What Happened When I Wore A Tucker Carlson T-Shirt For A Week In L.A.
Comments
-
WOOD!
-
I worked on a campaign from DC for a candidate who shall remain nameless because its not important. I was just a data gatherer and did it for the fun of it and the chance to network. One of my tasks was "diversity data". You need to know where to spend your campaign dollars correctly or it is just wasted. The campaign manager wanted to know where the competition had spent their money the previous election and then wanted data to prove where we should spend our money. We were a bit surprised with the competition and where they had spent their money in the last election cycle. 100% was to constituents who agreed with them. They were preaching to the choir and not really looking to pull anyone across the aisle with their advertising dollars. Their guy was going for his third term so we wrote it off as being complacent and spending on a sure thing. A get out the vote advertising campaign more than anything.
In the end what we found was that 70%+ (can't remember the exact number) of democrats had zero diversity in their news source. Republicans were around the 30% mark. Now some of that is the fact that there is only one television news source that gives diversity from the liberal media sources which dominate in number. Republicans have a bunch who watch local CBS, NBC and ABC but won't touch the far left leaning CNBC, CNN, etc opting for only FOX News when they switch from local to cable. Democrats get a daily barrage of only left leaning perspectives. Many don't plan it that way because most aren't really interested in politics and watch their news sources for many different reasons, but those news sources are decidedly liberal in perspective so they are fed that steady diet. Republicans basically have to endure television news from different perspectives because there is only one source that offers diversity. If you are a Republican or Conservative and you want to watch local news, you are watching democrat/lib perspective news.
In the end my candidate spent her cash on local television and pushing on-line content. She ended up winning but that was mostly due to the fact that her competition was complacent, also won with help from her consistently reaching across the aisle using liberal media as her source.
The point is, I am not surprised at all that liberals in la la land had no idea who Tucker Carlson was. They truly only get their information from liberal MSM with zero diversity of content.
By the way, the campaign was screwed over six ways from Sunday on print and televised ads. Repeatedly they were told the best time slots on television or the best locations in print ads were "not available". It was funny and infuriating to watch. Funny because we knew they were lying, infuriating because the other guy (the democrat) seemed to have zero problems getting prime time slots for his ads. That is not the first time I ran into that kind of illegal bias by the left. -
Started reading, ended jerking.Swaye said:WOOD!
-
With or without the shirt on?Swaye said:WOOD!
-
DisagreeBendintheriver said:I worked on a campaign from DC for a candidate who shall remain nameless because its not important. I was just a data gatherer and did it for the fun of it and the chance to network. One of my tasks was "diversity data". You need to know where to spend your campaign dollars correctly or it is just wasted. The campaign manager wanted to know where the competition had spent their money the previous election and then wanted data to prove where we should spend our money. We were a bit surprised with the competition and where they had spent their money in the last election cycle. 100% was to constituents who agreed with them. They were preaching to the choir and not really looking to pull anyone across the aisle with their advertising dollars. Their guy was going for his third term so we wrote it off as being complacent and spending on a sure thing. A get out the vote advertising campaign more than anything.
In the end what we found was that 70%+ (can't remember the exact number) of democrats had zero diversity in their news source. Republicans were around the 30% mark. Now some of that is the fact that there is only one television news source that gives diversity from the liberal media sources which dominate in number. Republicans have a bunch who watch local CBS, NBC and ABC but won't touch the far left leaning CNBC, CNN, etc opting for only FOX News when they switch from local to cable. Democrats get a daily barrage of only left leaning perspectives. Many don't plan it that way because most aren't really interested in politics and watch their news sources for many different reasons, but those news sources are decidedly liberal in perspective so they are fed that steady diet. Republicans basically have to endure television news from different perspectives because there is only one source that offers diversity. If you are a Republican or Conservative and you want to watch local news, you are watching democrat/lib perspective news.
In the end my candidate spent her cash on local television and pushing on-line content. She ended up winning but that was mostly due to the fact that her competition was complacent, also won with help from her consistently reaching across the aisle using liberal media as her source.
The point is, I am not surprised at all that liberals in la la land had no idea who Tucker Carlson was. They truly only get their information from liberal MSM with zero diversity of content.
By the way, the campaign was screwed over six ways from Sunday on print and televised ads. Repeatedly they were told the best time slots on television or the best locations in print ads were "not available". It was funny and infuriating to watch. Funny because we knew they were lying, infuriating because the other guy (the democrat) seemed to have zero problems getting prime time slots for his ads. That is not the first time I ran into that kind of illegal bias by the left. -
That's some hard hitting journalism there from 18 months ago. Wow so women at feminist places like spin classes don't recognize Tucker Carlson. You really got em now.DerekJohnson said: -
Nice dribble. Now wipe it off your chin.Bendintheriver said:I worked on a campaign from DC for a candidate who shall remain nameless because its not important. I was just a data gatherer and did it for the fun of it and the chance to network. One of my tasks was "diversity data". You need to know where to spend your campaign dollars correctly or it is just wasted. The campaign manager wanted to know where the competition had spent their money the previous election and then wanted data to prove where we should spend our money. We were a bit surprised with the competition and where they had spent their money in the last election cycle. 100% was to constituents who agreed with them. They were preaching to the choir and not really looking to pull anyone across the aisle with their advertising dollars. Their guy was going for his third term so we wrote it off as being complacent and spending on a sure thing. A get out the vote advertising campaign more than anything.
