"Too Much Nuance" Is Now Helping -- And Not Hurting -- The Democrats

One of my favorite quotes from the 2012 Presidential Campaign was when Mitt Romney accused Obama of having a foreign policy that was "too nuanced." I thought Romney's criticism was complete horseshit -- after all, it was the lack of nuance that caused the GOP's clusterfuck in Iraq and ultimately led to the destabilization of the Middle East.

But Romney was right in the sense that Americans no longer have the patience to digest complicated news stories. Usually that helps Republicans, particularly given that the GOP long ago lost any interest in the complicated process of governing. But the rise of Donald Trump has turned all that on its head.

I'll give you an example of what I mean:  On CNN the other day, a Republican was trying to explain how the recent news regarding the Clinton Foundation was scandalous. He spent several minutes trying to do so, but the host for the segment had to interrupt him and asked him to cut to the chase. Remarkably, the anti-Hillary guy had to admit that he just did not have enough information to determine whether there was any corruption involved.  Republicans just don't do "nuance" very well.

I've been watching a lot of Fox News lately -- something I always do when things are going badly for the GOP -- and its commentators are also struggling with this. You hear a lot of words like "scandalous" and "corruption," but they are unable to get into any specifics about the Clinton Foundation "scandal" because what they are trying to push is simply too complex for quick sound bites. The fact that there is no real scandal to begin with is not helpful to the GOP cause either.

The problem of course is that reporters, when deciding whether to cover a Hillary "scandal," will almost always decide to take the easy route and instead cover Donald Trump's latest gaffe.  It's much easier to simply report, for example, that Trump attacked a Gold Star mother or accused Obama of being the "founder" of ISIS than it is to attempt to explain a complicated, non-existent "scandal" involving the Clinton Foundation.

Trump constantly complains about how the American Press is covering his campaign, yet Donald seems to go out of his way to say stupid shit and thus dominate the news cycle.  His strategy appears to be:  (1) say something stupid, (2) get the American Press to focus on the stupid comment, and (3) attack the Press for misinterpreting the stupid comment. The strategy appears to be working extremely well -- after all, Donald is getting a shitload of media coverage. But it will be pretty hard for Trump to get much over 40% of the vote if he keeps acting like a jackass.