Written in a style rich in metaphor and metrics designed to motivate and inform (Posts 15 and 16), the report included  three sections:  Section I summarized results of  2010 midterm and  2012 presidential elections; Section II identified  strengths, weaknesses, and  opportunities seized and missed by  2010 and 2012 campaigns, and  Section III outlined a  strategic plan for winning the 2016 presidential election.  

Section I: How candidates fared in 2010 and 2012

After  losing 8 Senate and 30 House seats in the 2010 midterm elections, the Obama-Clinton Democratic ticket’s  48 % popular vote   in the 2012 presidential election bested the  Joe Scarborough-Pat Buchanan Republican ticket’s 26% share  by 22 points, historically exceeded only by  FDR vs. Landon (1936, 24.3%) and  Nixon vs. McGovern (1972, 23.2%).  The  22%  popular vote showing of the  Knipscher-Romney Independent ticket, only four points below Scarborough-Buchanan, was historically exceeded only by Bull Moose  Theodore Roosevelt vs. Taft (1912, 27%).

Four popular vote percentage points were shared by Independent candidacies on the right (Gingrich-Palin) and the left (Nader-Sanders).

Section II: Analyzing Democratic and Republican campaign strategies

This  section of the “Win in 2016”  report  started its analysis of the Democratic party’s  road to victory in 2012  by citing  president Obama’s  failure to communicate the values of  health care legislation that was to be the showpiece of his first term. Perhaps influenced by the reception for “Hillarycare,” the Clinton Administration’s failed 1993 health care plan, Obama decided to encourage   Congress to devise  health care legislation  on its own rather than expend the  prestige of his presidential bully pulpit  behind this initiative (Posts 5,8, 9).

Then, in spite of Obama’s vow to sign health care legislation in  2009,   it wasn’t until March 2010 that a health care bill narrowly squeaked through Congress. Not a single Republican congressman voted for the legislation which, although lacking key provisions desired by the left (such as a public option to keep premium payments competitive) would expand coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans, curb abusive private insurer practices, and cut  rising health care costs.

During this extended period of  posturing and procrastination, congressional Republicans,   committed to destroy the Obama health care plan as a step toward the eventual “Waterloo” of his presidency, launched a well-coordinated attack on “Obamacare”  as  a Socialist (or  Communist or Fascist) government takeover of healthcare . This plan, they claimed, would inflict a huge new bureaucracy, dramatically increase health care costs, pile trillions in  debt on our grandchildren and sidetrack efforts to fight the economic meltdown with which it competed.

Leveraging the potency of this Republican attack were three stimulus packages designed to keep the great recession of 2007 from morphing into a great global depression. The first two were overwhelmingly passed by Congress in the last year of the Bush administration: The Economic Stimulous Act of February 2008, which allocated $152 billion in tax rebates to lower- and middle-income taxpayers, plus tax incentives to stimulate business investment, and the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) of October, 2008, which allocated $700 billion to purchase assets and equities from U.S. institutions to strengthen the financial sector. The third, Democratic, stimulus package, which passed by a 60-38 Senate party-line vote in February 2009, allocated $825 billion in  tax cuts, tax credits, extended unemployment benefits plus  a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures (Posts 5,7,8) designed to  create and save 2.5 million jobs by 2011.

In positioning the health-care bill as a  totally unaffordable spending bill, the  Republicans,  from the far right to what was left of the moderate middle and  abetted by  tea party and right-wing media allies (Posts 23, 28), effectively added the presumed costs of these stimulus packages to  the  $2.5 trillion  they claimed the health plan would cost.

Tracking polls indicating  falling popular support for the health plan in all electoral segments, from radical right  to the  progressive  left, evidenced the success of the Republican attack.  Collateral damage included reduced reelection prospects for Democratic congressmen who voted for the plan, and historically low assessments of Congress. Obama’s  ratings, while dropping, remained comparable to those of other activist first-term  presidents  like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

How the Democrats Lost in the 2010 midterms

The “Win in 2016” action plan concluded its section II analysis with  advice on how  Obama should have handled the  health care issue to counter any Republican counterattack.  This advice would suggest issue positions and create strategic guidelines for Knipscher’s 2016 campaign plan, spelled out in section III.

Instead of delegating to a contentious Congress the messy task of shaping a modern, comprehensive health care plan from a gaggle of half formed ideas, Obama should have taken the lead himself in  positioning and selling a fully-developed plan. Giving it his persuasive, inspirational best, Obama’s  presentation  should have started  the day he won the November  2008 election, when he could safely blame the defeated  Bush administration  for economic and political woes facing the country,  and preempt Republican efforts to position Obamacare as a massive spending bill.

Metrics define declining state of U.S. healthcare

Obama’s preemptive presentation would begin with metrics comparing   the current state of healthcare  in the United States with  healthcare in  the rest of the world (Posts 14, 16) . Included would be World Health Organization statistics  ranking the  U.S. 37^th among UN members  in overall performance (Posts 3, 16), 30^th  in longevity and 36^th  in infant mortality  ( ahead of  only  Russia among Group of Eight countries). Yet  U.S.  healthcare costs  exceed by an average of more than 50 percent  per capita healthcare costs among all the world’s industrialized countries, each having universal healthcare systems based on  private or  public administration systems.

Creating a preemptive presentation

The Key element of Obama’s presentation repositioning Obamacare 180 degrees from the massive spending  position his  Republican opponents found for it  (Posts 3,4,6) was to define it as an investment stimulus program with a massive payoff . Conceptually similar to the  Bush  2008 TARP stimulus plan that  paid back its initial investment by 2010, this health care plan would do what single payer plans like Medicare  or the  Health Insurance Program in Germany since 1883 would do:  revive the  financial system, create jobs, bail out critical industries, :and  enhance living standards for middle- and working-class families facing  healthcare  costs that are a prime cause of  foreclosures and bankruptcies.

Firms revitalized by Obamacare  would  be   high-leverage businesses and industries,  like health, information technology and electronics manufacturing, that support other industries, (Posts 3, 14), and most of the estimated five million jobs created would be  good, private-sector jobs, supplementing public-sector jobs created by  Bush-Obama stimulus plans.  This stimulus investment would  also make  these industries more globally competitive;  for example, by  cutting $1500 per auto consumers  pay  to  cover American retiree health care costs .

