From First Read's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Carrie Dann:
[W]e’re living in a much more cynical age right now, when the country is disgusted with American politics and its institutions.... Given these opinions, we have a feeling the eventual 2016 winner isn’t going to campaign on a message of "hope" or "change" as the current occupant of the White House did in ’08. Instead, the eventual winner is going to be the one who best deals with this more cynical environment and becomes credible in a time where most of the public doesn’t put too much stock into what any leader claims.
Isn't the one "who best deals with this more cynical environment" going to be the one who promises some credible hope to change it? Am I missing something here?