Liberal attitude did NOT cost the election

[yosemite]

@annaplurabelle

I think you misunderstood my point, or you’re confusing me with someone else, or…?

You quoted me and then made a case for demonizing the polititian. That wasn’t the thrust of my argument at all. I was talking about voters.

In fact, I was responding to the idea you and some others were implying - blaming liberals’ attitudes for people turning to right-wing politicians. Isn’t that passing the buck too?

No, what I’m trying to say is that if you’ve got someone who you want to persuade—someone who, for instance, is ignorant about an issue and therefore has come to a conclusion that you deem incorrect (“gays are icky”), then if you want to persuade them to see things differently, you DON’T insult them and berate them.

My point was that I’m amazed that people would choose/vote against a candidate or a political ideology on the basis of someone else’s “attitude”. Using that criteria, how can you end up choosing anything? Is there an ideology out there that doesn’t have some “asshole” adherents?

No, what some of us are saying is that if you’ve got some people (a lot of people) who have a notion in their head and you want to help them change that notion, you are not an asshole to them. I’m working from the assumption that many (but of course not all) people are not empty-headed sponges—they’ve got opinions and ideas already. They probably aren’t going to change their opinion very quickly just because others who share that opinion are assholes. However, they are going to be reluctant to switch to the other side when what they get from that side is a bunch of “You have to agree with me, you knuckle-dragging idiot.”

Let’s go back to my childhood musical experience. I already had an opinion about music. I liked Classical. I didn’t like rock. My friends wanted me to “give rock music a chance.” So what did they do? They told me I was “closed minded” because I didn’t want to give up my crappy Classical music. They constantly insulted my taste in music. They never once listened to any of the music that I liked. They acted as if listening to my music was high torture. But yet they found me terribly, terribly unreasonable because I didn’t scrap the music I’d always loved to only listen to what they thought was good.

Now I ask you: is this a good way to sway someone to your side? Because that’s exactly what some people have done here and elsewhere. They encounter someone who has some conservative-leaning views, but instead of talking to them like they’ve got a brain in their head, they berate and insult them. That’s not going to change minds. At all.

[Miller]

@Brutus

I am no fundy! :mad:

I have a group on line two called Fundies for Truth who say they know people who saw you near the front steps of a Baptist church in March, 1989. I’m not saying these stories mean anything. I’ll let the American people decide that.

[Bill_H]

Miller wrote

Because the Democrats are fuckin’ amateurs at it, that’s why. Hopefully, we’ve learned something from you guys this year, because you are the absolute masters. We’ll find out in 2006, I suppose. I can tell you right now, which ever way that election goes, it will not be pretty. If the Dems have clue one on their head, they’ll do something that’ll make the Swift Vets look like Walter Cronkite.

And there’s my answer. You truly have put intolerant blinders on yourself. Well, there’s plenty others like you out there, quite a few in our happy little community here.

[Bryan_Ekers]

As an incidental note: Max, I’m not altogether sure this board is especially left-leaning. Its clearly away-from-bullshit-leaning, but the fact that much of the recent bullshit comes from a Republican President doesn’t prove much.

[Miller]

@Bill H.

And there’s my answer. You truly have put intolerant blinders on yourself. Well, there’s plenty others like you out there, quite a few in our happy little community here.

<takes notes furiously>

[annaplurabelle]

@yosemite

No, what I’m trying to say is that if you’ve got someone who you want to persuade—someone who, for instance, is ignorant about an issue and therefore has come to a conclusion that you deem incorrect (“gays are icky”), then if you want to persuade them to see things differently, you DON’T insult them and berate them.

Well, sure I agree that polite persuasion works best and insults are counter-productive. But I can’t control the behaviour of other people who might share my political views - and their assholery doesn’t diminish the value or truth of the idea. Also, the more polite people often get ignored in favour of the ranters. I can’t see a way around that.

But I do think that people are ultimately responsible for their own beliefs and actions. Blaming someone else’s bad attitude sounds like rationalising a mindset that’s already made up (ie “I might have voted for the other guy if only you’d all been nicer to me”). You may not have meant to imply that, but I’ve seen that expressed here quite a bit during the campaign.

Anyway, in the case of this messageboard, I think most of the vitriol isn’t intended to persuade anyone. It’s usually either general venting out of frustration or a feud between posters with a history.

