A Site For Sore Eyes - and Minds

by Dr. Ellen Brandt

Both the Internet and the United States need a "GOP Mother Site" to balance news feeds, search engines, and social media too closely bound to the interests of the Other Side. 　

It's been a long time aborning, but various GOP media activists, who've been working in isolation from one another and getting nowhere fast, are finally making coordinated moves to establish a central Republican "Mother Site," which would provide a full spectrum of social media applications and also serve as a central linking point for All-Things-GOP.
　
We've been talking to a number of such media activists, several of whom have run little-visited sites or Groups within large social media universes, like Facebook or LinkedIn, for years.
　
While not everyone agrees on how to proceed or what to include, one thing we all can agree on, because it continues to be (in frustrating fashion) true: Republicans are still treated as second-class citizens on much of the Internet and at all the major social sites, despite our being the respected advocates for at least 1/2 of the American population and despite our overwhelming success in the election just past.

This is no longer acceptable, and worse - it is no longer necessary. There is no reason whatsoever we should not put aside our differences - philosophical, operational, or "turf"-oriented - and create a social media "Mother Site" for all Republicans or those interested in our Party, its agendas, its members, its prominent figures, and its candidates.

We have long believed that the designation Party of Yes is the best possible name for such a site. Others will be less enthusiastic, of course, so let us tell you why:

Party of Yes doesn't imply that all Republicans are supposed to agree on everything - or anything! In fact, we believe that in many ways, the opposite is true: that a healthy political Party - like a healthy culture, a healthy economy, and a healthy nation - depends on allowing and, indeed, relishing the widest possible Freedom of Action, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Thought.

Perhaps never in our nation's history has such a worldview - such a Human view - been more important, as adherents on the Other Side attempt to push their Thuggish and Elite theories of "political correctness" to such extremes, they threaten the eradication of virtually all our major institutions - academia, media, the Internet, and, perhaps, American Culture itself.

As a meme and a theme and words to live by, Party of Yes implies that Republicans are now the Guardians of Freedom itself. We welcome discussion. We welcome civil and courteous debate. We welcome all viewpoints and all voices, especially those which feel they have been stifled by Censors-for-the-Elite on some other sites. And we welcome to our Party those (now many) who feel it is finally time to take a stand against "political correctness" in all its deleterious and ultimately dangerous forms.

We had hoped the idea of a GOP social media "Mother Site" would catch on during the election year of 2016 and that it might attract widespread support and modest but necessary assistance and funding from the RNC, various State and local GOP entities, groups backing candidates, PACs, think tanks, media companies, and conservative and faith-oriented NGOs.

Alas, it was not to be! But we believe the extraordinary events since the election, and especially since the beginning of the new Administration, now make the establishment of such a site nearly imperative.

It is crystal clear that there is simply too much anti-GOP - and many would say, anti-American - bias in the news feed components of most major social media and even supposedly "hard" news sites.

While Republicans - and many Independents - want to continue to belong to and utilize many of these sites, some of which have excellent and perfectly neutral applications as part of their makeup, a large number of us would also like to have a site we can link to on our dashboards and favorites lists and go to first when we access the Internet.

We want a comprehensive site where news feeds are unbiased and unprejudiced; where we can choose to read stories from sources we trust and shun those we do not; and where we can catch up on current events on a real-time basis, without getting so angry at the slant, we throw rocks at our computer screens or hurl our tablets and smartphones at the nearest wall.

Content-wise, we would love to see regular political news from GOP adherents and activists in all 50 States and local venues, especially from those based in "flyover" country - which these days, just happens to be Republican country. And we want to give a much louder and stronger voice to those Americans - currently, again, overwhelmingly Republicans or GOP-leaning Independents - who have been denied a consistent voice, because the Thug-Elite considers them (or should we say, US!) 'Deplorables" or "Necessary Road Kill" on the path to a more and more Dystopian economy and culture.

Although it will take time to do so, with help, the "Mother Site" should also begin to develop its own Republican Search Engine, which can supplement existing search engines, whose proprietary algorithms - or something - seem to be preventing them from correctly classifying and ranking news and features and authors and topics important to GOP'ers with the same care and weight they give to those coming from the Other Side.

We'll try to anticipate the question you're burning to ask : Why do we need an independent GOP "Mother Site," instead of one sponsored by the Administration itself, the RNC, a leading PAC, a leading think tank, or a leading existing news site?

Let's return to our Party of Yes meme, theme, and worldview: That in light of the current state of this nation, Republicans are now the Guardians of Freedom itself. Almost by default, we have become the champions of completely open discussion, debate, courtesy, and healthy give-and-take, because the Other Side has barricaded itself behind of wall of "political correctness" and "litmus tests" so pernicious and downright scary, people of reason, compassion, faith, and human empathy are becoming more appalled at its Big Brother aspects day-by-day.

For this reason, we believe we need a social media site which maintains arms-length distances from both the current - and future - Republican Administration(s), as well as from the RNC, which, for different reasons, are wont to take hard - i.e. closed-from-debate - positions on agenda items, proposed legislation, GOP candidates, and State or local matters.

Leading GOP or GOP-leaning PACs very often have set agendas which are by nature exclusive in some way, rather than open and inclusive. Think tanks, while apt to welcome a wider range of thought and expression based on ongoing research, also generally have somewhat specific missions and agendas.

And the top GOP-leaning news sites, some of which are excellent, have as their main goal attracting attention from both readers or viewers - or from other news sites and search engines - which means that they naturally give far more emphasis to certain themes and stories than to other themes and stories, which they believe will attract only narrow or specialized audiences.

In addition, most of the major news sites allow advertising of one sort or another, often as their major means of financial support. By nature, advertising limits the extent to which a site or channel can be totally independent. This is, in fact, a very hot topic of discussion right now among "Official MSM" outlets large and small. Heavy censorship is rearing its ugly head at several sites, including sites with a strong social media presence.

The Republican "Mother Site" we propose will, of course, welcome all sorts of links to all of the above - and financial assistance and support from some of them, including the Administration, the RNC, and PACs, as well as from State and local branches of the Party.

But once again, our major goal is to become a one-stop social media site, similar to LinkedIn or Facebook, but specifically attractive to Internet readers, viewers, and general users who are Republicans or GOP-leaning.

Here are some applications the GOP "Mother Site" should include:

***** E-Mail: Users of the site should be able to exchange E-mails with one another and - significantly - with both officeholders and candidates nationwide; State and local Party officials; RNC officials; and principals of the various linked entities - from news sites to think tanks to PACs to individual blogs - which choose to link to the site.

