Jump to content
270soft Forum
Patine

Gaffe-prone AND Gaffe-vulnerability

Recommended Posts

A thought occurred to me that a way to determine how gaffe-prone AND gaffe-vulnerable (as separate qualities) a candidate is should be present. For instance, both Romney and Trump are gaffe-prone, but Romney's gaffes were far more harmful and damaging to his electoral campaign that Trump's were to his. Dukakis was NOT gaffe-prone, but his "capital punishment" gaffe REALLY hurt him. Any thoughts on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Patine said:

A thought occurred to me that a way to determine how gaffe-prone AND gaffe-vulnerable (as separate qualities) a candidate is should be present. For instance, both Romney and Trump are gaffe-prone, but Romney's gaffes were far more harmful and damaging to his electoral campaign that Trump's were to his. Dukakis was NOT gaffe-prone, but his "capital punishment" gaffe REALLY hurt him. Any thoughts on this?

Lol don't forget the tank too lmao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this while working on my 2020 scenario but I figured it was too specific to have as an attribute. It could definitely work and will help a lot for scenario makers. Definitely a lot better than having it only tied to experience & issue familiarity because even people with a lot of those make gaffes. I don’t need to see more pictures of Joe Biden caressing Stephanie Carter, but his... unusual tendencies never really affected him.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Patine said:

A thought occurred to me that a way to determine how gaffe-prone AND gaffe-vulnerable (as separate qualities) a candidate is should be present. For instance, both Romney and Trump are gaffe-prone, but Romney's gaffes were far more harmful and damaging to his electoral campaign that Trump's were to his. Dukakis was NOT gaffe-prone, but his "capital punishment" gaffe REALLY hurt him. Any thoughts on this?

This would require some sort of Teflon meter. In the card game I am making, I have a "Teflon" ability for some candidates--Bill Clinton and Trump--which allows for a scandal card to be ineffective. I think there needs to be something like a "Reading Voters" meter and a "Teflon" meter. The Romney and Dukakis gaffes are more like a misreading voters. This is different than debate skill and issue knowledge or even charisma. Trump would have a high "Reading Voters" meter since he connects so well to his base, and he would have a high "Teflon" meter. I think the Teflon meter is sort of connected with perceived integrity. People expected Clinton to have affairs and expected Trump to have the lowest integrity of any major candidate in history. Since there was no real surprise, they had the teflon effect. Meanwhile, someone like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren would have zero teflon, since they campaign on virtue and integrity. This is why Warren can get hammered on something as insignificant as flouting Native American DNA, while Trump can have affairs and give away penthouses to Russians and not suffer any consequences. Once exception is Hillary Clinton, a candidate that even supporters sense is corrupt, but who lacked Teflon to stay afloat of scandal. However, one can argue she had enough teflon to not get sunk in the primaries and to win the popular vote in the general election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are different kinds of gaffes too. Some 'gaffes' people find refreshingly honest or reflect that politicians' own base's feelings, but some reveal something different about the candidate and so aren't factored into people's evaluations of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×