My Thoughts On ryan's future ...
I don't think he will survive this campaign season ... he has been exposed.
I remember, back in an under-grad Psych class, reading a study that can be applied here. (I'll attempt to find a link to the study.)
In the study, Test Subjects were shown a video of a stereotypically professorial speaker ... the character was a deep-voiced man in his late 50s-earlier 60s, dressed in a tweed jacket, wore a bow-tie and was wearing wire-rimmed glasses. He was reading from what was introduced as a "highly techical, highly acclaimed, peer-reviewed" paper that he had written. But, in fact, the character was reading gibberish sentences that were structurally complex, but sound. In other words, the sentences would have made sense if the information in them made sense. For example (but not the sentence used in the study): "If one accepts the proposition that 'A' equals 'B', where dogs are cats, and the moon is subject to the tidal wave effect generated from the glacieral shifts of the sub-saharan ice flows ..."
After seating through the 1/2 hour presentation of the "paper", the test subjects were asked to complete an "evaluation" of the professor and the presentation. The evaluation asked them to rate the professor on things like: the clarity of his presentation of the paper, their own understanding of the subject matter before and after the presentation and the level of intelligence of the presenter.
The following day, the test subjects were asked to listen to an audio version of the same speech/presentation (with minor changes), but without "highly techical, highly acclaimed" introduction (and the voice was altered to reduce the chance it would be recognized as the same speaker).
The test subject were again asked to rate the speaker on the same criteria, as above.
On day three, the test subjects were asked to watch a video of a third speaker that was matched to the first speaker in every way ... same height and weight, same manner of dress, etc., and the speaker was introduced as presenting a the paper, for feedback, as a step prior in the peer-review process.
Again, the test subjects were to rate the presenter on the above criteria.
The research revealed that the Day 1 speaker was rated significantly higher than the other speakers. The research also revealed that the Test Subjects expressed more negative sentiment toward the Day 3 speaker, because he violated their visual cues while trying to pass off something that made no sense. Why?
The study concluded that, while none of the Test Subjects could have possibly understood what was being communicated, they were influenced to believe that the speaker knew what he was talking about based on their visual cues and the pronouncement that the speaker was an expert and knew what he was talking about on this complex and highly technical subject-matter.
Now, think ... How has ryan been sold? ... As a "hard working" and "serious policy wonk" capable of understanding stuff far beyond the reach of the mere mortal. And, like the Day 1 Test Subjects, the American public bought his gibberish because they DIDN'T understand it, but he had the look and reputation of an expert that knew what he was talking about.
But look what is happenning now ... ryan is being exposed as a liar, a manipulator of out of context factoids and his budget numbers "don't add up."
Now, to the hard-core right and the anti-President Obama folks this won't matter, because it is/was never about the facts; but to the rest of the American electorate, once relieved of the "what he's saying makes no sense; but his IS so much smarter than me" burden, will look at ryan in a completely different light. First, they will no longer be afraid/ashamed to say, "that makes no sense"; and secondly, like the Day 3 Test Subjects, they will say/feel "This guy was trying to play me for a sucker", and it'll be made worse, because they DID buy his line.
I'm thinking this guy is done.
= new reply since forum marked as read
