Vote For Amy
 

Vote for Amy or face an airstrike. :eyebrow:

She was doing OK until she mentioned her actions against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. We've only stalemated with those two organizations (President Trump says we're actually losing to the Taliban and suggests replacing our CG there). So, it appears that she was content with a stalemate for her 20 years of federal service as long as she got to do what made her happy personally ... flying. That could be indicator of what one may expect from her as a politician.

She needs to get a PR manager who has a brain.

And if she made a nuanced ad like you suggest where she expresses complicated thought, she would be unelectable because Americans like simple speech from their politicians.

I don't see John McCain saying he WON the Vietnam war.

Huh? She wasn't a movie character who could win a war singlehanded. What does her contentment or lack thereof have to do with it? Are her only options to keep fighting an unending war, or be embarrassed to mention being a Marine?

But on a purely PR-manager-note, I don't think that mentioning it will do her any harm in Kentucky. It may not be enough to override being a member of the dreaded Democratic Party, but it won't do any harm.

Ya can only do what they (the gov't) will let you do. You know that better than most of us.

Personally, I don't give a shit. I can't vote. I don't worry about what I have no control over. I try not to, anyway.

John McCain was a prisoner of war. Surviving that was a success. One lists successes in a civilian resume, not glorious defeats. The latter is for promotions in the military. She was doing OK by referencing her military service and personal accomplishments. She diminished her position by mentioning her opponents; because, not only were they not vanquished, she didn't choose them ... the government chose them for her. As Gravdigr said: Ya can only do what they (the gov't) will let you do.

To override being a member of the dreaded Democratic Party (as Happy Monkey puts it):

You've got to accentuate the positive.
Eliminate the negative.
That should've been an affirmative
But she wound up somewhere in-between

Good intentions alone aren't usually good enough; so, we'll see.

Hardly. A war not being over, and even a war not being a good idea in the first place, does not impugn an individual service member.

If you think winning is possible, you can blame the generals for bad strategy. If you don't, you can blame Bush for starting it, and Obama for continuing it, but I don't think you'll have much sympathy for blaming the troops.

The discussion is about a political candidate's advertising.

The public is weary of Iraq and Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Invoking these business as usual situations is counterproductive for anyone wanting to represent change.

They may be weary or oblivious of the big picture, but not all are weary of hearing someone bombed them heathen raghead camel jockeys over there.
General Jubilation T Cornpone would have kicked there asses and taken their oil by now.

Public is weary of inferior management and ill-advised strategy that turned both Afghanistan and Iraq into never ending disasters. That says nothing bad about the many good people who did best possible in an impossible situation.

Shame on the Americans who were in Baatan?

If discussing her military history is bad PR, then any American who admits being in Vietnam should be mocked and disparaged.

Never confuse bad top management with people who work so hard to avert or solve a losing effort. She did a job that few could do. Kudos to her. Pitiful is anyone who would demean those accomplishments.

The reality is that there is a phenomenon called guilt by association and that association can be very loose. Shame on anyone who would hamper her ambitions by not acknowledging that fact regarding her advertisements. They're the same egocentric losers who undermined their own candidate, Hillary.

What?

Q: What?

A: WhatNOT!

Her advertisement contained elements that could work either for or against her. I pointed out a prominent one. Telling people what they should or shouldn't think about it; so, all the content works only in her favor, doesn't work. UT posted an analysis of that strategy which CLEARLY demonstrated it's a failed strategy. Those who promulgated that strategy, during Hilary Clinton's presidential campaign, not only contributed to her defeat, they caused her to lose to DONALD frickin' TRUMP. The campaign strategy has to change; or, history will repeat itself. All those posting in this thread who see no need for that change are the same old dogs who can't learn new tricks that contributed to Hillary's defeat. The egocentric Judases who would tell others what to think rather than adapt campaign advertising to suit more people.

Acknowledged is that all Americans are partly responsible for what this country does via its President; because, the people elect that person. This political candidate served in a volunteer military and was indeed partly responsible for the outcome of military endeavors as both a voter and a volunteer who, as an officer, could have resigned at any time to voice her dissatisfaction. She didn't, she stayed in because it suited her personal ambitions. In this regard here's no comparison of her culpability to the draftees who served in Vietnam whose choices were to serve, go to jail; or, flee the country.

What I'm seeing in this thread are people whose ideas on political campaign strategy contributed to the most humiliating political defeat of our time ... and it was for their own candidate!

Time to ignore them and start listening, with comprehension, to those who've demonstrated they know how to win. Especially when it comes to independents (like me) who may very well end up backing their candidate too. Of course the egotists who place pontificating their opinions above all else will have no part of it. They'll fall by the wayside ... again.

I did what now?

But I think that's right; everybody plays a different movie in their head, and what works for one person does not work for another, so it's very important that your appeal works in the movies of most people. We can't see in other people's heads, and at this time we are disconnected and the movies are getting quite different and hard to fathom.

So, if I were to JUST be critical:

This one stopped working for me at the same time I bet it stopped working for most people: "My Senator Mitch McConnell". 30 seconds in and now there is no question that it's a political ad. People HATE political ads. "And now the twist, I'm running for Congress" is not a movie anyone would pay to see in theatres. It's a trick, and we know it.

The Hillary campaign failed, IMO, partly because she failed to communicate any kind of vision for what she would do. Many people said the only reason they knew to vote for her was that she was a strong woman - a military hawk even! - fighting against the mean man, and many people thought that wasn't enough reason. And the Trump victory was, in many people's views, a reaction to too much strident political correctness. This ad trots right down those same paths.

It may work for us, but that is not important. Kentucky went 62.5 to 32.7% for Mr. Trump. Good luck to Amy.