I can't begin to count how many times I have warned politicians and candidates to worry as much about the good coverage as the bad, because the more air they put in your balloon, the bigger the target when they start shooting.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
When you're bringing in a fairly unknown candidate challenging a sitting president, the population needs a lot more information than reduced coverage provides.
You may be able to fool the voters, but not the atmosphere.
Presidential coverage used to be a very serious endeavor.
We believe very strongly that you stop that denial of coverage by promoting choice. Let people make the decisions.
Unsurprisingly, the poll-takers don't talk a lot in public about the ignorance of the electorate on political and public policy matters. And the politicians are not going to disclose the, let's say, limited body of knowledge in their constituencies. You don't get elected calling your voters airheads.
We have too many politicians who are poll-driven to excess. Polls are important. You've got to know what the public is thinking, but you can't let them drive you completely.
Any politician or campaigner trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the public won't get very far.
It just happened that the course of the campaign went negative we actually went positive for a little over a week and you do the tracking of poll numbers and it hurt us. So the public responded to those type of ads.
I don't believe in publicity before a film is completed. It costs you money and wastes your energy, and you're inflating your balloon before you have a balloon.
I made a decision when I ran for president that I wouldn't whine about my coverage in the media, and I never did.