Democrats conceding election?

[conus]

That's what it seems like. This nice guy, high road, turn-the-other-cheek strategy is obviously not working. In the Gallup poll, for the first time since 1972, a party lost ground immediately following their convention. What are they thinking? Do the Democrats really believe that the average American citizen is capable of critical thought? Did they learn nothing from P.T. Barnum, the telemarketing industry and infomercials? Sound bites and negativity really do work. I once had a Lab/Golden Retriever who made more calculated decisions than the average American. Despite Kerry's claim to the contrary during his speech, repetition really does make a lie the truth. And they wouldn't even have to lie. There are so many areas in which to attack Bush's character-- crooked business dealings throughout his life, alcoholism, hard drug abuse, spousal abuse, a brother who wasn't even prosecuted at a time when loan officers across America were going to prison for lesser crimes. I guess it just depends of how much you really want it.

[El Blanco]

Its marketing. You won't sell a car by telling people how much the other one sucks.

Show me what your car does and then have a side-by-side comparison.

And what the fuck have you done that makes you feel justified in calling the majority of Americans suckers?

[conus]

Its marketing. You won't sell a car by telling people how much the other one sucks.

That's not true. There are many examples to the contrary, but I'll just give one very notable one. A large majority of my parents' generation still believe that Chiang Kai Chek was a great man who strove toward democracy for the Chinese people. Almost nothing could be further from the truth. He was interested in Democracy only to the extent that it facilitated criminal enterprise for himself and his associates. If you check with Scotland Yard you'll find out that he was, for most of his adult life, involved with organized crime and worked directly for Tu-Yuehsen, the head of the Green Gang. In the 1920s Scotland Yard was unable to prosecute Chiang Kai Chek for contract murder because their witnesses kept disapearing. In the fifties Chiang Kai Chek's inlaws, the Sung family, spent hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars on public relations firms in a sort of pre-emptive strike, just in case too many people found out where the bulk of 3 billion in lend-lease money actually went. Their strategy wasn't so much to promote Chiang Kai Chek, since there wasn't much there to promote. Rather, they attacked his opponents and it worked. Mao's enemy was somehow transformed into a saint by the American public.

[El Blanco]

Because he and his backers made him out to be a chamion of democracy. Everything I have ever read or seen about him has pictures of him being an average upper-middle class guy. Playing tennis, hanging with friends etc etc.

Yes, they did make Mao look bad, but it wasn't the first thing they hit you with.

[conus]

Everything I have ever read or seen about him has pictures of him being an average upper-middle class guy. Playing tennis, hanging with friends etc etc.

Of course. They couldn't very well show him executing a rival pimp in 1922 Shanghai, any more than the RNC would release a photo of a red-eyed Bush snorting a line of cocaine after slapping his wife around. Neither group of handlers could honestly dwell on
history. They had to divert attention from the truth.

[El Blanco]

Ya, that was my point. They are putting their people i na positive light rather than just piling on the bad info about rivals.

You think the Democrats current strategy is bad? Have you seen voter turnout the last few decades? Ronald Reagan has had the only significant increase for a long time. The common theory is because he focused on a more positive campaign rather than just burying Carter and Mondale.

[conus]

And in the 88 election negative campaigning worked, and they did it by appealing to the to the basest prejudices of the morons who bought it. "If you vote for me, I won't allow negroes to fuck your wife," is essentially what they said. It worked and the situation is worse now. Reading habits and literacy have declined significantly in just the last twenty years. Tricks that might have been suspect in 1980 work like a charm today. But in this case the Democrats don't have to lie or appeal to baser instincts. All they have to do is tell the truth about George W. Bush.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The polling issue is terribly overstated.

First of all, the GOP were the first ones to release warnings about Kerry's bounce after the convention. They had it marked at up to a 15% bounce, which is absurd. It was a ploy. They knew Kerry wouldn't have a massive bounce (NOTE: What numbers are you looking at that have him going backwards?), and once the convention was over, they could go "Now see! The country is strong in her resolve, and supports the president." Bleh.