***** A Publishing Application: The usage at LinkedIn, for one, has picked up considerably since their site began to allow users to publish articles and circulate them to both connections and the general public. We think a publishing application geared specifically to all Republicans, across the spectrums of research, thought, and opinion, should become popular quickly.

***** A Video Application: Similarly, we want to include a video editing and disseminating feature, along the lines of Google's YouTube.

***** A Real-Time News and Features Feed: Because our feed will be monitored and edited by fellow Republicans, it will naturally favor a GOP slant on the news and features which appeal to GOP viewers and readers. We will aim to be inclusive, however - but not prejudiced and biased, as are most of the "Official MSM" feeds, whose editors seem to favor the Other Side's viewpoints and agendas by a wide margin.

***** A Groups Facility: Because we want an "open" E-mail application to be part of the site - promoting inclusiveness - users of the GOP "Mother Site" will not have to connect or become "friends" with each other in order to participate fully. But we would like to have the option of individual users setting up and joining smaller groups for purposes of specific kinds of contacts and conversations.

***** A GOP "Commerce" Component: We will not allow the usual kind of advertising on the site, although PACs and other groups lobbying for specific "opinion" purposes should be able to do so on a fee-based basis - garnering wider support for a State or local ballot measure, for instance. But we'd like to have an on-site Store where everyone and anyone - including groups allied with the Administration or the RNC - will be able to sell creative, interesting, and fun merchandise with a GOP theme. Mugs, mousepads, hats, sweaters, cards and stationery - if it's fun, adorable, and Republican, it can be sold here.

***** A Republican Search Engine: As we mentioned above, everything that appears anywhere on the site should begin to be indexed and sorted from day one, leading to the establishment of a handy and useful GOP search engine over time.

Of course, among the main advantages - and attractions - of a GOP "Mother Site" is its ability to provide current and updated links to All-Things-Republican.

We hope every major GOP-oriented news outlet, large and small, will want to link to the site. So, we expect, will GOP bloggers and authors of books; sites narrowly focused on GOP issues; think tanks; PACs; university and college-based entities allied with the Party; faith-based groups allied with the Party; and purveyors of GOP-themed paraphernalia.

We also want both the Administration and its numerous units and the Party and its numerous units to link to the "Mother Site." We hope to provide links to key officials within Federal departments and agencies and State, county, and local branches of the GOP - as many as wish to participate.

We also want both elected officials at every level and candidates at every level to be able to utilize the site regularly, linking their speeches, articles, white papers, and news of legislation and initiatives they're sponsoring.

Assembling and maintaining all this wonderful material will require at least a small staff, which can grow as the site grows. All staff members should be Republicans and support the Party fully and enthusiastically - no disgruntled "holdovers" here!

Naturally, I would be delighted to administer the site and also serve as its Editorial Director, providing original material on a real-time basis. We are also in frequent discussions with other well-known GOP activists who are very interested in developing such a site and eager to participate as staff members or regular contributors.

Although all should maintain an arm's-length distance from the site to preserve its complete independence and integrity, initial funding needs to come from somewhere, and we hope that "somewhere" will include the Administration, the RNC, State Parties, PACs, think tanks, academic institutions, and the major news outlets who will link to the site.

We believe the initial budget can be exceptionally reasonable, since everyone who has expressed an interest in participating - including me - wants such a site to succeed, because we think it is desperately needed and can become an immense success over time. We need to be paid something for all the time we expect to put into the venture - but that something can be relatively little. We are patient and willing to grow with the site.

What might be very helpful is the RNC, State Parties, or PACs "lending us" some of their crack IT people to assist with the initial site set-up, although much can now be accomplished with off-the-shelf components. The most difficult parts of the site to set up efficiently may be the publishing and broadcast applications and the search engine component. We are certain we can use some help with those!

So how should we now proceed with the development of our proposed Republican "Mother Site?" As we mentioned, a group of leading and well-qualified GOP activists, most of whom already have Internet sites of their own, have been discussing the establishment of such a site for several months.

It may now be the time to hold a conference, possibly in Washington, where those already in the mix can directly discuss and start implementing the "Mother Site's" establishment with representatives from the Party, the Administration, leading PACs, think tanks, and news sites, and other interested possible participants.

We can introduce a budget, decide on initial staffing, and begin to elicit both funding and other sorts of assistance from everyone who can give it.

We are publishing versions of this initial description of the "Mother Site" both in the Party of Yes blog series at Google's Blogger and at LinkedIn, where we maintain a Party of Yes Group and where I have perhaps the strongest and most prestigious connections network of Republicans on the site.

Many of my connections are involved in broadcasting - radio, television, or podcasts. So I am hoping several of them will ask me to appear on their shows in the very near future, in order to discuss the "Mother Site" and the Party of Yes concept, as well as the Road Kill Nation theme, which I am developing as a possible book and documentary. (Read about it in the next story at the Party of Yes blog.)

With several appearances and the subsequent "buzz" we hope they will cause, the proposed "Mother Site" can be launched very quickly and efficiently, we fervently believe, particularly if some television networks and major news sites give us some air time and print - or cyber - inches.

We welcome feedback from those who read this piece and further suggestions about what you, as fellow Republicans, want and need from a comprehensive GOP "Mother Site."

Long live our Party of Yes!

　

********************************************

Moot/Not Moot: Political Stories at LinkedIn and Other Social Media Sites

by Dr. Ellen Brandt


New readers of the Party of Yes blog may be wondering why we haven't acted upon our promise to publish a follow-up story to How to Solve the "Politics Problem" At LinkedIn and Other Social Sites.


That story related how whenever an overtly political story ran at LinkedIn's Pulse - and many other social media sites - dozens of comments miraculously appeared in the comments-stream, arguing that "social media is not for politics, so ban political stories completely."


Of course, such comments were 20 times  - or perhaps 100 times - more likely to be attached to a story written by or favorable to Republicans than to a story written by or favorable to Democrats. But in terms of our thesis, that is neither here nor there.


As we said in our initial Politics at LinkedIn piece:


". . . . such debates are mostly faux, not only because so many comments-stream participants are Chatbots, rather than Humans, but also because there is now a very fine line between which kinds of articles are political and which (kinds of articles) are not."


That is the thesis we were going to develop in our follow-up piece - and which we will develop shortly.


As to why we haven't published the promised follow-up story yet: About a week after our initial Politics at LinkedIn story appeared, the site began to transform its basic format, creating a dashboard that, among other improvements, allows one to bypass Pulse completely.


You can still subscribe to Pulse and receive its "recommended" feed, which mostly consists of stories from those designated by Pulse editors as INfluencers, overexposed Celebrity contributors of one sort or another, whom many of us don't want to read about again in this lifetime - not one canned word of pabulum more!