[Miller]

@Bill H.

And there’s my answer. You truly have put intolerant blinders on yourself. Well, there’s plenty others like you out there, quite a few in our happy little community here.

Okay, serious answer: saying we’re not as good as you isn’t the same as saying we don’t do it at all. We tried this last election, but as scummy as we got, we just couldn’t keep up with you guys. You’d sink to a new level, and we’d sink to it just as fast, but you always stayed one ahead. How do I know? You guys won, that’s how. Yes, both sides played dirty. And it resulted in record voter turn out, because people want dirt. People don’t care about gentlemanly disagreement, mutual respect, and bipartisanship. They want a shit fight. You guys were shittier than us, and you won. Simple as that.

[yosemite]

@annaplurabelle

But I do think that people are ultimately responsible for their own beliefs and actions. Blaming someone else’s bad attitude sounds like rationalising a mindset that’s already made up (ie “I might have voted for the other guy if only you’d all been nicer to me”). You may not have meant to imply that, but I’ve seen that expressed here quite a bit during the campaign.

I didn’t imply that.

Yes, people are responsible for their own beliefs and actions. That’s not going to change.

So the question is, if YOU want change, and YOU (the “collective” you) want people to vote for your side, it’s up to YOU to go about it in a way that will WORK.

Bellyaching and finger-pointing because more people weren’t swayed to your side isn’t getting results. If results are what you want (and I believe it is) then being contemptuous isn’t helping.

Remember, plenty on the “other side” doesn’t think they have any problems. They aren’t wringing their hands worrying that perhaps they’ve got some ideas wrong. They aren’t feeling obligated to take bullshit from the other side. They can just tune out if that’s what they want to do, and if you give them the slightest reason to, they will. If you want to change what’s in their hearts, it’s up to you to make the move, and do it in a way that doesn’t turn them off.

This works with absolutely anything, from vegetarianism to rock music to gay rights to animal rights to anything.

But sure. If you want, you (the collective “you”) can be obnoxious and angry and piss people off, and then continue to bellyache and blame them because they run screaming from you before you even open your mouth. And sure, it’s true—they rejected your (very right) position. But to think that you hold no responsibility for their reaction and their rejection of your position is ludicrous.

Bringing up another personal tale again: when I was a kid, my mom was the BIGGEST most obnoxious nag when it came to anything religious. She sucked the joy out of anything, she was the Guilt Queen, she was awful. She’s mellowed over the years and is now much better, but she still is reluctant to accept that her obnoxious attitude almost ruined religion for my sisters and me. It didn’t mean that we thought religion was bad (we are all still Christians), but she her methods were something akin to “aversion therapy.”

She still sometimes tries to say that we rejected some of her messages because we were stubborn and had a bad attitude. But the truth is, she was a PAIN IN THE ASS and we were sick of listening to her. We only really truly embraced religion when we were older and away from her nagging tongue.

Anyway, in the case of this messageboard, I think most of the vitriol isn’t intended to persuade anyone.

Oh, some of it was. Some of it wasn’t, but some of it was.

And keep in mind that many people who don’t agree (or haven’t heard the viewpoints expressed here before) are reading the hysterics and anger. It’s giving them an impression. The cites listed as a way to make a case for one side or the other are being IGNORED because the people presenting those sites have behaved in such a shameful manner that they’ve lost credibility. It’s not helping. It’s hurting.

[yosemite]

How did I miss this before? Oh well, I’ve found it now . . .

@Miller

No. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying, if I want to convince John Q. Undecided to vote for my guy, I call Bill H. a traitor. I insult Bricker. I treat Sam Stone with contempt. I call Starving Artist stupid.

Nooo . . . I doubt that it would be that effective. John Q. reads Sam Stone’s polite and patient post and then he sees you calling Sam Stone an asshole and traitor. Now he thinks that you’re an asshole, because you’re frothing at the mouth and being a complete jerk while Sam is trying to be civil.

If both sides are slinging mud and being hateful to each other, then it’s a draw. Everyone is an asshole, so John Q. throws up his hands and walks away. Screw these crazy jerks, he says. And who can blame him?

Look—I’ve seen this work in other people around me. It’s worked on me. I watch two people debate an issue, and one side is being an angry asshole, and the other side is being calm. The calm guy gets points. The angry rude guy doesn’t. Not unless I am already on the side of the angry rude guy in the first place.