Secondly, unlike any election over the last 20 years or so, the electorate has predominantly made up its mind. The pool of undecideds that we're talking about is around 10% or 11%. The country is very polarized, so where would this massive bounce come from???

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by conus

And in the 88 election negative campaigning worked, and they did it by appealing to the to the basest prejudices of the morons who bought it. "If you vote for me, I won't allow negroes to fuck your wife," is essentially what they said.

Uh, don't suppose you have those ads on file, do you?

I remember the Reps stressing the penbal system of Mass under Dukakis and things like that, but the whole wife fucked by negroes thing must have escaped my attention.

It worked and the situation is worse now.

Ya, it worked so well that voter turnout has been declining ever since.

Reading habits and literacy have declined significantly in just the last twenty years. Tricks that might have been suspect in 1980 work like a charm today. But in this case the Democrats don't have to lie or appeal to baser instincts. All they have to do is tell the truth about George W. Bush.

2000 election: 2 moderate candidates who just played middle of the road and tried not to stir waters. The campaigns were just attacking the personalities of each other. What was the result? 40% voter turnout.

Look at commercial advertisers. They will tell you why you should buy their product and might mention their competitor's short comings in a head to head comparison.

And people seem to be a lot more eager to spend money than to vote.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

You think the Democrats current strategy is bad? Have you seen voter turnout the last few decades? Ronald Reagan has had the only significant increase for a long time. The common theory is because he focused on a more positive campaign rather than just burying Carter and Mondale.

Actually, the overall two-party turnout was higher in 1976 than in 80, which had a (unfortunately) traditionally low turnout. You're right about 1984, though. Reagan pulled in about 58% of the vote, which is (again, unfortunate) high for us.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

To reinforce my point on the post-convention polling:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ll-kerry_x.htm

"Analysts say the lack of a bounce may reflect the intensely polarized contest. Nearly nine of 10 voters say their minds are made up and won't change. "The convention, typically a kicking-off point for a party, is now merely a reaffirmation" of where voters stand, said David Moore, senior editor of the Gallup Poll."

Another thing worth noting-- One signifigant difference between conventions before and after 1972 is the actual importance of the convention. Leading up to 1972, prior to the McGovern-Fraser electoral reform committee, the conventions actually had an impact. Delegates decided candidates, runningmates, and it gave people who watched a feeling of participation.

Now, in the era of front-loaded primaries, the conventions are meaningless. Hell, the networks didn't even carry most of the DNC. The assumption made of the "bounce" is that people who were undecided watch, fall in love, and then voice their feelings on the matter. Now, we knew John Kerry was the "presumptive candidate" in March. The electorate is polarized, pissed, and ready to roll. That, IMO, explains the lack of bumpage. :/

[conus]

According to this they dropped a couple of points.

http://www.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=12565

Uh, don't suppose you have those ads on file, do you?

I remember the Reps stressing the penbal system of Mass under Dukakis and things like that, but the whole wife fucked by negroes thing must have escaped my attention.

A little hyperbole on my part, but did you not see the mugshot? The racist messagge was as clear as crystal. Do you honestly believe that Republican campaign strategists are not accutely aware that a healthy percentage of their base judge people based on skin color and ethnicity?

[El Blanco]

Was that the mughot of a criminal who was released from a Massachuesettes state prison and went on to commit more violent crime?

I know its easy to pin the race card on the Republicans, but it just doesn't work there, no matter how much a certain mockumentarian wants us to believe so.

[conus]

I know its easy to pin the race card on the Republicans, but it just doesn't work there, no matter how much a certain mockumentarian wants us to believe so.

Sure it does. I live in Orange County, California, a place noted for its upscale young Republicans. They're kind of like Lestor Maddox with a good haircut.

Since my skin is white it's easy to have fun with them by pretending to be radically right. You wouldn't believe how easy it is to bait them into making a blatantly racist statement. Sometimes it takes a while, but it's always worth the effort once I drop the charade and see their facial expressions when I strip the chic, fashionably naughty aspects from their statement. For them it must be a horrifying thing to be equated with the poor and ignorant.

[El Blanco]

What do a bunch of snotty, over privaledged kids have to do with an advertisement that ran in 1988? And I bet you feel so superior whenever you trick them.

