4

I have watched this TED presentation that argues about global issues:

(..) you might be thinking to yourself, how can we possibly persuade world leaders to sustain a focus on global issues? Indeed, the powerful American politician Tip O'Neill once said, "All politics is local." That's what always got politicians elected: to seek, gain and hold onto power through the pursuit of local or at very best national interests.

As a proverb, "all politics is local" means:

Ultimately, constituents and voters are concerned most about issues that affect their personal lives and home communities, and they vote accordingly.

I am interested if there is any recent (last 10-12 years) US campaign (e.g. Presidential) that highlights a global issue. As an example, all campaign highlights presented in one of my older question seems to be local: illegal immigration, ACA, middle class income, same-sex marriage legislation, preschool education etc.

Question: Is there any recent US campaign that contradicts "all politics is local" conjecture?

  • How is illegal immigration a local issue? Or nationalizing health care insurance? Domestic issues are not the same as local ones. – K Dog Aug 2 '18 at 21:09
  • How is this not "primarily opinion-based"? Even assuming we get enough data from exit polls to know what the deciding factors in an election were, we still have the issue that you have a pretty broad idea of what local means, e.g. "same sex marriage" is local how? Or to flip the question: what's an issue that isn't local in your view? Global warming? What if it affects water level on your shore? – Fizz Aug 2 '18 at 22:47
  • And I don't see how the campaign matters for the proverb. The proverb speaks of the voters' concern. A campaign's message can be totally off the mark relative to the voters' concerns, and lose (badly) as a result. Do you mean a winning campaign, under the assumption that it really won based on the message (as opposed to [say] the candidate's height relative to his opponent)? – Fizz Aug 2 '18 at 22:55
  • And frankly, how is one going to categorize a fairly vague campaign message like "change"; is it global? is it local? You can read anything into that, which is a lot of its power. – Fizz Aug 2 '18 at 23:04
  • 2
    "All politics are local" is more a maxim than a proverb or assertion. Exceptions don't disprove it unless they are numerous. By themselves exceptions to maxims act as outliers. – grovkin Aug 3 '18 at 6:38
5

One of the strongest examples contrary to the "all politics is local" maxim, is that voters don't actually act that way. These observations are restricted primarily to the United States, where the maxim was coined.

The Top of the Ticket effect

One of the biggest predictors of how down ticket candidates in an election fair is the extent to which voters support or oppose the top of the ticket candidate in that party in that election, or even the extent to which voters support or oppose the President, whether or not the President is running for office. Support or opposition for the top of the ticket candidate in that election (e.g. a Governor in a midterm state legislative election) is also a quite significant factor in down ticket elections.

There is a good empirical case that the single biggest factor other than party affiliation (also not a "local" consideration) that governs whether a candidate for a down ticket office will win or lose, is the attitude of members of the voting public towards the President. If the President is popular, that helps members of the President's party in down ticket races. If the President is unpopular, that hurts members of the President's party in down ticket races.

This is a quintessentially non-local factor in political races.

Election outcomes aren't independent of each other

Similarly, and along the same lines, one of the key insights of the 538 election model (which incorrectly predicted that Hillary Clinton would win in 2016, but had a probability of her winning which was much lower than most competing models and pundits), is that electoral outcomes in one jurisdiction are not statistically independent of those in other jurisdictions.

For example, if Trump has an above average performance relative to polls in New Jersey, there is a very good chance that he will have an above average performance relative to polls in almost every single other state as well.

Political parties ideological splits reflect a national rather than local political calculus.

In a two party system, like the one in the United States, there is a strong "natural" incentive for the ideological dividing line between the two major political parties to be close to the views of the median voter, because winning elections and enacting legislation requires a majority coalition.

If all politics were local, you would expect the divide between the two major political parties in each state to be very different from each other, and for almost every state legislature to have a competitive pair of political parties.