Biggest Obamacare Savings: Healthcare Reform

But by far the biggest savings  would derive from healthcare reform measures built into the plan, notably “best practices” initiatives, insurance premium reductions, and medical tort reform measures (Posts 3,4, 8, 11, 12).

For example, in the “best practices” area, benchmark studies, procedural checklists, and digital  systems would dramatically reduce provider medical, surgical, hospital and pharmaceutical costs, producing annual savings  exceeding   $50 billion  after five years, assuming a conservative 25% reduction in provider costs. Add to these Medicare savings additional savings from the millions of  citizens covered by Obamacare and  premium reduction legislation. Also add lowered tort reform costs resulting from comparative effectiveness and standardized checklist procedures, which, when followed , become a strong legal defense in malpractice suits (Posts 5-8).

How the Democrats won the 2012 Presidential Election

The  argument that Obama never made while his Health Care bill was being hashed  and trashed in Congress  got made immediately after the  bill  passed, broadcast  from Obama’s POTUS bully pulpit and from cadres of  Democratic congressmen and cabinet members from prepared talking points (Posts 25, 26, 27, 30).

In the face of the Demcratic argument, a withering Republican attack on Obamacare  reached crescendo levels  as eight state Attorneys General announced plans to block enforcement of the bill as unconstitutional, legislatures in 39 states announced  bills to block the mandate to carry health insurance,  the Hannity / Limbaugh / Beck media machine beat the kettle drums for repeal, and Republican  heavyweights like Mitch McConnell and Newt Gingrich pledged to repeal and restart the bill (Gingrich: “ The American people will not allow a corrupt machine to dictate their future”).

At  the height of the crescendo, many  right-wing blogs  predicted  Obama’s Waterloo  and the loss of  at least 100 Democratic House seats in the 2010 midterm elections.

Then, during the period between the March 2010 passage of  Health Care  and  the November 2010 midterms, two events – one planned, one fortuitous – intervened to render premature this prediction of the Democratic Waterloo.

Democratic Strategy: Build a Showcase

The first  event was the Democrats’ construction of an  umbrella showcase position (Posts 3,4,7)  to cover  diverse  positions (in addition to  healthcare reform) they planned to launch against the Republicans in 2010 and 2012 election  campaigns (Posts 3,4,6,19,22)  . They planned to follow  Knipscher’s approach  (also used by Clinton to create “It’s the economy, stupid” and Reagan to create “ The shining city on the hill” ) when she  crafted a memorable, motivating  slogan ( “Bring Back the Greatest Generation” ) covering major campaign issues tailored  to the wants, needs and behaviors of  defined segments of the electorate (Posts 7, 11, 12, 20, 21,  24) and  communicated via modern digital  and traditional  tools (Posts 11, 12, 14, 23 25, 27)

 A key insight in crafting this Democratic  platform was the  perception that most  issues in play in  Spring 2010 contrasted a number of current Republican positions with similar Republican positions during the recently defeated Bush  administration, creating a potent image of cynical hypocricy. Examples, as spun by Democratic planners:

• Contrast  the cost-saving Obamacare bill savaged by the Republicans after its passage in 2010 and the largely unfunded  Bush  trillion dollar Medicare  drug entitlement bill these same congressmen  helped pass  in 2003;
•  Contrast  the  draconian, possibly unconstitutional policies  advocated by Republicans toward  illegal immigrants with the constructive policies that many of these same Republicans (John McCain, for example) strongly advocated under the Bush administration; 
• Contrast universal Congressional Republicans support of   bailouts and stimulus packages during the Bush administration’s  economic meltdown  to conceptually similar packages during Obama’s administration;
• Contrast  Bush administration Republicans’  approval of an unqualified Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court with their  opposition to Obama’s  appointments of  highly qualified women to the Court;
• Contrast Bush II Doctrine policies of  fighting misinformed preventive wars and withdrawing from international treaties and protocols with  Obama’s policies of “trust but verify” negotiation and strategic engagement.
• Contrast the three straight annual budget surpluses generated by Bill Clinton’s modest tax increases on the richest one percent of the population — totally unsupported by Republican congressmen — with the seven straight annual deficits, adding up to a 2009 deficit of over $1 trillion, under the Bush tax cuts, whose scheduled repeal Republicans universally refuse to support.  

Other Democratic issue positions 1) cited the  50,000 barrel a day Gulf of Mexico oil leak , preceded by  a now-silenced “drill baby drill” cacophony from the Republican right , as a reminder of  cozy, corrupt Bush administration oil industry  deals and  the inept staffing of the  Minerals Management Agency and other key agencies like FDC,  SEC and FICA and 2) perceived the Republican opposition as soft on “too-big-to-fail” and consumer protection banking legislation, and ignorant of impending threats to the environment from global warming and acid oceans.

 The umbrella showcase position  (Post 4) chosen by the Democrats to pull these  issue positions together (Posts 11, 12, 14) while appealing to motivated members of the electorate (21, 22, 24) was “Don’t Bring Back Bush,”  used throughout  the 2010 midterms and 2012 presidential elections even more frequently than  Knipscher/Romney emblazoned their “Bring back the Greatest Generation” showcase position.

 Republican strategy: Start squabbling

The second event favoring the Democrats was a role-reversal resulting largely from different Republican responses to Democratic “Don’t Bring back Bush” showcase and support positions. Members of diverse ideological groups comprising the fierce Republican opposition, who had been absolutely united in their opposition to Obamacare, now began to feud among  themselves,  while House and Senate Democrats, many with   a worrisome tendency to wander off  message during the painful  passage of Obamacare,  were  absolutely united in their support of Obama’s “Don’t Bring Back Bush” platform and the burning urge to save their jobs in 2010 and 2012 elections (Posts 7,8).

The upshot of these argumentative cracks in  Republican ranks – libertarians vs. neo-conservatives, neo-conservatives vs.” true” conservatives, thumb sucking Sarah Palin tea-partiers vs. high-IQ partiers, all tea-partiers vs. moderate and conservative Republicans,  conservatives vs. moderates,  moderates and conservatives vs. Cheney/Bush II supporters — were two outcomes favoring  Democratic prospects in the 2012 presidential election (Posts 6,7).

