, or turning the true believers against Republican incumbents
deemed to be part of the problem for their years of compromising and, well,
governing. All of which to say I agree with Joe that Trump does a good job
of illustrating these fissures in what liberals often assume is a solid
conspiracy.

Joe and Adam both commented on the role Trump's wealth will play on the
race. While I think Joe is right that Trump's wealth allows him the option
to stay in the campaign long after the point that inevitable gaffes and
blemishes forced (and will force) the other clowns off the train when the
fund raising dries up, I think Adam is on to why Trump is unlikely to
choose to stay all that much longer. First, as Adam notes, there is a limit
on how much of his own money it would be prudent for him to spend. This
limit may be higher than Adam assumes though, because Trump is profiting
both in personal PR (and he literally has valued his "brand" in the
billions) and because he has been able to game the FEC financial disclosure
rules to make himself appear to be worth more than he actually is (which
may just be narcissistically valuable, but also may have some actual value
as he conducts his various business negotiations. As the Washington Post
noted last week, Trump is almost certainly not worth the $9 (or $10!)
Billion he claims in his FEC filings. On those forms, the highest category
they list for assets is "over $50 Million" - so Trump is free to claim that
various assets are worth billions, but only has to be able to prove they
are worth $50 Million + 1 dollar to be kosher with the FEC. The large share
of his wealth is in real estate, the value of which is always subject to
some debate - indeed, just claiming a particular address is worth $1
Billion and having it published in the NYT probably actually raises its
value - and is most likely the real reason he is in the race in the first
place. By the New Hampshire or South Carolina Primary, I expect Jeb Bush to
have a lock on the Republican nomination, or at least enough of a hold on
it that it will be obvious that Trump can not win. I doubt we will see him
in the GOP much after that - unless (2 scenarios)...

1. He wins enough delegates to demand influence and prime time at the
Convention; he is enough of a wildcard that he may fund himself enough to
make it to the summer - and if he is at that point, he will probably be
able to portray himself as the populist voice of the right wing crazies,
and the GOP mainstream may be afraid enough of pissing them off to give him
convention time.

2. He realizes by late February that he has no chance, and decides to run a
third party campaign. In this case he could mostly shut down his paid
campaign, use free media to keep his name alive all spring, then hold his
own nominating convention in one of his own hotels over the summer. He
would also be free then to spend his own money in targeted states where he
has enough of a following to alter the outcome. This would make the GOP
shit bricks (and is why I am happy Bernie is not a Billionaire, or we
democrats might be having the same problem).

I do think both #1 and #2 are unlikely. Four years ago we say a progression
of right wing nuts shuffle through the polls, usually ahead of Romney - yet
at no time was there ever any real danger of anyone but Romney winning the
nomination. It is not quite as sewn up this time, as Jeb has to prove
Bush-Fatigue is at least no stronger than Clinton-Fatigue, and that he can
give the necess

Re: [TV orNotTV] On Trump, FNC, and TV

2015-07-21 Thread Adam Bowie 
An interesting take on Trump.

The only bit I wonder about is his funding. Yes, he claims he's worth
billions. But can he get his hands on that as cash? And more to the point,
is he actually willing to spend his own money on his campaign?

I'm not too sure. I think he's more in the Richard Branson style of
billionaire - he doesn't spend his own money. He uses his name to get
partners who stump up most of the cash for his projects, and put his name
on those projects. But he's not actually investing much - if any - of his
own cash.

It's a bit like why movie stars don't bankroll their own films. They could.
But they know that's the first rule of Hollywood. You don't pay yourself.
And I reckon that unlike other billionaires who are willing to spend their
own dollar, he's not. We'll see...


Adam

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Joe Hass  wrote:

> I wanted to pull this out of the Gutfield thread because it's tangentially
> related, but worth noting.
>
> I generally agree with PGage that we're very much in clown car stage, so
> everything at this point is just news filler.
>
> But there are two really important things to remember about Trump as it
> relates to this board:
>
> For the first time in memory (if ever), the Republican National Committee
> and Fox News Channel are in completely different worlds, and it's all about
> how to handle Donald Trump. Because Trump draws eyeballs, and at the end of
> the day, FNC is about eyeballs. If Trump is one or two in the polls right
> now, he is red meat to FNC's viewership (which is even further right than
> what the RNC is, much less wants). The Onion Op-Ed is spectacularly right:
> "Admit It: You People Want To See How Far This Goes, Don’t You?" (
> http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/admit-it-you-people-want-see-how-far-goes-dont-you-50895).
> And don't think FNC won't take every single Trump event, much to the RNC's
> permanent consternation. There's absolutely no way he's not on the stage at
> the first debate. And trust me: we're all gonna either watch it or the
> highlights the next morning.
>
> The second is a little more roundabout. Fundamentally, what sinks
> candidates is what floats 'em: cash. Specifically, their ability to raise
> it. And at this moment, Trump could literally spend a billion dollars
> without raising one penny from a Super Pac, the RNC...you name it. He wants
> to insult Mexicans? Take cracks at John McCain? Guess how much that'll
> affect his fundraising? It won't, because he doesn't have to! When Trump
> actually decides to launch a media campaign, those commercials are going to
> be spectacular! Doesn't matter how you define "spectacular". You know it. I
> know it.
>
> Everyone can laugh in July, 2015. But why do I have this feeling we're
> still gonna be laughing in February, 2016?
>
> --
> --
> TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[TV orNotTV] On Trump, FNC, and TV

2015-07-21 Thread Joe Hass 
I wanted to pull this out of the Gutfield thread because it's tangentially
related, but worth noting.

I generally agree with PGage that we're very much in clown car stage, so
everything at this point is just news filler.

But there are two really important things to remember about Trump as it
relates to this board:

For the first time in memory (if ever), the Republican National Committee
and Fox News Channel are in completely different worlds, and it's all about
how to handle Donald Trump. Because Trump draws eyeballs, and at the end of
the day, FNC is about eyeballs. If Trump is one or two in the polls right
now, he is red meat to FNC's viewership (which is even further right than
what the RNC is, much less wants). The Onion Op-Ed is spectacularly right:
"Admit It: You People Want To See How Far This Goes, Don’t You?" (
http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/admit-it-you-people-want-see-how-far-goes-dont-you-50895).
And don't think FNC won't take every single Trump event, much to the RNC's
permanent consternation. There's absolutely no way he's not on the stage at
the first debate. And trust me: we're all gonna either watch it or the
highlights the next morning.

The second is a little more roundabout. Fundamentally, what sinks
candidates is what floats 'em: cash. Specifically, their ability to raise
it. And at this moment, Trump could literally spend a billion dollars
without raising one penny from a Super Pac, the RNC...you name it. He wants
to insult Mexicans? Take cracks at John McCain? Guess how much that'll
affect his fundraising? It won't, because he doesn't have to! When Trump
actually decides to launch a media campaign, those commercials are going to
be spectacular! Doesn't matter how you define "spectacular". You know it. I
know it.

Everyone can laugh in July, 2015. But why do I have this feeling we're
still gonna be laughing in February, 2016?

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.