Instead, we have a system in which the political parties are quite closely balanced in terms of electoral success in federal elections. The U.S. Senate is within one or two votes of equal, the U.S. House could be flipped with a 6% change on party control of seats, the Presidential popular vote totals were within 5% of each other nationally and the electoral college outcome most recently was not a landslide and came down to a handful of states with very close margins of victory for the winners of those states.

But, at the state and local level, and even at the level of individual states and individual Congressional districts, the lion's share of jurisdictions are very decisively red or blue. The platform and coalitions of Democrats are very similar from Georgia to Massachusetts to Idaho, even though these platforms and coalitions are ill adapted to their respective states in most cases. In Massachusetts, Democrats could have a smaller tent and still safely elect majorities and pass more liberal legislation than they do. In Idaho, Democrats almost never have enough electoral success to pass anything other than bipartisan legislation, but might be able to do so if they had a more moderate platform tailored to broaden their coalition of supporters.

It doesn't have to be that way. For example, candidates for federal office could run in national political parties, while candidates for state and local office could run from different state and local political parties. But, that is not what happens.

  • 1
    your first link just goes to a journal homepage. N.B. this is a pretty good answer why "all politics is local" isn't quite so. But I'm not sure it's actually answering in the vein of the OPs question, i.e. identifying a (presidential) campaign won on global issues. – Fizz Aug 2 '18 at 23:06
  • @Fizz It does discuss, the 2016 Presidential campaign and does does by aggregation a lot of down ticket offices (the link to the journal article must have gone bad and been relocated or something). There are also examples, not very specific but still there, on national v. state party alignment. – ohwilleke Aug 3 '18 at 4:38
1

Trying to answer in what I see the spirit of the question, identifying least-local campaigns from fivethirtyeight.com:

I never thought much about this — it seemed reasonable enough to suppose that voters care about their everyday concerns — until I ran across the following observation from Newsweek commentator Mickey Kaus:

There are elections where [O’Neill’s principle] doesn’t necessarily apply — one thinks of 1980, 1994 and 2008 as elections in which national issues and themes mostly predominated over local issues. … 1998 (impeachment) and 2002 (terrorism) and 2006 (Iraq War) … In other words, every midterm for the last two decades has been inexorably nationalized. Including this one [2010]. … You would hope that by the next midterm O’Neill’s aphorism will be so obviously wrong that even highly paid political analysts won’t trot him out, even to disagree.

But I think this kind of issue-that-mattered identification this going to be opinion-based to a substantial extent.

And although you don't explicitly ask for this, subverting your question ohwilleke-style (with the risk of getting a Phillip downvote), there's some statistical analysis (mentioned on fivethirtyeight.com) pointing to a uniformization/nationalization of the swing vote in presidential elections, interpreted as voters being less driven by local issues in more recent times (but frankly it could also mean that local issues have become more correlated between [some] states):

enter image description here

The trends by county are said to be similar (but the graph URL is broken).

0

In this day and age, with a national media, many congressional special elections become national referendum on other elected leaders, like the President. Consider, for example, the race for GA-6. Some signs that the election was not local include:

-1

Obama was the closest and did have some more global themes in his campaign. Obama did campaign on some vague statements about working with the global community and restoring faith. He also went on a world tour as part of his campaign in 2008. His major campaign promises were mostly local though: healthcare reform, ending the war in Iraq, closing GTMO, recovering from the housing crash, etc.

Most presidential candidates will mention foreign policy to some degree, but that is generally a more minor part of their campaign and is arguably talking about global issues through a local scope.