For one thing, the internecine feuding among Republicans was diverting time and energy from the real fight against the  Democratic enemy; for another, it was effectively   trashing, and eliminating from consideration, leaders  capable of standing up  to Obama/Biden or even Knipscher/Romney in the 2012 presidential election. Few, if any, candidates were spared, but the heaviest hitters seemed most vulnerable : for example, 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain (Posts 8, 9), who actually claimed never to have been a maverick to get back into right-wing good graces, was gradually reduced to late-night comic fodder,  and Mitt Romney, tired of being a target, jumped ship to join the Knipscher crew. Filling the leadership gap were  the likes of Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh,  actually being taken seriously as presidential candidates.

The Democratic strategy in response to  this opposion  feuding was to encourage continuing  acrimony among the Republican factions – as the Republicans had done during the congressional healthcare hassle—but to otherwise follow the sage prescription to not help your enemy dig his own grave.

Over time leading up to the 2012 election, the Democratic “Don’t Bring Back Bush” message pegging Republican candidates as hypocritical opportunistic closet Bushies who, based on past affiliations and voting records,  would bring back the bad old days , gradually seeped into the collective mind of the electorate (Posts11, 12, 26, 27), The  power of this message to change votes (Posts 12, 13, 14) marked the difference in the size of the popular vote for Democratic candidates between 2010 to 2012 (Post 31).

 Section III: The Knipscher/Romney team plans its 2016 presidential campaign

In the last section of the “Win in 2016” report,  the Knipscher/Romney   planning team pulled together  findings and conclusions pertaining to competitive  strengths, weaknesses, issues, strategies and tactics in crafting  a plan calculated to ensure victory in the 2016 presidential election. Questions addressed:: Should Knipscher/Romney run again in 2016 as independents? Democrats?  Republicans?  Should either candidate be replaced on the ticket? How Should “Bring Back the Greatest Generation” (BBGG) showcase and support positions (Posts 3, 19, 24), be changed to reflect changing cultural/political/economic trends and developments anticipated in 2016 (Posts 22, 24)? How best to address wants and needs of target constituencies anticipated during the 2016 campaign (Posts 20, 21)?  How best to improve digital and traditional communications (Posts  23 -25)?  What ideas can we borrow from competing 2012 Republican and Democratic campaigns, and what mistakes should we avoid? (Posts 1, 2,3).

The  AIDAS  model posits five stages of the behavioral process whereby people – in this case voters,  volunteers and other support groups  –  “buy”  an innovation like BBGG. First, they become aware of the innovation, then show some interest in it, then desire to see it carried out. Next, they  take action to make this happen – such as ringing doorbells or donating dollars. Satisfaction results when volunteers are shown how their efforts are paying off, perhaps by pushing up polling approval numbers or  snagging a heavy-hitter endorser (as when Obama snatched Ted Kennedy  out from under Hillary Clinton).

These stages aren’t necessarily  sequential;  given  time and financial constraints, it was considered key to generate  as many as possible at once. During the awareness AIDAS stage, for example, interest, desire and action were also communication goals,  evoked by   dramatic headlines (“Don’t condemn your grandchildren to ecological hell ,” “Let’s win the fight for survival !,” and, of course, “Bring Back the Greatest Generation! ” ). These headlines evoked interest in  descriptions of how BBGG programs,  bringing nations together to  create  a  global green revolution,  would  successfully reverse imminent doomsday  threats of global warming  and a long, dark descent into global depression. Also dramatized were benefits of BBGG programs, including greatly reduced deficits, regained  U.S. world leadership,  improved living standards and  peaceful relations among nations

During the second  AIDAS  stage ( when the global warming debate was staged),  interest and desire would be reinforced as  the nature  and scope of threats facing civilization were stressed along with specifics of BBGG programs to address these threats,  groundwork in place to implement these programs, and the incomparable credentials of Knipscher and her brain trust to carry out these programs. This stage would also relate  BBGG programs to the Bush I Desert Storm campaign and World War II “arsenal of democracy” and Marshall Plan campaigns.

During the third , desire, stage,  emphasis was on  comparisons  of BBGG features and benefits to Democratic and Republican programs, arguing that neither party was  prepared  to deal with the cataclysmic consequences to civilization and the American Way of Life of  either global warming or global depression.

The fourth stage of Knipscher’s campaign – action! — heated up before  primary and caucus elections  beginning with the  January, 2012  New Hampshire primary leading  to Super Tuesday primary and caucus elections in February and the presidential election in November 2012.  Emphasized was focused, frenetic activity by  empowered,  enlightened voting and non-voting constituencies, including get out the vote drives,  recruiting, organizing and influencing people to support BBGG green energy programs; sending out e-mails; organizing fund raisers and house parties;  building Knipscher’s war chest, and  voting the Knipscher-Gore ticket.

Throughout Knipscher’s campaign, satisfaction, the fifth AIDAS stage, was engendered among constituencies  by continual feedback on campaign accomplishments, such as  favorable poll results, growing donation totals,  new endorsements, and individual volunteer achievements.

 PERT/CPM model keeps plans on schedule

The other DSS model comprising the operational context for all campaign  activities executed during the  five stages of the AIDAS model was a PERT (Program Evaluation and Review)/ CPM (Critical Path Method)  model that featured  critical path timelines indicating activities that must be accomplished before other activities could be. For example, generating donations  was  a key  critical path activity,  with dollar totals  specified at points in time sufficient to finance increasing investments in hugely expensive traditional media campaigns – notably TV –during the final months of Knipscher’s campaign.

This global warming debate also illustrates the workings of the decision support system (DSS) that served as Nancy Knipscher’s command and control center and was   largely responsible for designing, implementing, coordinating and  controlling   the  interrelated  activities  of her presidential campaign.

 What Decision Support Systems are and do

In addition to the Knip4prex.com website and socnet sites that generated and transmitted information, the Knipscher campaign’s DSS  encompassed two other key elements: a database comprising decision models and information from documents, personal knowledge and  raw data,  and powerful search engines, like Google and Yahoo,  that updated and supplemented database content.

Working together, these  elements constantly scanned the  environment for ideas and information pertinent to  Knipscher’s campaign, such as the latest political poll numbers, or platforms of new entrants in the presidential race.

 Manipulating data into strategies and tactics

A key feature of  Knipscher’s DSS was the ability to manipulate data and information from many sources, guided by the creative participation of Knipscher, members of her brain trust, and an easy-to-use interface.

Referring again to the illustrative global warming debate, an environmental scan of previous presidential debates, going back to the Lincoln-Douglas debates of  1858. revealed the power of  political debates, properly designed and exploited, to enhance a candidate’s electoral prospects. Working with Knipscher and members of her team, DSS output also suggested effective debate formats – including the actual format used participating – and strategies to benefit from the debate.