But the momentous change in LinkedIn's format has made the debate - faux or not - about whether political stories are desirable or not desirable in LinkedIn's news feed pretty much moot. There no longer is a news feed, at least not a "recommended" feed that appears on users' Home Pages against our wills.


Anything but moot, however, is our original thesis: that there is an extremely fine line between what kinds of stories are political and which are not political.


You can insert extreme bias into any kind of news feed, according to which stories you allow into it and which you do not, who writes those stories, and which of the site's "audiences" you try to persuade - or bully - into reading them.


LinkedIn - as is their complete prerogative - has tried to transform itself into the Internet's premium site for well-qualifed job hunters and those who recruit them.


That's fine! But the old Pulse INfluencers-dominated feed, we believe, was working at cross-purposes to this goal, freezing out and often outright "dissing" a large proportion of the site's most avid participants.


The extreme political bias of those managing the former feed made stories and groups of stories seemingly non-political in their purpose ultra-political in their content and intent.


On the surface, the majority of "recommended" stories in the feed were seemingly about employment, recruitment, and career topics. But under the surface, in the view of most Republicans - who, as in the general U.S. population, make up about 1/2 of all American users of LinkedIn - these so-called job and career stories were often charged with political bias.  


Here are a few examples of what we mean:


***** Stories About Diversity: Many GOP'ers believe this was the number one biased group of stories in the "recommended" feed. The problem is one of (very bad) semantics, because close to 100 percent of such stories were not about real diversity at all. They blatantly advocated affirmative action, which is a concept almost every Republican detests.


Nearly all Americans, no matter what our political affiliation, support real diversity, which means that all groups of American citizens get the same opportunities and assistance and respect as all other groups of American citizens.


So-called affirmative action is the exact opposite. It seeks to give special privileges, special help, special preferences in hiring, college admission, and other competitive situations to groups of some American citizens versus groups of other American citizens.


Republicans believe this is an anti-Democracy agenda, against the core values on which this nation was established, especially our core concept of Meritocracy, which says Americans - and all people - should be rewarded and honored on the basis of their experience and hard work and education and applied intelligence and talent.


Affirmative action, when you take away the glossy "politically correct" wrappings that surround it, is anti-Meritocratic, seeking to give preferences and privileges to Americans based on highly divisive factors: their ethnicity, their gender, their age, or even whom they choose or do not choose to have sex with. This is anathema to most within the GOP.


***** Millennials at the Top of the Social Ladder: The "recommended" feed was obsessed with promoting Millennials, one particular generation, at the expense of every other generation.


An enormously large percentage of articles in the "recommended" feed touted Millennial entrepreneurs, educational and career paths for Millennials, "Millennial values" (whatever that means), and Millennial earnings capacity, which was "supposed to be" greater than the earnings capacity of previous generations.


This emphasis was, of course, not only disturbing, but downright obnoxious to site users of other generations. It was also - well, pretty silly! Over 43 percent of American citizens are now age 50 and over, as were a full 1/2 of all voters in the 2016 election (a statistic expected to grow, not decline, in the elections of 2020, 2024, and 2028).


***** A Dearth of Stories on "Gray" Americans Over Age 50: As Mature Americans age 50 and over become both a larger proportion of the total (legal) U.S. population and a growing majority of American voters, stories about this Other Half of the American populace have nearly disappeared - or been disappeared - on most Official MSM sites dominated by bias towards Democrats. Alas, that included Pulse's former "recommended" feed.


Again, this bias is rather silly and anything but productive for any MSM site or news feed involved in this type of camouflage. Essentially "dissing" over 2 in 5 current American citizens - a proportion which is about to grow, not shrink, over the next decade - seems quixotic as best or spiteful at worst. It accomplishes nothing except polarization, political and otherwise.


The situation got worse, not better, a few months before the old format was phased out, with the appointment of first, a Millennials Editor, charged with looking for stories about and for Millennials, followed by the extraordinary appointment of a High School Editor, seeking contributions from and about Americans in their teens. But No! there was no need seen for a special Editor representing anyone older than Millennials, at least 1/2 of all people who use social media, including LinkedIn.


***** The Rich Are Different From You and Me - Their Voices Get Heard (Whether or Not We Want to Hear Them): The old Pulse feed also went gung ho glorifying gazillionaires and gazillionaire wannabes, in the same way the Globalist Thug-Elite has tried to persuade us to do for decades.


Celebrity career advice stories used to abound - most of them, by  site managers' own admission, written by ghost editors, not by the Celebs themselves.


Yes, an occasional story of this sort is fun. But a steady diet of them is morally, ethically, and emotionally unhealthy, promoting the beliefs that first, the prime accomplishments that make someone important are wealth and fame and second, that following those exalted few deemed INfluencers is better for one's life and career than interacting with one's fellow site users - one's peers who are mere Humans.


***** Whose Gender Gap? Pulse's obsession with the Very Young, at the expense of everybody else, also led to a highly biased view of women in the workplace, who we are, and what we most need.


Again, it is a matter of Demographics. An even greater proportion of American women are now age 50 and over than the proportion of Mature Americans  when both genders are combined, a consequence of women still outliving men by several years. "Gray" American women - those who are over 50 - are fast approaching the 1-out-of-2 mark, in fact.


And Mature women, like all Mature Americans, have been pushed to the bottom of the economic barrel, despite the fact that we tend to be well-educated, highly skilled, and highly motivated, with decades of solid work experience behind us.


You'd never know this from the "recommended" Pulse stream, crowded with career articles relevant to very young women, such as stories on pregnancy and childbirth leave or recruitment stories geared to recent graduates.


Stories on the real "glass ceiling" - the one hitting everyone with gray hair smack on the head - have been completely absent. To add insult to injury, the very few stories about older workers, women and men alike, have - like the Globalist agenda itself - often focused on forcing us "Grays" out of the workforce as quickly as possible and into retirements we not only don't want, but can no longer afford.


***** Dishonesty Not the Best (Immigration) Policy: Even some within the GOP are still getting the immigration issue wrong, but those who lean Democrat are off on tangents so far afield, they may never find their way back to sanity.


At other periods in our history - and the history of the rest of the Developed World (plus China, whose Demographics are very similar to ours) - opening the floodgates to massive immigration from the less-Developed world was a good thing. And at some point in the future, it may be again.


But not now. Because at this moment in American (and World) history, immigration is an economic - and specifically an employment - issue.


The Globalist Thug-Elite, which is now closely aligned with the Democratic Party, have been gleefully - and many Republicans would say, maliciously - creating an Inverted Pyramid economy and culture, with the Very Young - including those masses of Very Young immigrants - replacing the Mature; the Less-Educated replacing the Highly-Educated; the Unskilled replacing the Skilled; the Inexperienced replacing the Experienced.