  • Can you please include some references to Obama's statements? Otherwise, a good answer. – Alexei Aug 2 '18 at 13:05
  • 1
    I understand why ending the war in Iraq can considered "local" because families want to see their Tomboys back home. However, I would say that closing Gitmo was merely a global issue, not affecting US voters (but the few thousands working there) directly at all. – Evargalo Aug 2 '18 at 13:30
-1

The presidential campaign which was global in nature was the second run by George W. Bush in 2004, where the dominant theme was foreign policy; the so-called "war on terrorism"

The War on Terror, also known as the Global War on Terrorism, is an international military campaign that was launched by the [United States government][2] after the [September 11 attacks][3] in the United States in 2001.[49]The naming of the campaign uses a metaphor of war to refer to a variety of actions that do not constitute a specific war as traditionally defined.

which was reported first stated publicly or officially on September 16, 2001 or "war on terror" which was first stated publicly or officially on September 20, 2001 continued during the 2004 presidential campaign, and continues today, see The Never-Ending War on Terror Why the U.S. Keeps Fighting the Wrong Battle.

George W. Bush (official "whitehouse.gov" site)

Bush was challenged in his re-election bid in 2004 by Massachusetts Democratic Senator John Kerry. The election was a good contest, but Bush’s contention that the invasion of Iraq had made the world more secure against terrorism won the national political debate. Bush was re-elected with 51 percent to 48 percent. (emphasis added)

Bush campaign to base ad on Kerry terror quote Democrats: GOP again taking senator's words out of context Monday, October 11, 2004 Posted: 3:20 PM EDT (1920 GMT) (Source: cnn.com)

Bush campaign Chairman Marc Racicot, in an appearance on CNN's "Late Edition," interpreted Kerry's remarks as saying "that the war on terrorism is like a nuisance. He equated it to prostitution and gambling, a nuisance activity. You know, quite frankly, I just don't think he has the right view of the world. It's a pre-9/11 view of the world." (emphasis added)

President Bush Discusses Freedom in Iraq and Middle East Remarks by the President at the 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy United States Chamber of Commerce Washington, D.C. 11:05 A.M. EST (November 6, 2003)

We've witnessed, in little over a generation, the swiftest advance of freedom in the 2,500 year story of democracy. Historians in the future will offer their own explanations for why this happened. Yet we already know some of the reasons they will cite. It is no accident that the rise of so many democracies took place in a time when the world's most influential nation was itself a democracy.

The United States made military and moral commitments in Europe and Asia, which protected free nations from aggression, and created the conditions in which new democracies could flourish. As we provided security for whole nations, we also provided inspiration for oppressed peoples. In prison camps, in banned union meetings, in clandestine churches, men and women knew that the whole world was not sharing their own nightmare. They knew of at least one place -- a bright and hopeful land -- where freedom was valued and secure. And they prayed that America would not forget them, or forget the mission to promote liberty around the world.

Historians will note that in many nations, the advance of markets and free enterprise helped to create a middle class that was confident enough to demand their own rights. They will point to the role of technology in frustrating censorship and central control -- and marvel at the power of instant communications to spread the truth, the news, and courage across borders.

...

This is a massive and difficult undertaking -- it is worth our effort, it is worth our sacrifice, because we know the stakes. The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region. Iraqi democracy will succeed -- and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Teheran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation. (Applause.) The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution. (Applause.) (emphasis added)

President's Remarks in "Focus on Education with President Bush" Event Midwest Livestock and Expo Center Springfield, Ohio 1:17 P.M. EDT (September 24, 2004)

THE PRESIDENT: Great. Good job. Thanks for coming. Listen, thank you all for being here. We're making progress. We're achieving what every American wants, every child receive -- being able to realize their dreams through a good education.

I want to talk about keeping the peace. I want to talk about the challenges we face to secure this country, make the world and America a safer place. You know, later on this week, I'm going to have a chance to debate my opponent. (Applause.) It's been a little tough to prepare, because he keeps changing positions on the war on terror. (Applause.) He voted for the use of force in Iraq, and then didn't -- didn't vote to fund the troops. He complained that we're not spending enough money to help in the reconstruction of Iraq, and now he's saying we're spending too much. He said it was the right decision to go into Iraq. Now he calls it the wrong war -- probably could spend 90 minutes debating himself. (Laughter and applause.)