[conus]

No, I'm not intrinsically superior to them or anyone else, which is kind of the point. But you're right, it's probably not a mature thing to do. It's just that I can't resist the temptation to negatively affect the quality of their lives, even in such a small way. They deserve that.

Regarding 1988, I agree with the Republican strategists and don't believe they're wrong in their assessment of their base. I've been white for a long time, and you don't have to be particularly perceptive to see the racism underlying so many code issues. I believe that a lot of these people couldn't give less of a damn about the few welfare dollars that are spent. They perceive it as being a black problem and that angers them, in the same way that they were infuriated about O.J. Simpson, who killed two people, but didn't seem to care one way or the other about John Godi's acquittals.

But racism isn't the only weapon available and, IMHO, the Democrats should use similar tactics. Why not accuse him of being a deserter, coward, cheat, thief, alcoholic, drug addicted wife beater. Most of it is true. Why not use it?

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by conus

No, I'm not intrinsically superior to them or anyone else, which is kind of the point. But you're right, it's probably not a mature thing to do. It's just that I can't resist the temptation to negatively affect the quality of their lives, even in such a small way. They deserve that.

And I'm so glad you were given the authority to do so, what with your years of experience over them.

Regarding 1988, I agree with the Republican strategists and don't believe they're wrong in their assessment of their base. I've been white for a long time, and you don't have to be particularly perceptive to see the racism underlying so many code issues.

Ya, you got it. Its all just one big conspiracy.

I believe that a lot of these people couldn't give less of a damn about the few welfare dollars that are spent. They perceive it as being a black problem and that angers them,

Ah, I see General I Zation is making a sweeping movement across the front.

Too bad he doesn't realize that welfare supports more white people.

in the same way that they were infuriated about O.J. Simpson, who killed two people,

Ya, just look at the rioting that happened after the aquittal. Seriously, the left has made a bigger stink over that than the right.

but didn't seem to care one way or the other about John Godi's acquittals.

You're right, other than the people screaming for his head and the government (that instrument of evil white supremecy and the heirs to naziism) going after him full blast over and over.

But racism isn't the only weapon available and, IMHO, the Democrats should use similar tactics.

Oh, don't worry, there is plenty of racism amongst the Democrats.

Why not accuse him of being a deserter, coward, cheat, thief, alcoholic, drug addicted wife beater. Most of it is true. Why not use it?

You missed the whole conversation, didn't you?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I see this is obviously an A/B conversation.

[mburbank]

Yer friggin 'A'.

Kev, your point about Bounce being a non-issue in a critically polarized electorate is well taken.

That being said, I think the high road approach was last taken by Michael Dukakis to absolutely dismal effect. I think it can only work when combined with a Clinton style rapid response team, that answers attacks moments after they're made.

The problem is, as aptly noted in this months Harpers, there are many, many things Democrats are afraid to attack the Republicans over becuase they do the exact same thing, just a little less so.

What Kerry has to realize, something Karl Rove realized last time around to his great davantage, is that once the nomination is in, the party has NO CHOICE but to back to the candidate. Kerry is free to attack things Dems do, are doing, want to continue doing (ie sucking corporate teat) even as he does it!

My main concern recently has been about e-voting. If this election is close (and it's bound to be) the aparent loser (D or R) will have credible grounds to contest the results. Accurate recounts will be all but impossible, legal contests could spin out in ways that would make Florida 2000 look like a polite disagreement between gentlemen.

If the Supreme Court has to step in again Democracy in America will have been dealt a body blow it may be hard to recover from.

[Preechr]

Absolutely 100% agreed.

I have yet to figure out why someone that can't manage to work a pencil effectively, or double-check their chads for that matter, deserves a vote.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

And what's with all of these darkies voting....?

[El Blanco]

Didn't we have a discussion a little while ago about how blacks don't vote?

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

And what's with all of these darkies voting....?

AND THE CONVICTED FELONS!!

AND THE DEAD PEOPLE!!11

(actually, I was referring more to the ancient Florida retirees that thought they were voting for Kennedy... I didn't think any black people were allowed to vote in Florida... whatever.)