There are places in the World where such Inverted Pyramid economies have existed for long periods of time: Failed and other marginal States - Somalia, say, or the DRC. Such an economy and such a social structure is the opposite of what we need and want in the United States.


The "recommended" feeds at social media sites could be honest and talk about immigration in this way. But they have not been honest.


***** Higher Education is Being Shaken to Its Roots By a Dystopian "Politically Correct" Environment:" But you'd never know it from the biased news feeds and ChatBot-laden comment-streams at social media sites.


This is a key issue for the majority of Republicans and many Independents - and even for some sane Democrats.


We can barely believe how our Alma Maters, bastions of American ideals and scholarship, have been transformed seemingly overnight into places where Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Speech are no longer welcome; where professors and administrators talk - if not yet, thankfully, act - like anti-American traitors seeking to undermine our elected government; and where mobs of students exhibit what can only be called Fascistic behavior, seeking to ban and banish from campuses anything and anyone they decide they don't like.


The trashing of Higher Education is an "employment topic," if anything is! It brings into question how well-educated many current matriculants and recent graduates are and whether they are being deliberately robbed of their innate ability to think for themselves and evolve into reliable citizens, let alone employees.


The turmoil also puts added emphasis on how potentially disastrous are attempts to impose an Inverted Pyramid economy and social structure on the United States, with the broadly-educated and free-thinking Mature portion of our population kicked out of the workforce to "make room" for youngsters who no longer have academic tradition nor scholarly skills to anchor them.


Again, a general topic of extreme societal, as well as political value, is being swept under the rug and prohibited from appearing in "recommended" news feeds.


***** The World According to (Income) Gap: The vast majority of the Republican voter base - and many Independents who have recently voted Republican - view the more and more serious income gap in the United States, the rest of the Developed World, and our Demographic peer China, as a direct consequence of the Globalist agenda, as put into practice by the One Percenters.


The now catastrophic state of our so-called "good" economy has been camouflaged by an utterly flawed system of statistical releases of job and unemployment data, which ignores the glaring fact that we are living with the lowest labor participation rate since the Great Depression of the 1930s and a veritable army of long-term Unemployed and Underemployed, who now total at least 1 in 3 American citizens.


We've discussed this topic elsewhere, of course, and will continue to do so in many articles to come.


Within the scope of this story, the relevant point is that the Great Gap between a handful of obscenely wealthy individuals and all the rest of us Deplorables (in Hillary Clinton's words) or Roadkill (in Warren Buffett's) is, along with the related theme of the Demise of the Middle Class, the true Big Story of our current historical era.


But it, too, has had no place in Pulse and other "recommended" news feeds.


Could LinkedIn - in its former format - have been perfect in its coverage of topics and stories that would truly engage its American base of users? No, of course not. But it could have been much better - and fairer - and more balanced.


We who are avid LinkedIn users acknowledge its value and importance to us as a network builder; as a way of sharing information within our networks; as a preferred E-mail server for contacting those networks; as a job reference and recruitment site; and as an efficient system for forming and maintaining groups of like-minded individuals.


As a news source, though, many of us were both dissatisfied and disappointed by the former "forced" version of Pulse, its INfluencer system, and its "recommended" news feed.


This news feed could easily have become a positive source of respectful dialogue and debate among users of different cultural, philosophical, and political viewpoints.


With so many other Internet sites seemingly hell-bent on polarizing this nation and this World, spouting nonstop propaganda, rather than encouraging balanced coverage of important issues and public concerns . . . . . Well, with LinkedIn's truly broad U.S. user base, Pulse could have been made into a hero among American news sources.


Perhaps in some future version, it will be.



**************************************

How to Solve the "Politics Problem" At LinkedIn and Other Social Sites

by Dr. Ellen Brandt

This brief story is a slightly updated version of a post I made in the comments stream of Jeff Weiner's article, "My Thoughts On the Election," at LinkedIn's Pulse.


Weiner, the CEO of LinkedIn, wrote about the need for "healing" after the 2016 Election results, which, it seems, were a major surprise to the management and employee base at LinkedIn. Their reactions, says Weiner, "ran from shock and sadness to grief and mourning."


Democrats and others who voted for Hillary Clinton may empathize with such reactions. The vast majority of Republicans and others who voted for Donald Trump will not. But that wasn't the point of my comment on Weiner's post, which got many thousands of reader views and elicited hundreds of comments.


Weiner prefaced his post by saying he didn't often write about politics at LinkedIn or elsewhere. And many of the competing comments in the stream following his story continued a (mostly faux) debate we've all seen in such comments streams whenever an overt political story appears at LinkedIn or other social media sites.


I say that such debates are mostly faux, not only because so many comments-stream participants are Chatbots, rather than Humans, but also because there is now a very fine line between which kinds of articles are political and which are not.

I'm going to expand on this point in a follow-up story, which I'll try to post within the next couple of days.


But my comment on Jeff Weiner's article presented something else: my take on how LinkedIn and other social sites can satisfy both readers who love political posts and want to read them and those who say they do not.


Beyond this, I made a further observation and suggestion on how LinkedIn can effect a key bit of "healing" within Pulse itself, by making the facility more inclusive and reaching a large and important constituency of readers who feel left out.


Here, then, is my comment:


Jeff, since we Republicans and you Democrats remain gulfs apart on the Election and its aftermath, I am not going to comment on the political content of your post.


But as a very early initiator at LinkedIn, a Group manager, and an avid user of the site, I want to make two suggestions that I think would be eagerly approved of and embraced by LinkedIn users in the United States.


First of all, since there appear to be some users who don't want political posts in their Pulse feeds, how about seriously considering establishing some political channels among your existing channels?


There could be just one Politics Channel, which those (many) of us who like political stories could subscribe to. Or you could, in addition, establish separate LinkedIn channels for Democrats and Republicans. I think this would greatly increase, not decrease, viewing stats at LinkedIn Pulse and make everybody happy.


Second, many of us who are either members of your generation, Gen-X - now late 30s to early 50s - or my Generation, Baby Boomers - now 50s and 60s - are unhappy that there are now separate Pulse channels for Millennials and even High-school students, but no separate channels for Gen-Xers, Boomers, or the possibly substantial number of LinkedIn users who are older than Boomers.


We think this leads to a skewing of content at Pulse and its "Stories You Can't Miss" facility towards articles by, about, and for younger LinkedIn users versus mature LinkedIn users.


It just doesn't make sense to many of us. We all, don't we, want the site to be as INclusive as possible, appealing to as many constituencies as possible?