Similarly, DSS output suggested the questionnaire as an effective way to  enhance electorate learning, retention and commitment. Also suggested were  possible questionnaire formats and  questions that could be asked during the stage of Knipscher’s campaign when comparisons were being made between her BBGG programs and competitive Democratic and Republican programs, and analogies made  between BBGG and World War II “Arsenal of Democracy” and Marshall Plan programs.

Combining the DSS’s brain with people brains also produced a variety of ideas for special events to recruit new volunteers, incentives to increase donations, and copy for letters-to-the-editor, banner ads and press releases. Accompanying these ideas were recommendations for media to best communicate each message, based on a  researched understanding of  characteristics of socnets and audiences ( see posts 20,21 and 26).

Activities performed by these volunteers included selling the competitive features of BBGG programs and Knipscher’s credentials to implement them; recruiting new supporters, generating  publicity for BBGG via e-mailings and letters to the editor;  organizing house parties, voter registration,  and get-out-the-vote  events; donating dollars and encouraging others to do likewise; helping to stifle false rumors, and  soliciting high-profile endorsers.

Illustrative of  how  Knipscher’s  socnet websites  interacted with  audiences  and each other to  lever a  synergistic impact exceeding the sum of  individual websites was a  debate  staged between believers in,  and skeptics of, the catastrophic consequences of global warming.

Thanks to the debate format, and the configuration of  socnet sites,  this debate addressed most of Knipscher’s campaign objectives. For example, the Knip4prex.com  website made it easy to key in donations;  the large outdoor audience provided an opportunity to recruit new volunteers and get e-mail addresses; and the who-what- why-when-where  format in which debate highlights were communicated over Facebook , Twitter and other socnets made it easy for print and electronic media to carry the occasionally  acrimonious debate story

Decision Supports for campaign strategy

In addition to the synergistic power of  Knip4pres.com’s  digital communication campaign, the global warming debate also illustrates the workings of the decision support system (DSS)  largely responsible for  designing and implementing this  campaign.

As  a product of research and development in such fields as artificial intelligence, computer science, political science, management science, cognitive psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, philosophy, mathematical modeling, operations research, economics, marketing, control theory, probability and logic, a  modern DSS like Knipscher’s combines  business models with powerful data bases and search engines configured to interact with users to interpret and manipulate variables. As such, it quickly and efficiently solves problems and creates strategies and tactics in flexible, adaptable, computer-based environments.

What these competing campaign adversaries didn’t appreciate was the groundwork Knipscher had already invested in her campaign, including detailed plans for BBGG programs, tentative commitments  from  industrialized and post-industrialized countries to participate in these programs, and a growing volunteer base also attracted to BBGG.

Also generally unappreciated were the  resources  Knipscher’s  largely volunteer team of bloggers,  academics, scientists, economists and software specialists had built into the command & control center that would  launch and continue the rollout attack until  the anticipated inauguration of president Knipscher.

Among the strongest resources in Knipscher’s C& C center was a battery of  digital communication tools, including blogs, Knipscher’s knip4prex.com website, and a variety of social network (socnet) sites with names like   Facepage, MySpace, Twitter, Linkedin, and Youtube. These digital  tools were designed to work  interactively with traditional communication tools (like advertising and publicity) to  motivate armies of Knipscher supporters to work creatively and efficiently to ensure her election.

These socnets had in common these characteristics that made them uniquely useful in identifying worthwhile constituencies, and  motivating, activating, and controlling their activities toward Knipscher’s election:

 Practically free — An important consideration at the   time of Knipscher’s rollout, with her war chest fast depleting;

 Multifaceted – To enhance retention and motivation, socnet communications could enhance text messages with   photos, videos, music  and other audio/visuals, especially on Youtube, MySpace and Facepage socnets.

 Interactive — Respondents could converse  with and through socnets, asking  and answering questions, offering  opinions, participating in chat room discussions, being persuaded in a  convincing,   soft-sell, face-to-face fashion.

Strong Reach – According to the marketing research company ComScore,  in August 2009 Facebook had over 250 million unique visitors (up 17 percent from the previous August), with each visitor  spending an average of 2 hours and 50 minutes of engagement time. MySpace had 120 million unique visitors (down two percent in a year), while both  Twitter and Youtube had undergone tenfold increases in users. In breadth and depth, all these socnets  easily covered the prioritized groups (see posts 20-21) Knipscher’s campaign aimed to influence.

Targeted — In addition to  demographic data on reach, a number of research organizations (Microsoft Research, ComScore, Pew Internet) provided geographic, psychographic, and behavioristic data that could be matched to similar data defining Knipscher’s  market segments. (As a point of reference, Knipscher noted the Obama camp’s claim  that they targeted 35,000 discrete constituencies in 2007-2008).   For example, according to research findings from Pew Internat and the American Life Project, a trend emerged during the 2006-2007 school year that helped explain the comparative differences in growth between MySpace and  Facebook: white, upper-class, college-bound teenagers migrated to Facebook, and tended to manifest “condescending” attitudes toward MySpace users, who were generally less less-educated, female, and African American or Hispanic. Facebook users, and their parents, were  more likely to be male and  to have completed college.

Synergistic – socnet communications interact with other digital and traditional communication venues to lever a potent increase in  persuasive impact that greatly exceeds the sum of individual venues. Illustrative of this integrated marketing effect was  a debate  staged by knip4prex.com four months into her rollout campaign. In this debate, Al Gore and Catherine Kolbert argued that the consequences of anthropogenic (man made) global warming would be calamitous for humanity, while two well known global warming skeptics argued two contrary positions. One position maintained that  evidence of anthropogenic causes of global warming was hardly definitive, in spite of conclusions “in the technologically brain dead” media and Al Gore’s “mistake- ridden” An Inconvenient Truth documentary;  the other that underreported  climatic trends (“the world is actually cooling”) strongly indicated that the effects of global warming could actually be beneficial, benign at worst.

While arguments on both sides of  this newsworthy, frequently acrimonious debate were strong and articulate, the debate did little to refute the overwhelming scientific community consensus  that the catastrophic consequences of global warming  had the   potential to  set civilization back  50 million years to  the Eocene Age. Additionally, both sides agreed on the need for a global green revolution along lines described in Knipscher’s  BBGG  position , albeit for different reasons (such as not being hostage to mideast oil and politics).