You cannot lead when people don't know where you stand. In order to make sure America is a safer place --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: We need you as a leader. (Laughter and applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: In order to make sure America is safer, the President must speak clearly and mean what he says. (Applause.) I'll share some lessons with you about September the 11th. We face a brutal enemy that has no conscience. They -- they are the kind of people that you just can't reason with. It makes no sense for anybody to say, oh, all we got to do is change our ways because they'll change their visions. It's just not true. You can't negotiate with these people. You cannot rationalize with these people. The best way to protect America is to stay on the offense against them around the world so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause.)

We're making progress. We're working with our friends and allies to bring al Qaeda to justice. Seventy-five percent of their leadership has been brought to justice. Just yesterday, if you noticed, that in Pakistan, one of the killers of Danny Pearl had been arrested. One by one, we're finding these people. (Applause.)

It's a different kind of war. And first of all, I wish I wasn't talking about war. We didn't ask for this war. This war came to our shores. And there's only one way to deal with it, and that is to do everything we possibly can to protect the American people using all our assets, using everything at our disposal. (Applause.) And anything short of that will mean this government has not done its duty to the American people. Our most solemn duty is to protect you.

Now, we can make sure the Homeland Security Department works well, and do a better job on our borders and ports, which we're doing. But the only way to protect America in the long-term is to -- to protect America at all is to stay on the offense against these killers and to spread liberty and freedom. That's the only way we can protect this country. (Applause.)

In a different kind of war, we had to recognize that we're not facing a nation; we're facing a group of people who have adopted an ideology of hatred and love to find places where they can hide. They're like parasites. They kind of leech on to a host and hope the host weakens over time so they can eventually become the host. That's why I said to the Taliban in Afghanistan: Get rid of al Qaeda; see, you're harboring al Qaeda. Remember this is a place where they trained -- al Qaeda trained thousands of people in Afghanistan. And the Taliban, I guess, just didn't believe me. And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence. And the people of Afghanistan are now free. (Applause.) In other words when you say something as President you better make it clear so everybody understands what you're saying, and you better mean what you say. And I meant what I said. (Applause.)

Okay, hold up for a minute. (Applause.) Thank you all. I meant what I said for the sake of peace, because I understood that America would become more secure by denying al Qaeda safe haven and training bases in Afghanistan.

But I want to tell you something else that's on my mind during the course of my decision-making. I understand how powerful freedom can be. And I want you to think about Afghanistan. It wasn't all that long ago that the Taliban were running that country. People say, what were they like? They're the opposite of America. If you had a point of view that didn't coincide with what they thought, you were in trouble. They didn't believe in the freedom of anything. They have a dark vision about the world. We have a vision based upon light. We believe in freedom. We believe you can worship freely any -- in this country, any way you want -- (applause) -- any way you want. It's your right. You can speak your mind. You can participate in the political process. You can write any editorial you want in this country. That's freedom. That's not what the Taliban thought. You know that young girls weren't allowed to go to school, or many -- most young girls weren't allowed to go to school under the Taliban. Imagine a society like that. It's hard for Americans to visualize that.

So not only was al Qaeda being able to train there in Afghanistan, but it was a repressive society. Repressive societies breed violent people. Repressive societies breed those who are willing to strike at those of us who love freedom, as well.

Today in Afghanistan -- I want you to hear this fact -- today in Afghanistan some -- a little more than three years since we liberated them, 10 million people have registered to vote, 41 percent of whom are women, in the elections that will be held in about the first -- let's see, I think the 9th of October. Think about that, a country that has gone from darkness to light because of freedom. Freedom is powerful. It's powerful. (Applause.) Unbelievable statistic, I think. (Applause.) And I tell you why it's important, one way to defeat the ideologues of hate is to spread freedom. Free societies answer to the hopes and needs of the average citizens. Free societies do not export terror. Afghanistan is an ally now in the war on terror. In order to make sure America is secure in the long run, we must have allies standing with us in the broader Middle East.