So if you are going to maintain separate channels for Millennials and High-Schoolers, please do establish similar channels for Gen-Xers, Boomers, and possibly Older-than-Boomers, too.


Thanks so much for reading this. Ellen Brandt


*********************************************


Those are my suggestions, and I welcome reactions from fellow LinkedIn users - and eventually, cross fingers, from LinkedIn management.


*********************************************

Quick Take - Adorable and Certainly Not Deplorable

by Dr. Ellen Brandt

 
Just three months old and cute as a button, little Donald Trump Otiendo of Kenya is being hailed all over Africa as the world's first "Trump baby."

 

The tiny tot's parents, Lorna and Felix, belong to the Luo people, an ethnic group that often favors naming newborns after world leaders. The Otiendos were prescient enough to pick the U.S. election's winner back in August - which makes them far better prognosticators than, say, Larry Sabato.

Proud papa Felix Otiendo told Kenya's The Nation newspaper that he hoped the baby would grow up to emulate Trump's values and personality.

"I love people who speak the Truth without any fears," Mr. Otiendo declared. "Most politicians are not sincere."

**********************************************

#partyofyes #ellenbrandt #quicktake #GOP #Republicans #politics #donaldtrump #donaldtrumpotiendo #otiendobaby #kenya #babies #election2016

Quick Take - Hey, We're Adorable

 
by Dr. Ellen Brandt


A last quick suggestion about what I'd advise Candidate Trump to do immediately in this last two weeks of his campaign:


Print up as many T-shirts, caps, scarves, and anything else you can manufacture cheaply and fast - i.e. within the next 24-48 hours - with the prominent message Adorable Deplorable.


These items are not to be sold.

They are to be given away en masse to millions of people throughout the country, but particularly in Swing States, where the voting is likely to be close.


Encourage everyone possible to wear the Adorable Deplorable message shirts and caps and urge them to wear them everywhere, in the hope of starting political discussions in unlikely places: the grocery store, a restaurant, a gas station, or anywhere else people congregate.


Make sure to make a substantial number of the shirts in large sizes, since many who will eagerly accept them will be members of the GOP Loyalist Base over age 50 - fully 1/2 of expected voters this cycle - and people tend to be slightly heavier as they age.

 
Publicize the giveaways both nationally and locally and get as much press and word-of-mouth coverage as you can.


Have campaign staffers wear these shirts and caps, and wear them yourself. You might want to manufacture them primarily in red, white, and blue, already the primary colors of the Make America Great Again shirts and caps.


If there are enough staff and funds to spare, you could also try to stage some Adorable Deplorable contests and events leading up to the election: Most Adorable Deplorable Baby/Family Pet/Grandmother/Trump-friendly celebrity.

 
The overall message should be: The Other Party and its Candidate proclaims its Elite, Know-It-All, Better-Than-You-Are stance . . . . . Fine! We will turn that stance on its head, by demonstrating we're the Party of Yes, the Party that welcomes everybody, the Party of the hard-working, modest, humane, and decent American Woman and Man and Child.


You think we're Deplorable, Hillary. We know we're Adorable. And we are ready to show it.


**********************************************

Quick Take - Something Wonderful

by Dr. Ellen Brandt


For some time, I've been thinking about what might make a quickly viral, super-terrific and super-positive Trump Campaign Video that Team Trump could post on YouTube and other streaming sites throughout the world - not just the U.S. - Internet.


It's funny; it's relevant; it's sophisticated; and it's that old-fashioned word, charming.


I would put it together myself, but I am not an animator. Those who do put it together should be JibJab-style and JibJab-caliber animators. One would think there might be a few of those somehow attached to the Trump campaign team.


If you like this idea, with just two weeks until the Election, please get it to friends at the core of the campaign as soon as you can. Several core campaign people are part of my LinkedIn network, so maybe one or more of them will also see this and utilize it quickly.


Here goes:


I propose an animated video using the absolutely perfect-for-Donald-Trump-and-entourage lyrics of the song Something Wonderful from The King and I, the Rodgers and Hammerstein classic musical, which first appeared on Broadway in 1951 and was later made into a superb 1956 film from 20th Century-Fox.


The first line will be "sung" - or more likely, dubbed over - by an animated figure with the face of Melania Trump, adding more and more people in the Trump entourage on each subsequent line of the song.


Here are suggestions with whom to add when as the song progresses. I think you'll see why I'm so keen on this idea - and why I believe it would go mega-viral very fast.


(Melania Trump)

This is a man who thinks with his heart, his heart is not always wise


(Add Trump children)

This is a man who stumbles and falls, but this is a man who tries


(Add Trump children's spouses and Trump grandchildren, plus Mike Pence and family)

This is a man you'll forgive and forgive and help and protect, as long as you live


(Add Kellyanne Conway and a few more key campaign aides) 

He will not always say, what you would have him say


(Add several more well-known Trump spokespeople, like Lynne Patton and Scottie Hughes)

But now and then he'll say, something wonderful


(Add half-dozen political bigwigs who often speak for campaign, like Newt Gingrich, Rudy Guiliani, and Jeff Sessions)

The thoughtless things he'll do, will hurt and worry you


(Add several former primary opponents now supporting, like Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson)

Then all at once he'll do, something wonderful


(Add Reince Priebus and key Congressional members supporting Trump, as many as you wish)

 He has a thousand dreams that won't come true


(Add TV and talk radio personalities supporting, like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh)

 
You know that he believes in them, and that's enough for you


(Add Hollywood and Nashville stars and other Celebs supporting Trump, like . . . . whomever you choose)

 
And so you'll go along, defend him when he's wrong


(Add some humor, by putting in some on-the-side-of-the-angels historical figures - Mahatma Gandhi? Mother Teresa? Nelson Mandela? Albert Einstein?

 
And tell him, when he's strong, he is wonderful


(Add in, over last two lines of song, 100 or 200 or 500 typical supporters, all ethnic groups, ages, hairstyles, wearing Trump hats and T-shirts)

 
He'll always need your love, and so he'll get your love


The man who needs your love can be wonderful (crescendo!)



Seriously, isn't that perfect for this campaign? Well, I think so.


*********************************************

Quick Take - The Knockout Ad

by Dr. Ellen Brandt


If I were advising Team Trump, I would suggest that within the next 24 hours or so, they get their top political advertising gurus to put together a truly memorable Knockout Ad to run everywhere possible the last two weeks of the campaign.


This is the kind of ad I'd run:


Smiling Barack Obama. Smiling Hillary Clinton. Flashing word UTOPIA fading immediately to flashing word DYSTOPIA.