The persuasive power of the Internet

The debate itself was carried , in its entirety, over Knipscher’s Facepage site, after heavy promotion through diverse   venues reached by Knipscher (such as her website, her blog, Youtube, Twitter and MySpace, banner ads in liberal and conservative blogs, press releases to major print and electronic media vehicles) and Knipscher’s growing armies of volunteers ( letters to the editor, church bulletin notices, lawn signs, text messages,  e-mail and the like).

Following the debate , Knipscher and her supporters reached  many of the same venues that initially helped promote the debate , with discussions of debate highlights and  comments from constituents favoring  BBGG programs and positions on global warming : press releases were sent out to interactive, electronic, and print media on the left and right. Twitter tweeted out specifics describing the hothouse horrors of the Ecocene geologic period; Youtube and MySpace depicted debate highlights and global warming consequences with full production values; Knip4prex.com and blogs for Knipscher and Gore expanded the debate results into larger discussions of BBGG goals and programs.

Meanwhile, Knipscher’s presentations during her full schedule of stump speeches, debates, fundraisers and meetings with editorial boards and prospective support groups capitalized on the debate publicity by relating the doomsday global warming threat to the larger aims and workings of BBGG.

Knipscher  had no illusions as to the difficulty of connecting these dots so they activated support from large constituencies within and beyond the Democratic base to ensure her  nomination  after the 2011-2012 primaries, and  her election as president in 2012.

In the 2011 primaries, she would likely be  competing against  her own party,   against a  popular, maybe even iconic,  incumbent. And like  Barack Obama’s 2007 and 2008 primary and presidential campaigns, she would face fierce, formidable competition, willing to throw a shelf of books at her decrying her lack of  experience and credentials. All this in the face of austere time and financial constraints:  a year left to create a strong competitive campaign, about $100,000 in the kick, including kids’ college funds.

But  Obama  won his campaigns, and Knipscher  was convinced she would win too if she could out-Obama Obama in achieving three campaign objectives that he achieved so effectively in the 2008 elections: Positioning his “change you can believe in” platform for strong motivational impact; Persuading voters that he was up to the job (as cool, capable, no drama Obama), and Promoting his platform positions through bottom-up, grass  roots organizing featuring digital networks that raised more than $600 million during his 21-month long campaigns, 90 percent  in increments under $100; 

 Knipscher positions, persuades and promotes

For Knipscher, these three Ps translated to:

 Positioning the platform: BBGG  would be positioned as  a  peaceful war against powerful, implacable enemies, conceptually similar to World War II “arsenal of democracy” and Marshall Plan initiatives , and the Bush I Desert Storm  invasion. The  BBGG platform of policies and programs would  stress the potentially catastrophic effects  of global warming and a worldwide global depression;  the general ineffectiveness of competitive Republican and Democratic programs to  avert these disasters; and  the strong likelihood that BBGG programs, implemented now, would  reverse these doomsday consequences while solving numerous associated problems, including  returning the U.S. manufacturing base, regaining the U.S. world leacdership position , slicing deficits in half,  and dramatically raising global living standards and prospects for global peace.

 Persuading the electorate: To prove that she  was up to the job of president, Knipscher  planned to associate herself with the BBGG concept she had conceived of, and, as did the campaigns of Franklin Roosevelt and Barack Obama, the quality and credentials of her selected  braintrust of global  engineers, scientists, entrepreneurs, politicians and economists she had recruited to develop and implement BBGG policies and programs.   

 Promoting  the platform: Promoting  BBGG would be the job of an interactive, software-based decision support system developed by a  team of website designers; programmers; bloggers and marketing, economic, and environmental specialists. 

With Knipscher at the helm, under the website address Knip4prex.com, this system would serve as a command and control center for  initiating, coordinating, and controlling   digital and traditional communication tools to create enthusiastically committed constituencies and to initiate,  coordinate and control  activities designed to  contribute to Knipscher’s  victory

Knipscher anticipated that these analyses would help answer these media selection questions : which digital and traditional media vehicles best address  needs and interests of specific constituencies? Which vehicles work together most effectively to achieve interactive synergy? What specific goals can a well-integrated marketing communication strategy be expected to achieve? In what sequence should media vehicles  be implemented ? What  costs and  financial return can a candidate anticipate from  investments in digital and traditional media?

Howard Dean pioneers Internet campaigning

A pioneer of Internet campaigning, Howard Dean raised over $50 million during the 2003-2004 Democratic primaries, including $14 million in a single quarter, topping  the  record $10.3 million generated by Bill Clinton’s campaign in 1995. Most contributions were less than $80, solicited from local and regional supporters on Dean’s  Web site, which featured a cartoon character holding a bat that kept filling up like a thermometer as donations flooded in. Compared to more traditional alternatives like telemarketing and direct mail, web-based fundraising  was inexpensive, encouraged individual donations   beneath the $2000 legal limit, and  facilitated  re-solicitation of donations. It also permitted Dean to forego matching federal funds and  spending limits, a policy also adopted by John Kerry, George Bush II, and Barack Obama.

In addition to soliciting donations, Dean’s website, interacting through youthful  “netroots”  activists via online social media (such as wikis, blogs and podcasts) helped organize and activate get-out-the-vote campaigns and generate campaign coverage in local and national online and traditional media. Although the Democratic party nomination  went to John Kerry, who raised over $80 million of the $210 million in  contributions from individuals from his JohnKerry.com website, Dean’s web-based campaign did propel him to the DNC chairmanship. George Bush, unopposed for the Republican  nomination, raised $84.6 million, using more traditional  methods.

 Sarah Palin influences influentials

In February, 2007, Adam Brinkly, a self-described “obsessive” political junkie,  initiated a web search for a female Republican  vice president candidate to balance, on the Republican  ticket, the then-assumed presence of Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket. After rejecting   the likes of Senators Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas and Olympia Snowe of Maine as too moderate, Brinkley was running out of options when, as he recalled,  he came to “that lady who just got elected in Alaska, “ who “ had a strong grassroots following and reminded me of Obama.” Brinkley then registered a Web site–palinforvp.blogspot.com — that got immediate attention in the conservative blogosphere, receiving about 3000 hits a day in the month before McCain chose  Palin as his running mate. Spreading  from one conservative Internet site to the next – InstaPundit, American Scene, Stop the A.C.L.U. – Brinkley’s message soon got the attention of the traditional conservative media;  The American Spectator embraced   Palin, Fred Barnes on Fox News recalled being “struck by how smart Palin was, and how unusually confident,” and radio pundit Rush Limbaugh referred to her admiringly as “a babe.”