In the end what we found was that 70%+ (can't remember the exact number) of democrats had zero diversity in their news source. Republicans were around the 30% mark. Now some of that is the fact that there is only one television news source that gives diversity from the liberal media sources which dominate in number. Republicans have a bunch who watch local CBS, NBC and ABC but won't touch the far left leaning CNBC, CNN, etc opting for only FOX News when they switch from local to cable. Democrats get a daily barrage of only left leaning perspectives. Many don't plan it that way because most aren't really interested in politics and watch their news sources for many different reasons, but those news sources are decidedly liberal in perspective so they are fed that steady diet. Republicans basically have to endure television news from different perspectives because there is only one source that offers diversity. If you are a Republican or Conservative and you want to watch local news, you are watching democrat/lib perspective news.
In the end my candidate spent her cash on local television and pushing on-line content. She ended up winning but that was mostly due to the fact that her competition was complacent, also won with help from her consistently reaching across the aisle using liberal media as her source.
The point is, I am not surprised at all that liberals in la la land had no idea who Tucker Carlson was. They truly only get their information from liberal MSM with zero diversity of content.
By the way, the campaign was screwed over six ways from Sunday on print and televised ads. Repeatedly they were told the best time slots on television or the best locations in print ads were "not available". It was funny and infuriating to watch. Funny because we knew they were lying, infuriating because the other guy (the democrat) seemed to have zero problems getting prime time slots for his ads. That is not the first time I ran into that kind of illegal bias by the left. -
This post was meant for people who can read and comprehend. You can go back to your consistent lying.2001400ex said:
Nice dribble. Now wipe it off your chin.Bendintheriver said:I worked on a campaign from DC for a candidate who shall remain nameless because its not important. I was just a data gatherer and did it for the fun of it and the chance to network. One of my tasks was "diversity data". You need to know where to spend your campaign dollars correctly or it is just wasted. The campaign manager wanted to know where the competition had spent their money the previous election and then wanted data to prove where we should spend our money. We were a bit surprised with the competition and where they had spent their money in the last election cycle. 100% was to constituents who agreed with them. They were preaching to the choir and not really looking to pull anyone across the aisle with their advertising dollars. Their guy was going for his third term so we wrote it off as being complacent and spending on a sure thing. A get out the vote advertising campaign more than anything.
In the end what we found was that 70%+ (can't remember the exact number) of democrats had zero diversity in their news source. Republicans were around the 30% mark. Now some of that is the fact that there is only one television news source that gives diversity from the liberal media sources which dominate in number. Republicans have a bunch who watch local CBS, NBC and ABC but won't touch the far left leaning CNBC, CNN, etc opting for only FOX News when they switch from local to cable. Democrats get a daily barrage of only left leaning perspectives. Many don't plan it that way because most aren't really interested in politics and watch their news sources for many different reasons, but those news sources are decidedly liberal in perspective so they are fed that steady diet. Republicans basically have to endure television news from different perspectives because there is only one source that offers diversity. If you are a Republican or Conservative and you want to watch local news, you are watching democrat/lib perspective news.
In the end my candidate spent her cash on local television and pushing on-line content. She ended up winning but that was mostly due to the fact that her competition was complacent, also won with help from her consistently reaching across the aisle using liberal media as her source.
The point is, I am not surprised at all that liberals in la la land had no idea who Tucker Carlson was. They truly only get their information from liberal MSM with zero diversity of content.
By the way, the campaign was screwed over six ways from Sunday on print and televised ads. Repeatedly they were told the best time slots on television or the best locations in print ads were "not available". It was funny and infuriating to watch. Funny because we knew they were lying, infuriating because the other guy (the democrat) seemed to have zero problems getting prime time slots for his ads. That is not the first time I ran into that kind of illegal bias by the left. -
whynotboth.gif?TurdBomber said:
With or without the shirt on?Swaye said:WOOD!
-
Its a fact. You can disagree in your mind but the reality is just the opposite of what you FEEL.ThomasFremont said:
DisagreeBendintheriver said:I worked on a campaign from DC for a candidate who shall remain nameless because its not important. I was just a data gatherer and did it for the fun of it and the chance to network. One of my tasks was "diversity data". You need to know where to spend your campaign dollars correctly or it is just wasted. The campaign manager wanted to know where the competition had spent their money the previous election and then wanted data to prove where we should spend our money. We were a bit surprised with the competition and where they had spent their money in the last election cycle. 100% was to constituents who agreed with them. They were preaching to the choir and not really looking to pull anyone across the aisle with their advertising dollars. Their guy was going for his third term so we wrote it off as being complacent and spending on a sure thing. A get out the vote advertising campaign more than anything.
In the end what we found was that 70%+ (can't remember the exact number) of democrats had zero diversity in their news source. Republicans were around the 30% mark. Now some of that is the fact that there is only one television news source that gives diversity from the liberal media sources which dominate in number. Republicans have a bunch who watch local CBS, NBC and ABC but won't touch the far left leaning CNBC, CNN, etc opting for only FOX News when they switch from local to cable. Democrats get a daily barrage of only left leaning perspectives. Many don't plan it that way because most aren't really interested in politics and watch their news sources for many different reasons, but those news sources are decidedly liberal in perspective so they are fed that steady diet. Republicans basically have to endure television news from different perspectives because there is only one source that offers diversity. If you are a Republican or Conservative and you want to watch local news, you are watching democrat/lib perspective news.
In the end my candidate spent her cash on local television and pushing on-line content. She ended up winning but that was mostly due to the fact that her competition was complacent, also won with help from her consistently reaching across the aisle using liberal media as her source.
The point is, I am not surprised at all that liberals in la la land had no idea who Tucker Carlson was. They truly only get their information from liberal MSM with zero diversity of content.
By the way, the campaign was screwed over six ways from Sunday on print and televised ads. Repeatedly they were told the best time slots on television or the best locations in print ads were "not available". It was funny and infuriating to watch. Funny because we knew they were lying, infuriating because the other guy (the democrat) seemed to have zero problems getting prime time slots for his ads. That is not the first time I ran into that kind of illegal bias by the left.