Smiling Obama, Clinton, Soros, Blankfein, Dimon, Buffett, Bezos, Zuckerberg, DiCaprio, Michael Moore, others in the Wall Street, Tech, and Hollywood Thug-Elite.


Word scroll of their words: Jobs, Stock Market, Economy, Luxury, Skills Gap, Immigrants, Open Borders, NAFTA, Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Fade to Pictures of Closed Factories, Closed Retail Establishments. Main Street Ghost Towns. Foreclosed Homes. Foreclosed Farms.


Word scroll of our words: 95 million Americans unemployed or underemployed. Up to 50 million Americans over age 50, all occupations, all races, all religions, all educational levels have lost their life's savings, their jobs, their businesses, their hope . . . . The end of the Middle Class? The end of a kinder, gentler, more humane Nation? The end of the American Dream?  
      

Quick flash pictures. Riots. Bread lines. Hoovervilles. Dust Bowl. Crime scenes. Finish with an older middle-aged woman - someone Caucasian, 55 or 60, no older - graying hair, beautiful but anguished face, recognizably mimicking Edvard Munch's The Scream.

Word scroll: When the Status Quo means DYSTOPIA, we need to vote for CHANGE.


Vote Change. Vote Republican. Vote Trump-Pence. And make America Great Again.


**********************************************

 

The Gain Control Series - Caricature Assassination

by Dr. Ellen Brandt


The Gain Control series offers our two cents worth of advice to Candidate Trump, telling him how we - GOP Base Loyalists - might like him to respond, in debates and otherwise, to specific kinds of attacks by Hillary Clinton.


With the three Great Debates concluded, we offer this last piece in the series, focusing on continued Clintonista attempts to deflect voter attention from issues that are important - plus Clinton's own many scandalous failings - by playing the sleazy, slimy "card" of Trump's alleged unwanted advances towards women.


The Clintonistas are furiously attempting to demonstrate that this ersatz issue defines Candidate Trump's basic Character, a fuzzy term at best, but one that resonates with the electorate, especially if they're not paying close attention to those issues that are actually important, like growth, jobs, immigration, security, and Globalism's many ills.


In these final weeks of this historical campaign, here's how we'd like Donald Trump to respond to these Caricatures of Character attacks, talking tough initially (but only in the tiniest of soundbites), then taking the loftiest possible High Road, in contrast to Team Clinton's delight in gutter - or is it cesspool? - politics.


Trump Channeling Our Advice (On Alleged Sexual Misconduct): Aren't we all - all Americans - getting sick and tired of tabloid politics, politics kicked into the Gutter? I know I am. And I know our supporters are.


What is most difficult for me - someone admittedly new to national politics - to understand is how Secretary Clinton, in the political arena for 40 years, can be so sanguine, so self-satisfied, about piling these Dirty Trick allegations on me, when so many similar allegations have been laid at the door of both her and her family for what is now four decades.


Bill Clinton, of course, was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice by the House of Representatives, with his impeachment linked to his real - as opposed to our imaginary - sexual misconduct. And now there are numerous allegations about Bill Clinton's fathering an illegitimate son - significantly, a half-black son - whom he refuses to acknowledge with pride as his offspring.


As for Hillary Clinton, she has been accused of pretty much everything under the sun, except, perhaps, cannibalism and bestiality - although there are probably tabloid articles somewhere or other which says those are among her sins, too.


But there have been more substantial - if still unproven - allegations of her own serial adultery, both heterosexual and homosexual, as well as reports that she has abused alcohol at times, to the point of harming her health.


There have even been suggestions that her overzealous aides or close supporters have been implicated in dozens of mysterious deaths, from the well-publicized suicide of Whitewater lawyer Vincent Foster to the very recent unsolved murder of young DNC staffer Seth Conrad Rich.


In other words - and we will say this just once and forever hold our peace - if the Trump Campaign wished to climb into the gutter with Hillary Clinton, there would be plenty of sleaze and slime that could be made to coat her own political persona.


But we choose not to. We choose, despite such extraordinary provocation, despite Clinton campaign tactics that might be common in a corrupt Failed State somewhere, but are not only uncommon, but unheard of in our own great Nation - despite all this, we choose to take the proverbial High Road.


Hillary may bully. But we will not retaliate in kind.


We will turn the other cheek.


We will acknowledge that the Clintonistas, many of whom are not People of Faith, may very well "know not what they do."


And we will Pray for Them. 

 
 
**********************************************



 

The Gain Control Series - Miscellaneous Mayhem

by Dr. Ellen Brandt


This series offers our two cents worth of advice to Candidate Trump, telling him how we - GOP Base Loyalists - might like him to respond, in debates and otherwise, to specific kinds of attacks by Hillary Clinton.


The series now proceeds to a grab bag of attacks which were made in the First Debate, dropped in the Second Debate, possibly because of the Town Hall format, but which could emerge again towards the end of the campaign.


As Republicans, many of us think these particular points of attack are inconsequential, certainly not matters of national import which deserve a place in a Clean Campaign. But they've become part of the grease and grime of the Clintonistas' Dirty Campaign and, as such, must be taken care of in a calm and efficient manner - if possible conveying the message that, "We Republicans are better than this and would love to get back to real issues. But since Secretary Clinton continues to fling mud, here's how we wash it all off."


We here outline brief suggested responses to five such Miscellaneous Mudslingings: the Birther issue, contractor lawsuits, bankruptcy allegations, the family foundation and its miscalculations, and the charge that - horror of horrors! - some Trump companies have lost money.


Trump Channeling Our Advice (On the Birther issue): My distinguished Opponent, as we all know, also utilized this particular issue during her 2008 campaign for the Democratic nomination.


At that time, many questions had been raised which had not been thoroughly investigated. Some Republicans and some non-Republicans think that still more investigation needs to be made. But we no longer believe this is true - nor, I hasten to add, does Secretary Clinton. So we are both on the same side of this issue now. Case closed.


Trump Channeling Our Advice (On Contractor Lawsuits): To be frank, this entire line of attack seems so irrelevant, it continues to baffle both me and Republicans in general.


Business people operate in the worlds that surround their industries and their particular sectors of those industries. In order to be successful, you need to become a respected part of your industry. I believe I have been greatly respected - in fact, admired - within my industry, as were my father before me and my children today.


Bringing up class action disputes from 30 or 40 - or even 50! - years ago in a purely political attempt to "prove" anything whatsoever seems the height of folly.


Has my particular industry made mistakes in the past? Of course, it has, as all industries have. Have any of my principal or subsidiary companies participated in such mistaken actions? Again, of course, we have. Industries and companies, like individual human beings, make errors, correct those errors, and continue to improve and to grow.