Another lesson I learned is that we've got to deal with threats when we see them. We got to take a threat seriously before it fully materializes. Prior to September the 11th, the American President and policymakers could say, well, we see a threat but it's probably not going to come and hurt us. That all changed on September the 11th. Every time we see a threat now, we must take it seriously before it comes to hurt us again.

And so I looked around the world and saw a significant threat in Saddam Hussein. I'll tell you why I saw a threat. One, he a was a sworn enemy of the United States of America. Secondly, he was firing missiles at U.S. pilots who were enforcing the sanctions placed upon him by the world. Thirdly, I knew exactly how he felt about the demands of the free world -- as they say down in Texas, he could care less. After all, they'd passed 16 different resolutions, and he ignored them all. Fourthly, there was terrorists like Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal -- Abu Abbas is the guy who killed Leon Klinghoffer; Abu Nidal, famous terrorists; we knew Zarqawi was in and out of Baghdad -- he had terrorist connections. He also used weapons of mass destruction. The lessons of September the 11th were we must take these threats seriously.

I went to the Congress and said, we see a threat. Members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the same intelligence I looked at, remembered the same history I had just recited to you, and concluded that, yes, Saddam Hussein was a threat; and not only that -- concluded that they -- that force might be necessary and they authorized the use of force for the President, if necessary, to use force to deal with the threat.

My opponent, he looked at the same intelligence I looked at, he remembered the same history I remembered, and when it came time to vote for the authorization of force, he voted, "yes." (Applause.)

So I went to the United Nations. Let me tell you why I did. Because the President must try all means to prevent war. I understand the consequences of putting our troops in harm's way, and before any President puts one troop in harm's way, they best try all different means the solve the problem. And I was hoping that diplomacy would work. I was hoping that finally Saddam Hussein would listen to the demands of the free world. At the United Nations I laid out our case. They looked at the intelligence, they concluded with a 15-to-nothing vote in the United Nations Security Council that Saddam Hussein should disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. Fifteen to nothing was the vote. As a matter of fact, they also sent in inspectors into Iraq. The problem was Saddam Hussein systematically deceived the inspectors. You can't inspect unless you get cooperation. They got no cooperation.

It was clear that he wasn't about to cooperate with the United Nations; it was clear that, once again, he was going to ignore the demands of the free world. Diplomacy wasn't working. So I have a choice to make at this point in time: Do I forget the lessons of September the 11th and just hope for the best when it came to a madman who brutalized his own people, or do I take action necessary to defend this country? Given that choice, I will defend America every time. (Applause.)

Thank you all.

A couple of other things. I know what you know. We got a great military. (Applause.) I want to thank those who wear the uniform. I want to thank the loved ones of those who wear the uniform. And when we put our troops in harm's way, they need -- they need to have the full support of the federal government, the full support. (Applause.) That's why I went and asked for $87 billion of additional spending for important -- this is an important piece of legislation, after all, it's for ammunition, fuel, spare parts, body armor, hazard pay, health benefits, things necessary when you've got your troops in combat. This money was going to go to not only those in Afghanistan, but Iraq. It was vital.

Fortunately, members of Congress here knew how vital it was, and they stood up like most of the members of Congress and voted, "yes," we'll fund the troops. As a matter of fact, the support was so strong that only 12 members of the United States Senate voted against funding our troops, two of whom are my opponent and his running mate. Now, when you're out there campaigning, I want you to remind the good folks of this statistic, that only four members of the United States Senate, who said, yes, we're going to send troops, but, no, we're not going to pay for them. In other words, yes, we're going to send troops by authorizing force -- they voted to authorize force -- but then when the troops were in harm's way, did not vote the money to support the troops. Only four of the 100 members of the Senate -- four voted that way, two of whom are my opponent and his running mate.