 While Brinkley’s message was spreading across the Internet, Palin was wooing a number of well-connected Washington conservative thinkers, including a boatload of members of the conservative establishment who came up to Alaska on luxury cruises sponsored by The Weekly Standard, and The National Review.Effusive praise for Palin from the likes of William Kristol, the Weekly Standard’s Washington-based editor, and Michael Gerson, Bush II’s speech writer (who called her “a mix between Annie Oakley and Joan of Arc”) soon coalesced  into a critical mass of pressure on McCain to select Palin as his running mate.

 Obama raises hugh sums at small cost

 During his 2008 primary and presidential campaigns, Barack Obama employed essentially the same web-based  tools and tactics as  Howard Dean,  but on a much larger scale. To put Obama’s fund-raising accomplishments in context,  when the 2007-2008 primary season came to an end, Democratic and Republican candidates had raised a record-shattering  $1.26 billion — 81% more than in  2003-2004 –  with Democatic candidates outpulling  Republican candidates $787 million to $477 million. During the Presidential campaign, McCain , who ran solely  on the $84.1 million provided  by the U.S. treasury, was financially disadvantaged by Obama, who elected not to accept public financing. Relying on small donations from hundreds of thousands of contributors, Obama , with $77 million cash in hand at the end of August, 2008, outspent McCain five to one during  the 3-month general election season, with  $150 million left over.

In addition to raising huge sums of money at comparatively  small cost, Obama’s web-based initiatives supported  volunteers and paid organizers in  get-out-the vote and donation drives  and contacts with other online and traditional local and national media. Obama websites were also used to fact-check opponent claims (No, Republican vice presidential candidate Saran Palin didn’t originally oppose the bridge to nowhere), and let website visitors listen to Obama’s voice explaining positions and responding to attacks (for example, his speech on race relations in response to criticism of his relations with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright).

This core presentation equated BBGG programs to the World War II “arsenal of democracy” buildup and the  post WWII Marshall Plan, both  successfully implemented under Democratic administrations, as well as the “desert storm” invasion of Iraq implemented under the Bush I Republican administration.

Knipscher’s core presentation also  concluded that, given the size and scope of  economic and environmental crises inherited from the previous administration, the Obama administration’s earnest efforts  couldn’t begin to cope with even one of the catastrophic threats facing humanity. BBGG programs, on the other hand, were designed to successfully cope with threats of  global warming  and a long deep descent into a worldwide   depression.  

Also stressed in Knipscher’s  core presentation was the critical importance of time: the later BBGG addressed these global threats, the more exponentially expensive the struggle  would become and the closer the world would come to doomsday points of no return.

 Tailoring specialized presentations to special needs and interests

Supplementing Knipscher’s core presentation, which featured  extensive use of allusion and anecdote to enhance clarity, conciseness, focus and dramatic impact, were four special purpose presentations featuring heavy metrics (Post 16) to elaborate  aspects of BBGG programs dealing with the environment, the economy, technology and foreign policy. These four presentations  were addressed to targeted constituencies with needs and interests reflecting  presentation topics. For example, economic and environmental presentations were directed toward three huge 2012 voting blocs: Southern and Reagan Republicans and  independent voters who identified themselves as Democrats over Republicans by  a margin of 36% to 27% in 2008 .Technologically oriented presentations were directed mainly toward venture capitalists,  associations of scientists and engineers and technological constituencies  in high-tech design and manufacturing centers;  foreign policy oriented presentations toward influential foreign and domestic  voting and non-voting groups who could vote in U.S. elections and, more important,  influence foreign countries to participate in BBGG programs.

Although aimed at selected constituencies, the essence of these presentations was  accessible to all  constituencies via traditional and digital media networks discussed in Posts 26 -30.

Environmentally oriented presentation: Alluding to   findings in Al Gore’s docudrama  An Inconvenient Truth, Elizabeth Kolbert’s The Climate of Man,  and  the international scientific community consensus,  global warming was defined as   largely  a man-made disaster produced  by increasing  CO₂ emissions from  deforestation and burning  fossil fuels like coal and oil .  Documenting metrics  underscored  the dramatic impact of global warming: “Once  CO₂  emission levels reach  500 parts per million,  earth’s temperature will warm another seven degrees, the arctic will be  ice-free in  summer,  Glacier National Park glaciers will disappear, and rising sea levels, coastal flooding, acidic oceans and  extremes of drought and rainfall will produce  mass migrations, starvation, and disrupted natural ecosystems leading to the extinction of   vital food chain species”;   “according to the World Health Organization, within 20 years climate change will be producing  150,000 deaths,  and two million sicknesses a year from the spread of malaria, diarrhea, and starvation”;  “ the polar ice cap, melting at an alarming rate of nine percent each decade, will bring  extensive flooding and loss of coastal wetlands in low-lying areas like Chesepeake Bay, which could turn Washington D.C.into another post-Katrina New Orleans ”;  “ polar bears, drowning because they have to swim too far  to reach ice, will soon be warmed out of existence”;  “by 2040,  the horrific  affects of increasing  CO₂ emissions, soon to be  irreversible, will exceed  those associated with the great wars and depression of the first half of the 20^th century, and will cost between ten and 20 percent of global GDP each year. “

Economically  oriented presentation: This presentation  attributed BBGG  economic benefits  largely to the way  strategic business units (SBUs) were structured and funded,  and the output of these units.

As  to structure and funding, each SBU —  for example, a brand name   division of a large automobile manufacturer – would contract to supplement production of  its  primary products (e.g., automobiles and trucks) with quotas of   green energy products (or services)  determined by a centralized international planning board comprising entrepreneurs,  scientists, ecologists, managers, and politicians. These green energy products would be produced and distributed in competition with other SBUs  worldwide,   usually  in countries with an acquired or natural green energy production or technological advantage. Government funding  for BBGG start-up costs would be through banks whose low but legitimate reserve requirements would trigger a huge multiplier effect , facilitated by legislation and controls ensuring full employment, competitive efficiencies,  minimal waste and corruption,  uniform agreement on fair  wages and salaries, cap and trade and carbon tax legislation and  tariff-free  trade in green energy products.  

