Liberal attitude did NOT cost the election

[yosemite]

@griffen2

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.

I think we’re talking about two different things. You’re talking about a little sly wit and a subtle insult. You’re right—that might work.

What I’m talking about is flat-out nastiness and hysteria. Which is what I am seeing here in abundance. I don’t believe that works in swaying the undecideds, or those who are leaning away from your side. NOT UNLESS THE PERSON IS ALREADY LEANING TOWARDS THAT SIDE ANYWAY.

@Miller

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.

I see what you’re saying, but I think there’s a distinction. For one thing, we’re talking more about ordinary people discussing and debating an issue—not politicians. Mud-slinging does work, and always has. Between the two candidates.

But when debating, style does matter, and when you come off as raging and strident, it does not help. “Strength” does not necessarily equal “crazy, angry and strident” and apparently Bush didn’t cross over that line (I didn’t think he did).

When a whole lot of you come off as splittle-flying and raging, or strident and hysterical, it does not help your case. When you make outrageous claims, demonize people to extremes (“Bush=Hitler” “All Republicans are Mentally Ill”), come on. That’s NOT helping. Especially not when the person you are trying to persuade has been a Republican on some issues, or has relatives who are Republican, and so forth. How do you think that will sway him to your side?

There are two kinds of people you are (I presume) trying to persuade: those who are truly on the fence (rare) and those who are leaning against your side, or are firmly against your side. You don’t need to convince those who are already on your side. They’re sold. You can be barking mad and they’ll probably still be sold.

Those who are leaning against your side are not going to appreciate you demonizing the side that they are leaning towards. If they are reading yours and Sam Stone’s arguments, and they think that Sam Stone makes pretty good sense, the worst thing you can do is tear Sam a new one—calling him a Nazi—because it’s like you’re calling them (those who are leaning towards Sam’s side) a Nazi too.

Now, those who are truly on the fence, well, perhaps calling Sam a Nazi will work. Perhaps. If your argument is otherwise compelling. It’s a coin-toss. And also a risk. Because how many people are truly on the fence?

[Miller]

@yosemite

I see what you’re saying, but I think there’s a distinction. For one thing, we’re talking more about ordinary people discussing and debating an issue—not politicians. Mud-slinging does work, and always has. Between the two candidates.

Again, the latest election disproves your position. What were the most effective lies told in the election? The ones told by the Swiftboat Vets. That particular mud was never on Bush’s hands, although Rove was up to his elbows in it. But he’s not an elected official either. Lies and slander from private citizens is what won this election. That’s what will win the next election, too, and the one after that. And the Dems have got to start playing catch-up right now if they want to be the ones who benefit.

You are right, though. Spittle-flecked apoplexy doesn’t cut it. I’m talking cool, calculated, deliberate malice, on every level of the campaign, without regard to morality, honesty, or decency. That, for whatever reason, is what the American people respond to. Screaming “You’re a NAZI!” isn’t enough. You have to prove your opponent is a Nazi. Wether he actually is a Nazi or not is entirely beside the point: all that matters is that you plant that seed of distrust in as many minds as possible.

Which is what I meant when I said earlier that the Dems are amateurs compared to the Republicans. This approach did fail us, but not because it turns off voters. It failed because we were not as slick and finessed as the Republicans. The answer is not, as you have suggested, to become more friendly and accomodating. The answer is to re-double our efforts at gettng our invective out there and getting people to believe in it. The Republicans know how to do this like nobody else. We’ve got to steal their play book. Or better yet, their offensive coach. I wonder how much it would cost to hire Karl Rove away from the Republicans? It seems unlikely to me that he’s motivated by anything so prosaic as loyalty or friendship. He’s got a price; we need to find out what it is and get it working for us instead of against us.

[yosemite]

@Miller

Again, the latest election disproves your position. What were the most effective lies told in the election? The ones told by the Swiftboat Vets.

Yes, I see what you mean, but in my mind I have been sort of catagorizing the Swiftboat guys in with general “mudslinging.” Political ads that mudsling do work, no matter who is behind them.

You are right, though. Spittle-flecked apoplexy doesn’t cut it. I’m talking cool, calculated, deliberate malice, on every level of the campaign, without regard to morality, honesty, or decency.

Yes, you are right. And that falls right back into mudslinging. Make accusations, make them sound correct, no matter how false they are. Do it with calmness and deliberateness. That’s what mudslinging always seemed to be to me. And yes, mudslinging does work. I wish it didn’t, but it does.

The answer is not, as you have suggested, to become more friendly and accomodating.

Well, if you are suggesting that the Democrats do a whole lot of mudslinging themselves, well, I can’t tell you to not do it, because maybe it might work, unfortunately. But people have only so much patience for mudslinging, so there might come a time when they’ll have their fill.

But as far as person-to-person demonizing and spittle-flying, NO, that will not work. (I assume we do not disagree on this, right?) You don’t tell your coworker or neighbor that they’re stupid or ignorant. You don’t rant and rave. You don’t tell them that Sam Stone, who makes a lot of sense to them, is a Nazi and anything he says is evil, and anyone who believes anything he says is a moron. That’ll turn them off quicker than anything.

So I guess we now understand each other a little better, and we don’t disagree as much as we thought, perhaps?

[Bill_H]

elucidator wrote

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

The distinction is that the study was done before the election, and was an incredibly small sample size, compared to those polled after the election itself.

The study did not take into account whether these “supporters” intended to vote or not.

Most importantly, the study was funded by a left-wing organization with the specific goal of discrediting Bush supporters. If a right-wing organization would’ve funded the same study, do you honestly believe the results would’ve been the same?

They might still be substantially right and your criticism still stand.

I do accept that there’s some truth to the study – not that Republicans are idiots and Democrats are geniuses – but that there’s too much ignorance in the world. But I think we all know that.

As well, this is not the only such study.

Cite, please.

if Bush supporters know they were lied to, and know Bush was the liar, why in God’s Name did they vote for him?

Well, I can’t speak for all Bush voters, just one of them, really. But my opinion is that Bush didn’t lie about the matter, that with the evidence at hand, he believed we were in more present danger than we were. I also believe that other world leaders shared that view at the time. So, no, I don’t think Mr. Bush lied, no more than any other politician, anyway.

[elucidator]

Well, gosh, Bill where am I confused? Didn’t say he was certain? Didn’t he say he had no doubt? But what he really meant was “pretty sure”? Sure enough to send a thousand of our best to die? Sure enough to accept the deaths of thousands of Iraqis who wanted no part of us. We don’t even know how many, Bill! Think about that! It might be 13,000, its probably not 100,000, but we have no fucking idea! What does that say about us, Bill? Does it say that maybe we don’t give a rat’s ass who dies, so long as we get our way?

We know, for a fact, that he was shown contradicting evidence, there was ample room for doubt offered. And having the damn things is only part of it, we also have to believe he was about to use them. Got any evidence of that? Then we were supposed to believe that, well, no, he wouldn’t use them himself, but he might give them to Islamic fanatics who hate his guts.

Again, based on nothing.

And here’s the worst of it: if he had been patient, and went through the procedures, while keeping the military threat at hand as pressure…we could be just as assured now without losing a single soldier! Instead, one of the greatest scumbags ever turns out to be telling the truth and we are the reckless and hamfisted cowboys!

Yes, we would have been embarassed. But Saddam would be weakened, and the world would look at us and think “Hey, these Americans…pretty thoughtful and careful bunch. Not at all the crazy bullies those guys say. Maybe we can trust them more than we do?..”

Another wonderful chance pissed away, 'cause some little pipsqueek wants to be a Leader of Men.