So they asked him, they said, how could you possibly have made that vote. He said, I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it. You've got to be able to speak clearly in order to make this world a more peaceful place. (Applause.) You cannot expect to lead this world if you try to take both sides of every position. (Applause.) Finally, they kept pressing him. He said, the whole thing's a complicated matter. There's nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat. (Applause.)

We'll prevail. We will prevail if we're resolute and determined. We'll prevail because we'll stay on the hunt and we've got a great coalition of nations. There are 40 nations involved in Afghanistan, some 30 in Iraq. People are doing hard work, and I appreciate the sacrifice the people of those countries are making, right alongside our troops. I'll continue to build these coalitions, I'll continue to praise the people and not denigrate the contributions. But one thing I'll never do is I'll never turn over national -- our country's national security decisions to leaders of other countries. (Applause.)

Finally -- (applause) -- a couple of other things. Thank you all very much. I appreciate that. A couple of other points I do want to make. They'll be short, you'll be happy to hear. (Laughter.)

We've got hard work in Iraq, no question about it. And the reason why is because people are trying to stop the march of freedom. These terrorists cannot beat our military. They cannot beat our military. The only thing, the only weapon they have is -- is their willingness to behead a citizen, and put it on TV. The only weapon they have is the capacity to shake our conscience. They understand people in America -- see, we value human rights and human dignity. Our heart breaks when a -- for the family of those two fellows who were beheaded, just as Prime Minister Allawi was here.

This guy -- Zarqawi and his crowd, they are so cold-blooded that they have no conscience. Yet, they know we do. And their main tool is their capacity to get on our TV screens with horror that the American people just cannot stomach it and -- because we're civilized and we love and we're compassionate. It's really important for them not to be able to shake our will. I'll tell you why. A free Iraq is in our interests. A free Iraq will become an ally in the war on terror. A free Iraq will be such a hopeful example for other nations. A free Iraq will serve as stark contrast to the hateful ideology of these people.

We'll stay with the Iraqi people because when America gives its word, it must keep its word, in order to make the world a more peaceful place. We'll stay with the Iraqi people because it's in our interests. We'll stay with the Iraqi people because they long for freedom, they desire to be free. (Applause.)

People say to me, well, maybe certain parts of the world don't want to be free. I strongly disagree. I believe people want to be free because I believe freedom is the gift from the Almighty God to each man and woman in this world. (Applause.)

Schools are being rebuilt, the electricity is up to pre-war levels, hospitals are functioning, children are being immunized. But it's hard work. It's hard work. And -- but amidst this hard work, remember this: Elections are going to be held in January. This country is headed to democracy. I appreciate visiting with Prime Minister Allawi. He's a guy who woke up one day in a London flat to see two men standing beside his bed with axes, sent by Saddam Hussein to kill him. He, fortunately, got out of that, got wounded severely. He knows firsthand what it means to be dealing with a tyrant. He's determined, he is strong, he tells me right to my face: Mr. President, we will succeed. And I believe him. We'll succeed so long as the United States does not grow weary or tired, and allow these thugs to shake our will. And it's in our interests. (Applause.)

I want to tell you a story, and then I'll -- let me tell you a story I like to tell people. It's my -- with my dealings -- the story is about my dealings with Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan. I saw him in New York recently. I said, do you mind if I tell people about you, and he should have said, you already started. But anyway -- (laughter) -- he said, not at all. So I'm going to tell you about him.

First, he likes Elvis. (Laughter.) Favorite movie is "High Noon." Anyway, I like to tell the story about talking to Prime Minister Koizumi, because I'm talking to the leader of a former enemy. It was 60 years ago or so we were fighting the Japanese. My dad was there; I'm sure your relatives were there. A bloody war. And after world War II was over with, Harry S. Truman, one of my predecessors, said, we'll help Japan become a self-governing democracy. A lot of people in the United States didn't believe that was capable of happening. Some people said, why even bother, they're the enemy. But Harry Truman, and others in this country, believed that liberty has got the capacity to transform enemies to allies. That's what he believed.