All business people understand this. And I would hope Secretary Clinton, despite her dearth of business experience, might be able to grasp these concepts, as well.


Trump Channeling Our Advice (On Bankruptcy Allegations): In my almost 50 very successful years in business, I've launched approximately (GIVE NUMBER) new principal and subsidiary companies, creating thousands upon thousands of new jobs.


Of that number, which most would consider impressive, only (GIVE NUMBER) companies, all subsidiary companies, have run into difficulty and taken advantage of the business protection and income protection statutes which almost all large companies - and many medium-sized or small companies - take advantage of, if a pressing need presents itself.


This manufactured political issue is analogous to the manufactured taxation issues we've discussed before. Any and every truly successful businessman or businesswoman is going to hire the best lawyers and accountants and advisors, who in turn are going to assist her or him in utilizing existing laws and existing legislation in the ways that benefit his or her companies the most.

Secretary Clinton seems to be accusing me, in essence, of choosing to make beneficial business decisions, under the letter of the law, rather than bad business decisions, that she would somehow approve of more readily.


This is Through-the-Looking-Glass fuzzy thinking on her part. And what it proves, once again, is that her own business prowess and judgment are questionable - not mine.


Trump Channeling Our Advice (On His Family Foundation and Its Miscalculations): Most Republicans - and by this time, one would hope most Americans - realize that any mudslinging against our relatively small, domestically-oriented Family Foundation is a blatant attempt to deflect the myriad scandals - which many think may skirt the borders of High Treason - at the Clinton Foundation, a large, extremely influential, and internationally important - in the very worst sense! - institution.


Our Trump Foundation is a true domestically-based "family office" kind of entity, akin to all the very comparable family philanthropic foundations you see funding public television or museums or the national parks - all of which we also contribute to.


And if we have made some paperwork mistakes in our funding - that's what they amount to - we are extremely sorry and have now made amends, financial and otherwise, to any complaining entities involved.


How can one possibly compare this to the vampire squid which is the Clinton Foundation? It seems to have its hands out to every government or corporation or political group in the world that thinks it needs government access at the highest levels in the United States. And in most cases, the Clinton Foundation has been happy to deliver that access on what most believe is a "pay for play" basis.


The Clinton Foundation is a global morass of pure corruption, according to many who have studied its complicated and Machiavellian operations. It is, of course, the "family foundation" everyone should be focusing on now - and my distinguished Opponent fully understands this.


Trump Channeling Our Advice (On the Charge Some Trump Companies Have Lost Money): On this charge that - horror of horrors! - some of my business ventures have lost money over the course of my 50 years as an entrepreneur and business leader: Hillary, you are absolutely right!


The hallmark of a successful and creative entrepreneur is taking chances, taking risks, in order to make wonderful things happen. They have to be calculated risks and risks you can afford to make, of course. I think the very fact that our core business of real estate has been able to expand and grow and create jobs and help the various states and cities into which we've expanded proves that the majority of the risks we've taken have panned out.


If Secretary Clinton doesn't understand what business is like, what entrepreneurship is like, what creative risk-taking is like - well, once again, that is par for the course for someone whose entire career has been spent inside a cocoon of protection and privilege and being "anointed" by the wolves of Wall Street and the Thug-Elite of the Globalist Agenda.

It all returns to what we've been talking about since the beginning of our campaign: Is America satisfied with the status quo? Or are we finally ready to take some risks - Yes, some entrepreneurial risks! - to get this country moving again?



**********************************************

The Gain Control Series - When Hillary Road Runner Beeps, Donald E. Coyote Has to Stay Calm

by Dr. Ellen Brandt


The Gain Control series offers our two cents worth of advice to Candidate Trump, telling him how we - GOP Base Loyalists - might like him to respond, in debates and otherwise, to specific kinds of attacks by Hillary Clinton.


Democratic operatives - and Hillary Clinton herself - love to use what we think of as the Road Runner Strategy: Coming back over and over again to certain kinds of familiar points of attack - Beep Beep! Beep Beep! - in the hope that Candidate Trump will, in Wile E. Coyote fashion, lose his cool, bluster his way into ineffectual responses, and be blown up again by the Clintonista Acme Corporation.

 
Just say No! Donald. You're a Republican, not a Coyote. Throw the dynamite back in Clinton's face by staying calm, cool, and collected and giving (100 percent accurate) responses that both illuminate the real issues involved and adhere to the philosphies and viewpoints of the majority of Republicans.

We give you suggested answers to three very typical Road Runner attacks - on so-called Gay Rights, Americans of Latino ancestry, and Clinton's collection of endorsements from "former GOP officials."


Trump Channeling Our Advice (on so-called Gay Rights, Gay Marriage, and Unisex Bathrooms): Although these are contentious issues, we Republicans are happy to talk about them in a way that will unite Americans, not try to divide us, as the Democrats are apt to do.


First of all, as we have said before, we believe there are only two kinds of Rights anyone should be focusing on: Human Rights, which all Human Beings share, and American Rights, which all American citizens share.


Talking about any other supposed kinds of Rights is simply a blatant attempt to divide Americans, rather than to unite all of us to work towards common goals. No American's Rights should be abridged nor denied because of irrelevant categorizations, whether we are talking about gender, age, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, or any other personal characteristic or trait.


As for both the Gay Marriage and the Unisex Bathroom issues, most Republicans' uneasiness or objections, I firmly believe, have to do with jurisdictional issues, not anything else. 


We tend to think it is absolutely horrid when a President and his administration go all-out to usurp powers that have been in the hands of States and local jurisdictions since our nation's founding and arbitrarily hand those powers over to the Federal government.


Most Republicans want this rapid trend towards Centralization of powers that were formerly Decentralized to cease and desist. Many in the GOP therefore thought the Supreme Court decision taking marriage law away from States and localities and placing it into the hands of the Federal government was both wrong and dangerous and should be reversed. The Supreme Court does sometimes make what the general population feels are errors. And when that happens, efforts may be made to reverse those errors.


The issue of Unisex Bathrooms and Locker Rooms is a bit more complicated. But again, let me explain how most Republicans tend to feel.


First, this is another States versus Federal government issue, in which an arbitrary decree from the Federal government seeks to take away rights which have historically been in the hands of the States. Many State administrations and legislatures are very upset about this, as are many American citizens.  


An additional issue, of course, is whether any human being can actually change his or her sex and become transgender, up to the time when scientists have figured out a way to alter people's basic DNA.


Many people, within the GOP and otherwise, think the entire concept of gender reassignment is pure political correctness, invented as an artificial conflict which does not belong in the political arena at all.


Again, if all Humans possess basic Human Rights, and all Americans possess basic American Rights, by all means, individuals can dress the way they please, alter their appearance any way they please, or utilize plastic surgery or hormone therapy to make them look or feel the way they want to look or feel.