Style and presentation are important. We learned that with the first debates, didn’t we? Bush lost a lot of points after that because he was scowling and had a bad expression (and also incoherent). Kerry gained points because he was calm and poised (and articulate). Obviously Bush didn’t lose enough points, but because of that debate the election was more of a squeaker. Presentation does matter, and if you are grumpy or scowly (or a rude asshole), you lose points.

[PunditLisa]

IIRC, PunditLisa voted for Bush.

Yes, I did. I lean Republican but vote for the better candidate, which is not necessarily the person who has an “R” after his name. In fact, were it up to me John Boehner would be looking for a new job because he’s an arrogant prick. I voted for Bill Clinton over Dole and would have been happy to cast my vote for Kerry had I thought him worthy of the task.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Brutus

Exception to the rule, if that is the case.

Except that Bush went into the election with an overall unfavorable rating among voters. Plenty of people voted for him only because they didn’t want to vote for the guy who lied about being in Cambodia, who was going to give the UN prior approval over any future US military action, who was the most liberal senator in DC, who voted against giving body armor to troops.

And plenty of people voted for Bush out of ignorance. A majority of Bush voters believed that Iraq had strong connections to 9/11. A majority of Bush voters believed that WMDs had been found in Iraq, post-invasion. And a majority of Bush voters believed that, were neither of these things true, the war would have been wrong.

You’re the exception.

That said, your “I am not a fundy!” post made me laugh; thanks!

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

It’s the way liberals had of approaching certain issues as “You think as we do, or you’re an ignorant bigot.”\

I know you’ve already apologized for this, but I want to point it out again: this kind of thing is all too common among folks on both sides. I know you hate being called a bigot, but I hate being called a traitor. And I don’t particularly like being told that I’m destroying marriage, believe it or not. We all gotta deal with the assholes on the other side, and we all gotta be careful not to let them represent the other side in our minds.

I am absolutely not convinced that Kerry lost the election because his supporters were just too negative. The vitriol in this election was pouring through the streets from both sides, and at least as much was coming from the right.

Daniel

[Guinastasia]

What the fuck? The Democrats were the more obnoxious and shrill? Who called a war hero a traitor, a Bible banner, compared him to Neville Chamberlain and said he fabricated his war record and committed crimes against his fellow vets worse than the Viet Cong? Not the Democrats.
Let’s me make one thing crystal clear: anyone who voted for Candidate X, not because they agreed with him on the issues, not because they believed hiim to be the best man for the job, not because they thought that Candidate Y would fuck up the country worse than Candidate X-but because the supporters of Candidate Y were shrill and obnoxious and annoying-is a dumbass. A royal fucking dumbass who deserves what he or she gets.

If THAT is the deciding factor for who gets your vote, you are too stupid to vote in the first place. Period. It should not be about the supporters of said candidate, it should be about the candidate himself (or herself), and what he/she represents.

[Avumede]

I think one thing needs to pointed out, obvious though it is: what happens on this board makes no difference at all.

So be careful to draw a distinction between us on the board, and the Democratic party as a whole.

I think that we on this message board as still free to piss off as many conservatives as we like. I myself prefer to not do that, but I realize not everyone shares my opinion. Anyone who gives us a hard time about what we say on this board needs to get some fucking perspective.

[griffen2]

Nooo . . . I doubt that it would be that effective. John Q. reads Sam Stone’s polite and patient post and then he sees you calling Sam Stone an asshole and traitor. Now he thinks that you’re an asshole, because you’re frothing at the mouth and being a complete jerk while Sam is trying to be civil.

I disagree. If Miller were to address Sam Stone’s arguments and insult him with a bit of wit and panache at the same time and make John Q. laugh and leave the thread with an impressive one liner that he could use to sound clever in front of his friends in the pub, his post would probably be the more persuasive of the two. Good rhetoric works wonders. Sad, but in my albeit limited experience, very true.

[Bricker]

@Avumede

I think one thing needs to pointed out, obvious though it is: what happens on this board makes no difference at all.

So be careful to draw a distinction between us on the board, and the Democratic party as a whole.

I think that we on this message board as still free to piss off as many conservatives as we like. I myself prefer to not do that, but I realize not everyone shares my opinion. Anyone who gives us a hard time about what we say on this board needs to get some fucking perspective.