This  multiplier effect, enhancing employment , wages and salaries, would  dramatically  improve living standards and per-capita incomes, which would  benefit  from generous profit returns on mandated personal investments in the green energy revolution. Governments would also benefit generously from these returns, deriving from both financial institutions funding the green energy revolution and companies producing green energy products and services. In the U.S., this multiplier effect would facilitate the following outcomes  further enhancing national  wealth, well being and security: implementation of  Obama energy, education, and  universal health care  programs (with businesses no longer required to subsidize healthcare);  payroll taxes eliminated and middle-class income taxes sharply reduced ( but wealth taxed and incomes over $10 million taxed in the 70 percent bracket); return of our manufacturing base;  strong, safe, transparent fiscal and monetary systems, combined with reductions of national and trade deficits, will   keep  both inflation and long-term interest rates low

Supplementing  economic benefits  from BBGG’s structural and funding characteristics would be  benefits deriving from the output of these programs, starting with the elimination of global warming and  great depression threats. Removal of these threats would also  greatly reduce dependence on fossil fuels, replaced  by clean energy sources like wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, tidal, and nuclear. Applications for these alternate energy sources in living, working and recreation facilities, in clean, safe, smog free environments, would effectively increase the wealth and lifestyles of citizens worldwide, as would the modernized green infrastructures required to effectively apply and distribute the output of the green revolution. Lack of pollution, more efficient use of energy and natural resources, and cutbacks on oil imports and carbon emissions would  further enhance quality of life.

Technological oriented presentation: this presentation described the broad sweep  and depth of  BBGG technological initiatives , including a fifty percent increase in global research and development and the creation of “think centers” that synthesized, from all over the world, the creative energies of scientists and engineers.  These projects would create, from the  World Bank’s list of  43 climate-friendly technologies, new technologies and  green energy products such as  improved mass transit systems, batteries and superconductors capable of remarkably clean, efficient electric transmission, new age electronic transmission and communication systems; green energy  power plants,  buildings, homes,  appliances, wind,n uclear, and solar power plants.

Foreign policy oriented presentations: BBGG benefits in this area start with the sense of collegial purpose among a nation’s citizenry gearing up for the green energy struggle against the looming threats of global warming and economic depression, followed by  the sense of accomplishment as  threats recede and the rewards accumulate, including dramatically improved living standards ,employment rates,  incomes, and wealth accumulation. Erased tariff barriers for green energy output, combined with research and entrepreneurial initiatives that  stoke  growth  and  fair trade rules governing free trade, will strengthen  productive relations among nations, enhancing opportunities for peaceful relations. These factors – a fully-employed, motivated population, free and fair trade among nations – will combine with  strong stable fiscal and monetary policies to  further increase wealth of nations – especially undeveloped nations. Strong new markets will help pay back, many times over, original investments.

The overarching message of Knipscher’s  core  presentation was that only  BBGG programs could successfully avert the imminent  catastrophic consequences  of both global warming and a deep worldwide depression. Through the  coordinated  creation of green energy industries on a global scale,   BBGG programs would generate greater returns in wealth, well being, and international amity than any competing  bailout or stimulus packages . 

From Knipscher’s  core presentation other presentations would be spun off based on  constituencies targeted, needs and interests related to,   and  digital or traditional media carrying the presentations.

Allusions and metrics shape BBGG’s presentations

In her research ( Post 15), Knipscher  found allusion to be an unusually effective  way to endow political presentations  with  features characterizing winning positions (summarized in Post 4). To the extent that the entity alluded to –  the Marshall Plan, for example  – accurately represented its referent (BBGG programs) and was widely understood and appreciated, it would enhance perceptions of  BBGG’s significance, and show how it worked.

Use of allusion also intensifies the dramatic impact of a political presentation,  enhancing listener interest and retention and facilitating the narrative, empathetic style that relates presentations to grand metaphors embedded in the mind’s recesses (Posts 11-14).

Documented with defining  metrics (Post 16), allusions  impart authority to the presentation that inoculates it against competitive attack ( such as  claims that BBGG programs represent more socialist/communist  gimmickry). In terms of Knipscher’s  status as an upstart  challenger, perhaps allusion’s most  potent value is its ability to differentiate her  candidacy from candidacies of  both Democratic and Republican competitors.

The Arsenal of Democracy allusion

Four allusions helped to  develop and organize  ideas in Knipscher’s  basic  BBGG presentation: the  World War II “arsenal of democracy” munitions buildup, the post- World War II Marshall Plan, and Bush I and Bush II Iraq invasions in August  1990 and March 2003 respectively.

In December 1940, a year before Pearl Harbor brought the U.S. into World War II, president Franklin Roosevelt, in one of his fireside chats, referred to Detroit Michigan as “the great arsenal of democracy” where the   automobile industry would lead  industries nationwide  converting to armament production in support of nations at war with  axis powers. Immediately, the automobile industry tooled up to supplement production of private vehicles with a broad diversity of military products, such as tanks,  trucks, reconnaissance cars, shells,   parts for medium bombers and anti-aircraft guns.

Roosevelt’s widely derided  prediction that this massive  production effort would eventually lead to 50,000 military aircraft produced a year – more  than existed in the world in 1940 – was practically achieved by 1942, when 46,907 military aircraft were produced. Every other category of military equipment showed similar gains.

From an economic standpoint, a decade after black Tuesday in October 1929 threw the nation into the decade-long depths of the Great Depression,  arsenal of democracy initiatives pulled the nation, and much of the post-war  world, into the greatest boom period in its history, sustained and accelerated by the post-war  Marshall Plan.

As a metaphor for BBGG initiatives, the “arsenal of democracy” allusion was right on target, except that instead of military equipment the arsenal would  be filled with the output of  dynamic new global  green energy industries.

To illustrate features and benefits of this  peaceful arsenal , consider the 2009   bailout of the “Big Three” American automobile companies. Billions of dollars were invested in saving the remains of this industry, losing hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process and throwing  automobile companies into bankruptcy with little assurance that  selling  hybrid fuel efficient automobiles against foreign price and quality competition  would ever pay off.