But whether all of this actually changes one's basic gender - well, many still disagree. And most Republicans tend to think it is a matter for philosophers and theologians to argue and decide upon and not the place of government to take one side or the other - let alone legislate this issue in any way, shape, or form.


Trump Channeling Our Advice (on the Latinos-Are-Upset-At-Your-Proposals Canard): The majority of Republicans - me included - are getting really very tired of this "Latinos Hate You" theme, which has pretty much no connection to the Truth, either in terms of Republicans in general or of my campaign in particular.


First, let me tell you that many people, whether with some Latino ancestry or not, seriously question the way polltakers and Democrats define the terms "Latino" or the more narrow term "Hispanic" for purposes of their polls and the propaganda arising from those polls.


Many think there is now, in today's America, about as much sense talking about "Latino" voters as a bloc as there is talking about "Caucasian" voters as a bloc, which we don't do.


And, in fact, we greatly dislike talking about "Black" voters as one homogeneous bloc, either - and at some point, both the pollsters and the political propagandists should do something about that, as well.


But back to Latinos. Americans with ancestry from the "Latin" nations, whether in Europe or in the so-called New World, are every bit as diverse a population as those traditionally called "Caucasian."


In fact, the vast majority of Latinos are Caucasian or mostly Caucasian, although some have African ancestry, others have Native American ancestry . . . What does it really matter? Once you are an American citizen, you are part of the American mix - period - and shouldn't be sliced and diced and divided into ethnic groups and subgroups for purposes of polling or political propaganda.


We might also mention that in the Western and Southwestern States - which tend to be GOP country, by and large - an exceptionally large proportion of our citizens can claim some or a lot of Latino ancestry - and are very proud of it - just as they can claim some or a lot of Native American ancestry - and are very proud of it.


In fact, the oldest families in many of the Western States were Latinos who populated those States long prior to their becoming States and, in some cases, many decades prior to the landing of the Mayflower or the settling of the American East coast. They are, in those terms, the most aristocratic citizens - the ones with the oldest and proudest lineage - of any Americans, other than Native Americans.


A second point: Which Party, one has to ask, had the most prospective Presidential candidates with a Latino link of some kind this past primary season? 


I think we all know the answer to that. Candidates Rubio and Cruz are themselves Latino. Candidate Bush has a lovely Latino wife. And many other GOP candidates - Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, George Pataki - as well as myself - come from States with large Latino populations, which we are proud of, as all Americans should be.


Trump Channeling Our Advice (on Clinton's braggadocio about Endorsements-From-Ex-GOP-Officials): Well, Gee, endorsements are always nice, and we've gotten some very surprising ones ourselves. For instance - Here the Candidate should list 7 or 8 endorsements he is proud of from unusual sources, particularly those which are Democrats or generally allied with Democrats, like labor unions or Black groups.


Yes, all these endorsements are hunky-dory, but I don't think either I or Secretary Clinton should really focus on them much or brag about them very much.


Because we don't want potential voters - do we? - to make up their minds about whom to vote for or not vote for based on what some well-known individual or media personality or newspaper editor or Hollywood actor says or doesn't say or thinks or doesn't think.


I mean, really, Hillary, we don't want our American voters acting like sheep who can't make up their own minds and need some outside force to do it for them, now do we?


At least, we Republicans don't. We're proud to be the Party of intelligent and sophisticated and well-informed voters, who are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves. We're just not "politically correct," after all. Based on Secretary Clinton's way of thinking, we're Adorable Deplorables. And darn proud of it!


**********************************************

 

Quick Take - Poll-Axed

by Dr. Ellen Brandt


At this stage of the Presidential election, Polls - in fact, warring Polls - seem to be taking on exaggerated importance, used as a form of Psy-War to encourage or discourage potential voters from showing up on the Big Day.


But this time, as in the U.K.'s Brexit vote, virtually all the Polls may be off-balance and off-base - even the relatively honest ones.


That's because this is an election where the Populist vote is so central to the outcome, both nationally and in individual swing States. And guess what? Populists refuse to be polled.

That's especially true with the two major Populist constituencies which are leaning Republican - or at least anti-Democrat - this cycle.


The first group - leaning Republican - is the fully 1/2 of potential voters who are Gray voters age 50 and over.


I know Grays because - like both major candidates - I am one. And we Grays tend to be reluctant to participate in political polls. That's because:


***** We're security-conscious, and we want our privacy respected. We tend to screen our calls, and if we see you're a pollster, we'll probably treat you the same way we treat telemarketers - less than enthusiastically.


***** If we're GOP-leaning, we almost certainly detest a large part of the Mainstream Media right now, as clearly biased in favor of The Other Side. Why in the world would we agree to talk with CNN, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Gallup, or Reuters? Most of us wouldn't.


***** Many Grays find polling procedures suspect in the extreme. If we've ever taken a previous poll, we're more likely than not to have been upset by the process. Many polling employees seem to be very young and poorly informed, and they read from a script like robots. The questions asked seem geared to eliciting certain answers and certain answers only, with no wiggle room for extended or unexpected responses.


*****"Populist" and "Individualist" are compatible character traits. "Populist" and "Naive" or "Compliant" are not. If those who are the angriest and the most passionate about this year's political choices refuse to be good little poll subjects, while the Meek and the Unaware are happy to be polled, you're going to get badly skewed results, no matter how scientific you think your protocol is.


Again, this is exactly what happened in the pre-Brexit polls. Overwhelmingly, Brexit supporters were Gray citizens over age 50 - in the U.K., as here, about 1/2 of the potential electorate. And a lot of them obviously did not care to be polled. All they cared to do was vote.


There's a second group of Populists in the 2016 election, who may not be GOP-leaning, but are clearly anti-Clinton.


These are the "Bernie Sanders voters," who are of all ages and from greatly differing backgrounds. Many of them tend to be somewhat in sync with either or both of the Third Party candidates, Johnson and Stein, although some will vote for the Democrat or the Republican.


If Gray Voters over age 50 are security-conscious, privacy-conscious, wary of the Media, and just not particularly pro-polling, the Sanders Cadre - as well as other Libertarians and Greens - tend to be all of these things to the Nth degree.


Would Mr. Robot talk to a pollster? Would the Person of Interest people-of-interest? For that matter, would Rand Paul?


Of course, if this cycle's Presidential polls are as far off the mark as those gauging Brexit, the entire art or science or scientific art of political polling may have to get a major facelift.


In 2020, they may decide to use tea leaves or tree rings - or perhaps depend on Punxsutawney Phil.

 

**********************************************