Sure. And by the same token, if I throw trash out of my car window, it really doesn’t matter – it’s just one piece of trash. It’s not going to destroy the world. But you see the problem if everyone adopts this attitude.

If you, Avumede, approach this issue framed as, “Well, we can piss off conservatives here, as long as other Democrats don’t,” you’re missing the boat. Others will take the position that they can act this way in other settings, as long as still others do not.

I’d invite you to consider the wisdom of an approach that NEVER betlittles conservative values, even if you find it necessary to personally attack individual conservatives.

[gobear]

@Bricker

I’d invite you to consider the wisdom of an approach that NEVER betlittles conservative values, even if you find it necessary to personally attack individual conservatives.

How do we define “belittle”? Mockery? Exaggeration? Mere disagreement? I’ve been on Web forums where the slightest departure from orthodoxy results in banning.

And how do we define “conservative values”? One of the reasons I vociferously object to Dubya is because he is fiscally irresponsible, something that used to be completely anathema to true conservatives.

[Bill_H]

Left Hand of Dorkness wrote

And plenty of people voted for Bush out of ignorance. A majority of Bush voters believed that Iraq had strong connections to 9/11. A majority of Bush voters believed that WMDs had been found in Iraq, post-invasion. And a majority of Bush voters believed that, were neither of these things true, the war would have been wrong.

Uh, for the record, that’s not true.

I assume you’re referring to the University of Maryland study. As you should know, this was not a poll of Bush voters as you’ve claimed. It was a poll of so-called Bush supporters, but it didn’t take into account if these people were planning to vote. Further, it was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, which had a very distinct bias. Also, it was sloppy in it’s execution.

But most importantly, it was never designed to be a fact-finding investigation, bur rather it was was a political tool, an investment geared towards winning an election. And it turned out to be a bad investment.

[Miller]

@yosemite

Nooo . . . I doubt that it would be that effective. John Q. reads Sam Stone’s polite and patient post and then he sees you calling Sam Stone an asshole and traitor. Now he thinks that you’re an asshole, because you’re frothing at the mouth and being a complete jerk while Sam is trying to be civil.

Sorry, but that’s simply not true. Acting like a dick works. And the bigger dick you act like, the more votes you get. A week ago, I would have been in here agreeing with you. Now I know better. The actions you are advocating do not work.

If both sides are slinging mud and being hateful to each other, then it’s a draw. Everyone is an asshole, so John Q. throws up his hands and walks away. Screw these crazy jerks, he says. And who can blame him?

Which explains why the most acrimonious election in recent memory resulted in one of the lowest voter turn-outs in our nation’s history.

Oh, wait…

Look—I’ve seen this work in other people around me. It’s worked on me. I watch two people debate an issue, and one side is being an angry asshole, and the other side is being calm. The calm guy gets points. The angry rude guy doesn’t. Not unless I am already on the side of the angry rude guy in the first place.

Tragically, you are not representative of the nation as a whole.

Style and presentation are important. We learned that with the first debates, didn’t we? Bush lost a lot of points after that because he was scowling and had a bad expression (and also incoherent). Kerry gained points because he was calm and poised (and articulate). Obviously Bush didn’t lose enough points, but because of that debate the election was more of a squeaker. Presentation does matter, and if you are grumpy or scowly (or a rude asshole), you lose points.

Because grumpy and scowly comes across as childish and petulant. Which is perceived as weak. Notice that once he stopped doing that and started shouting down hte moderator, his numbers picked up again. Because someone who attacks is perceived as strong, and people respond positively to the appearance of strength. If you beat the shit out of your opponent during the campaign, you gain the reputation as a tough-ass, and people will vote for you.

[elucidator]

Well, now, Bill, thats a bit troublesome. Are you claiming there is some distinction between Bush “supporters” and Bush “voters”. What might that be?

And “sloppiness of execution” stops a mite short. Did they claim a precision that was not justified, but were still roughly correct? As in, did they say “73.65%” when the real truth is “about 3/4”? They might still be substantially right and your criticism still stand.

As well, this is not the only such study. And even if it were, its still leaves the giant unanswered question: if Bush supporters know they were lied to, and know Bush was the liar, why in God’s Name did they vote for him?