And that's what I believe. So I sit at the table with Prime Minister Koizumi, and we're talking about the peace we all want. We're talking about how to make the world a more peaceful place. Think about that for a minute. There we were at war with an enemy, and today, the leader of Japan and the United States are working together in concert for peace. Someday, an American President will be sitting down with a duly elected leader of Iraq talking about the peace, talking about how to make sure peace comes in a troubled part of the world so our children and our grandchildren can grow up in a -- in a more peaceful, peaceful world.

We have an obligation, I think -- this generation has an obligation to do the hard work, the hard work to defend ourselves from these brutal killers; the hard work to spread freedom and liberty; the work necessary so that someday, people will look back at us and say, thank goodness they didn't lose faith. Thank goodness they were strong in their beliefs that we can overcome this evil and that liberty will help change the world for the better. (Applause.)

I want to thank you all for coming. I'm ready to go. God bless you all, and God bless our country. (Applause.) (emphasis added)

  • 1
    I don't think that this is a valid example. The "War on Terror" only became an US priority when it suddenly became a local problem on September 11, 2001. – Philipp Aug 3 '18 at 7:40
  • 1
    @Philipp That is one way of looking at the matter. Another perspective is that the "problem" was created by the U.S. itself for global strategic positioning and lining the pockets of the military industrial complex. That is, so-called "9/11" was an U.S. inside job for global profiteering by groups of proponents of the "New World Order" (the President's father at that time used the phrase in a speech). A country was invaded (Iraq) which had nothing to do with even the allegations of a supposed external attack. The U.S. military is still in Afghanistan; the poppies are still lining pockets. – guest271314 Aug 3 '18 at 7:47
  • 1
    @Philipp Proof: The acronym "P.A.T.R.I.O.T." Act was already written prior to the internally controlled U.S. "9/11" false flag "attack". All of a sudden there are two dozen military exercises ongoing on the same day. Structures implode on themselves, etc., etc. One has to be fully persuaded that the U.S. would not do that to believe that they would not do that to themselves. However, we already knew so-called "9/11" was going to occur from geopolitical studies in 1996 "War on Terror" is not a "local problem" in the U.S. at all. It is a global enterprise for profit and control by a consortium – guest271314 Aug 3 '18 at 7:57
  • 2
    Please spare us those wild conspiracy theories. Even if we assume for a moment that they were true: It took a local incident for the US population to support it. – Philipp Aug 3 '18 at 7:59
  • 2
    Overkill on the blockquotes. Paraphrasing the gist of the passage with some commentary about its relevance, linking to the full quote, and being more selective about the actually quoted language is more readable and better practice. – ohwilleke Aug 3 '18 at 16:46
-2

The Trump campaign was notable for its completely lack of comparative "ground game," compared to Hillary Clinton's. Yet another area where he defied conventional thinking which claimed he couldn't overcome that advantage. He leveraged the circus-coverage climate in the mainstream media to get into the headlines whenever he wanted, and his bombastic Twitter campaign certainly got people's attention, good or bad. This ability to directly message without local logistics or even an extensive coordinated advertising campaign went against everything that was considered conventional campaign wisdom.

  • You should compare Trump's ground game in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan versus Clinton's. – K Dog Aug 2 '18 at 21:10
  • What does any of this have to do with the "all politics is local" conjecture? The question is about content, not the way it is delivered. – Philipp Aug 3 '18 at 7:45
  • @Philipp - Explain to me how a national campaign that completely ignores any and all local issues, at all, with zero engagement on a local level, does not contradict. If you have no local engagement, how can you have local content? – PoloHoleSet Aug 3 '18 at 17:58
  • @KDog - sounds like a good idea to flesh that out more specifically. – PoloHoleSet Aug 3 '18 at 18:01
  • @PoloHoleSet What I mean is that the election campaign of Trump focused primarily on local problems, namely unemployment in the rust belt and illegal immigration in the southern states. – Philipp Aug 3 '18 at 18:03

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.