Null Hypothesis = Democrats are wrong, Why is that?

Politics & Elections
41

Well said (and I can’t better this as an answer to Ashtura). Not every Trump voter would receive a clinical diagnosis according to the Manual, of course. But every Trump voter is being encouraged to embrace a sociopath-friendly world view–chiefly by FoxNews, as you point out, and by other entities that successfully sell to those who want to believe they are Victims of those Awful Dark People and Awful Elites. Voters who want to believe that if they give deference to Trump then they can do exactly as they please (‘laws are for other people’) are embracing a sociopath-friendly world view.

The politics of resentment is a cash cow, as it turns out. Those people will buy “collectible coins” and survival gear and plastic straws and angry-message t-shirts, all of which have massive profit margins. Those people are astonishingly easy to manipulate.

42

Except, apparently, by Democrats.

43

Well, Democrats aren’t telling them that they are in danger of being killed and robbed by caravans. Democrats aren’t telling them they are the naturally-superior race-and-religion and that all those Other People need to be kept in line. Democrats aren’t telling them that those snooty educated people who look down on them for their ignorance are Bad and Wrong. Democrats aren’t telling them that if they vote correctly, their Magnificent Selves will at least receive the deference and respect they deserve.

So…yeah. Democrats aren’t making much headway with FoxNews viewers.

44

Well, yeah; they’re not saying any of that stuff to make much headway with ‘em; but they’re also not making much headway with ‘em by saying other stuff. You figure that these people are astonishingly easy to manipulate, but I just want to make sure I get your point; the Democrats aren’t making much headway with the folks you think are “astonishingly easy to manipulate”: not with Tactic A — like you said — but also not with any Tactic B or C or whatever, right?

If they’re not just easy to manipulate, but astonishingly easy to manipulate, then shouldn’t there be some tactic that the Democrats could — uh, easily? — put to good use against the Astonishingly-Easy-To-Manipulate crowd?

45

Can I just interject that “easy to manipulate” is not a full workable description of our problem.

A little context…

“Easy to manipulate for authoritarian messaging” might work. Don’t they hate democrats? Dems are not going to engage in the strategies on display on the other side of the aisle.

46

As drad dog intimated “astonishingly easy to manipulate” does not imply “by means that Democrats would be willing to employ.” It implies that means exist to manipulate the FoxNews audience without much effort—it implies nothing about who would be willing to make use of those means.

As it turns out, sellers of gold coins and other ‘collectibles’ that are ‘certain to increase in value’ are quite willing to employ the particular means in question. (‘The Bad People will crash the economy and then you will need these valuable items for barter!’)

The same is true for those pro-authoritarian political hopefuls who seek the votes of the FN viewers: getting those votes is trivially—even astonishingly—easy, once particular scare-tactics are deployed. (‘The Caravans are Coming! They will steal your stuff then kill you, or maybe the other way around! Only a strong man like me can protect you!’)

So, sure: astonishingly easy to manipulate, by particular means that some are willing to utilize–and some are not willing to utilize.

47

Also the right hate liberals. To frame the question of “Why don’t liberals try to manipulate conservatives” without factoring in that hate, and how it gets motivated, is just disingenuous.

48

How bad would things have to get before they’ll be willing, do you think?

49

I’m figure I’m pretty far to the right — conservative on some issues, and downright reactionary on others. But I of course wouldn’t say that I hate liberals, and so I of course wouldn’t say I’m being disingenuous; I’m just being sincere, is all, just like how I have no trouble figuring Sherrerd was being equally sincere in framing the manipulation or lack thereof as a question of willingness.

50

So you aren’t that thing, so there is nothing to see or think about?

It’s not about you anecdotally. The right hates liberals all over the place: in here, on tv, on the internet, in the mouths of politicians. I’m glad you don’t hate liberals but that is statistically insignificant at this point.

One measure of the hate for liberals in our country, that you can see easily, is the whinging and complaining and obvious projecting, by rebuplikans about how the dems supposedly “hate” turnp. Where the hell did that word come from? THe dude has been self impeaching for 3 years. No one fucking hates him. The right hates liberalism and is using that hate to dismantle the government, which is legally enjoined to advance the interest of all americans and not just white ones.

51

Let me just say this: If someone come up to you and repeatedly says “You hate me!!!” out of context, and in non sequitorial fashion, (as you can see in the R behaviors at the hearings) it seems to me that you need to deal with the probability that that person actually hates you. There is no other interpretation of this that is viable and worth investigating.

52

I have seen KILL LIBERALS mudflaps on semi-trucks. I’ve not seen KILL CONSERVATIVES mudflaps. I’ve yet to see HANG GOP TRAITORS bumper stickers. Perhaps my observed sample is biased. But I note that in my conservative rural county, which went over 2/3 for Tramp, nobody flies Tramp banners or posters. Maybe they don’t want to display their [insert characterization here].

53

At the risk of being sealioned I think that “Hang GOP traitors” as a bumper sticker would not be hateful, in todays context. It barely qualifies (and probably doesn’t) as hyperbole.

54

Willing to get votes by pandering to white-supremacism and pro-autocracy leanings and general hate-mongering against The Other? Is that what you mean?