Under BBGG initiatives, by  supplementing production of  private vehicles with green energy products they were best equipped to produce, such as electric drive trains and  fuel efficient mass transportation carriers, and for which a guaranteed global market existed,  full employment would be ensured for the  multimillion  workers directly and indirectly dependent on this industry. Scale and learning curve efficiencies generated from serving a global market would produce generous profit  returns for  stakeholders – employees, owners, investors –including  governments, whose initial investments would facilitate  large scale  retooling.  These returns would  transform an expensive pre-BBGG bailout into an investment more successful than the  Chrysler bailout of 1979, which produced , within 4 years, $350 million interest for the U.S. Treasury on a $1.5 billion loan package.

Multiplying  the  Big Three automobile  experience with the experiences of tens of thousands of  large and small  global service and manufacturing firms  in participating BBGG countries  would  create, within two years, employment rates,  incomes,  and living standards equal to the best years of the Clinton presidency. Progressive taxes structured along World War II lines with strong controls on excess executive compensation would  help reduce, within five years, national and trade deficits a remarkable fifty percent.

The Marshall Plan Allusion

Between 1947 and 1952 , at a  cost to the U.S. in 2008 dollars of about 1/10 of the trillion-plus the Obama braintrust  was working with, the  Marshall Plan  helped grow the economies of  18 participating European countries well beyond pre-WWII levels;   sparked a two decade-long period of prosperity accompanied by improvements in incomes, employment rates, and living standards;  erased tariff barriers between participating countries that facilitated the creation  of the European Union;   set up institutions to coordinate growth, and encouraged research and entrepreneurial initiatives that continue to  stoke  growth. From the U.S. perspective, Marshall Plan benefits included creation of strong new markets that helped pay back, many times over, its original investment, and trading patterns that, until the early 1970s, produced large annual trade surpluses.

As  the Marshall Plan’s contemporary incarnation, BBGG would  generate  these benefits while improving the deteriorating U.S. image in the world and mitigating issues of poverty, fanaticism and terrorism deriving from economic and ecological dislocations.

Iraq invasion allusions

Considering  ways to dramatize differences between Obama’s and Republican anticipated positions in 2011-2012 and BBGG  positions, it occurred to Nan that allusions to two  Bush-inspired invasions might do the trick : The March 2003  invasion of Iraq (Bush II) and the August 1990 Desert Storm invasion  ( Bush I ).

Comparisons to the Bush II  Iraq invasion showed  Obama’s worst case scenario economic  initiatives to be similarly  futile and  frustrating,   costing trillions of dollars  on top of double-digit trillions in debt  accumulated since the Reagan administration.

As  with the  Iraq war, Obama  program objectives lacked support of large key constituencies (such as the entire Republican caucus),  and kept changing, as did the ad hoc  means to achieve them.  With no clear-cut indication of how to fight the economic war, or when to declare victory, Obama’s plans and policies were hostage to unexpected consequences of actions of other countries implementing their own economic recovery plans; for example, protective tariffs and taxes on U.S. imports, or a cold turkey  refusal by China to lend us another trillion or so.

Desert Storm allusion addresses  economy and ecology

Consistent with Bush I’s Desert Storm allusion, however,  BBGG sidestepped  these pitfalls. No need to worry about  unanticipated actions of other countries; like Desert Storm’s coalition armies, these countries would now be willing, committed partners in building the new green energy industries that would  address both environmental and economic problems. No need to worry about which nostrums  to administer: BBGG required only the production and distribution of green energy products and services. And no need to go multiple-trillions deeper  into debt– as with Desert Storm I, the U.S., leading the charge,  could pass the hat among participating nations and possibly break even on the cost.

BBGG versus Democratic and Republican  positions

To tailor her presentations to environmental  threats and opportunities,    Knipscher first prepared written scenarios of   outcomes on which competitive Democratic and Republican presentations would likely be based in 2011-2012. Then she  noted how her own presentations would respond to these outcomes.

Emphasized in this analysis were opportunities to differentiate her positions from those of the opposition;  avoided were “me too” positions (see Post 5). For example,  the  possible failure of the Obama administration’s bailout of automobile companies   would trigger  presentations  explaining how BBGG  programs  would reduce deficits, ensure profit returns on bailouts,  and strengthen the U.S. manufacturing base .

 Obama scenarios: from  best to worst cases  

Knipscher’s writeup of  outcomes for Obama’s 2011-2012 administration, designed to indicate what  campaign presentation points would be stressed, by whom, when, where and how , started with  best cases  and worked down to worst case outcomes.

Best case outcomes envisioned Obama administration investments to create jobs,  stem foreclosures, reform and regulate  financial systems and implement progressive  health, education and energy programs  starting to pay back generously.  In foreign affairs, nations cooperate  collegially in implementing bailout,  stimulus and reorganization programs, while confrontations in Iraq,   Afghanistan,  and the Mideast  move toward successful conclusions.

Worst case scenarios depict  the earnest, energetic efforts of Obama’s  braintrust   having little success  rescuing the U.S. economy from its recessionary  free fall  and  looming threat of a global depression. As  deficits  continue  their  stratospheric climb, stock market declines track continuing  increases in unemployment and foreclosures. Promised   healthcare, energy, environment   and education reforms  meet  uniform resistance from trading partner allies and  congress (typical  responses to Obama stimulus initiatives:  “not a stimulus bill, a spending bill,” “history’s greatest pig out,” “a dog’s breakfast,”   “the camel that emerged when a committee designed  a race horse” ).

On the foreign affairs front, Obama’s generally unsuccessful  efforts to  negotiate, without preconditions,  reasonable outcomes with recalcitrant countries like Israel, Iran, North Korea and Pakistan  mark him as an  easily pushed-around patsy.

On both domestic and foreign fronts, Obama’s earnest pleas for support too often  bog  down in pragmatic compromises that satisfy nobody, and chip  away at the strong moral leadership and clear vision he brought with him on inauguration day  (contrasting sharply to the  ideological focus that propelled the  Bush II administration through all opposition to the sands of Iraq).

Knipscher’s  plans also had to account for  presumed Republican positions against which BBGG positions would compete in 2011 and 2012. Her twofold presentation strategy involved, first, stressing how BBGG programs, by  supplementing  industrial and service industry output with  output of the green energy revolution, would successfully reverse the impending catastrophic consequences of global warming and a long global depression (see Posts 19 and 23). Second, based on   Republican stress on  tax cuts to compensate for improbable  spending and borrowing moratoriums,  she perceived that a  simple  DBBB (“Don’t Bring Back Bush”) would suffice.