If that is what you mean: the solution for Democrats seeking votes is not to become anti-Democrats; it’s to enforce existing laws that counter vote-suppression, and work to prevent the passing of new laws that suppress voting.

The FoxNews viewers aren’t going to become Democratic voters. No matter how bad things might get, Democrats would concentrate, instead, on getting the other 70% of the population registered and committed to vote.

In addition, Democrats would need to work to expose the Kremlin/GOP messaging that seeks to suppress voting not by legislative means, but by social pressure means—the messaging about voting being something that Cool People Don’t Do and the messaging that seeks to convince black people (for example) that they shouldn’t vote because that just rewards Democrats who are allegedly Using Them. (Of course their refraining from voting actually rewards Republicans.)

So, ‘things getting bad’ wouldn’t impel Democrats toward becoming more Republican-ish, or to court the white nationalists—things getting bad would impel Democrats to try to get a larger proportion of the eligible US population to vote.

55

Well, not necessarily, no; unless that, exclusively, was your point. You said they’re astonishingly easy to manipulate; so, (a) yes, if what you meant was that the above approach is the only way to manipulate them, then, yeah, that’s what I’m asking; but (b) if you meant that there are any other methods that could be used to manipulate ‘em with astonishing ease, then I’m asking about those methods.

Did you only ever have the former in mind, or do you think there’s any other way to manipulate them with — as it were — astonishing ease?

56

You can manipulate them with Astonishing Ease if you are willing to pander to their deplorable views.

What, you were postulating a switch on the back of their necks or something?

57

Er, no; I wasn’t postulating much of anything, really; I was genuinely curious to see what you had in mind; you said they were astonishingly easy to manipulate, and I thought to myself, if that’s true, then why aren’t the Dems doing it? Why not manipulate them, with astonishing ease, into bankrolling candidates and causes? Why not rack up needed votes with astonishing ease? I’m not sure why Sherrerd thinks it’d be astonishingly easy, but I sure do wonder why the Dems aren’t already bothering; when, if ever, will they start?

If the answer is that you think the right can’t be manipulated into doing what the left wants, but only into doing what the right wants, then — well, shucks, I’ve already been accused once in this thread of being disingenuous, which sure did hurt and I sure don’t want to get stung with again; but for the life of me I just don’t see why you’d think that type of astonishing ease was worth mentioning.

58

When you “manipulate” someone to do something it’s based on negative emotions: envy, greed, gluttony, rage, resentment. So yes I agree with you that the republicans are masters at manipulation. But I don’t see any inconsistency in it, if dems can’t or won’t "manipulate " people as the rebuplicans are doing.

You can’t “manipulate” people to be decent and conscientious.

59

Here’s my insignificant take on the whole mess…

I’ve been an Independent my whole life, I lean more towards old school “Traditional Republican” mindset of small government, low taxes, strong DEFENSIVE military (we don’t need to be Team America Fuck Yeah!), the government needs to keep their grubby mitts out of personal decisions between consenting adults (abortion/SSM/legalizing marijuana/etc.)

The one thing I refuse to yield on is the Second Amendment, we should ENFORCE the 20,000+ laws already on the books, punish crimes where a firearm is used extra harshly (throw the book at the perps), and make sure those in need of mental health help get the help they need without being stigmatized (or turned into The Stig, for that matter… :wink: )

However, registering/banning/confiscating/“buy backs” firearms and components will not reduce gun crime and only serve to criminalize law abiding citizens, making firearm ownership more difficult for law abiding citizens will not reduce crime, because criminals don’t obey the law in the first place.

Background checks already exist, the “gun show loophole” is actually a ban on private sales person to person (a hornets nest on its own, so I won’t clutter this thread with further irrelevancies)

What would a Democratic candidate need to do to gain my voice? Simple…

Simply abandon their anti 2A/ anti gun platform, and enforce the existing laws already on the books, and I’d cast my vote for a Democratic candidate, after all, I did for Obama’s first term…

Thanks to Francis’s “Hell yes” comment though, good luck convincing any 2A supporters that they aren’t looking to confiscate legally owned property, the Democratic Party is going to have to do some major damage control to rebound from that faux pas, or risk losing the votes of both (D) and (R) firearm owners

Trump isn’t an option at all, and he’s also no friend to the 2A either, problem is, he’s pulled the wool over many staid republicans that think that (R) automatically means “2A freindly”…

It doesn’t.

Lose your anti 2A stance, back off on the “ hell yes” “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in” crap, actually mean it and you have my vote.

That’s the only thing holding me back from voting (D)

60

That seems like a silly place to draw the line. Say a guy votes for Democrats, and donates money to them, and so on, but never the Republicans; how am I to reply to someone else, who says that said voter is astonishingly easy to manipulate? Sure, he readily grants that Republicans can’t actually manipulate him into doing a damn thing; he just clarifies that it’s the Democrats who can and do manipulate that guy with ease. “With astonishing ease,” he slowly and patiently explains.

To me, that claim is as pointless as the other one: of course people get talked into supporting the side they support ‘with ease’, and don’t get talked into doing the reverse ‘with ease’. Is that interesting? Am I missing something?