Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

How come the phenomena Sebby is describing always helps Republicans but never Democrats?

It does work for Democrats. Just not for Hillary.

The best I can guess about why BS about Hillary did not galvanize the Democratic base is because she was an unexciting candidate. People didn't care and still don't care about untrue hit pieces directed at her. She was corporate, a cipher in many regards... a lot of Democrats didn't even like her.

Nobody cared what happened to her. She was perceived as fake, contrived, and pre-ordained. Nobody's charging the hill (npi) for that kind of operator.

But when Trump did his birther bit about Obama, who was well liked and perceived as a good guy, people were disgusted. Republicans even disavowed that nonsense.

When Schultz was accused of fixing the nomination against Hillary, all sorts of people were disgusted. (Even though it was untrue, as Bernie had fallen short fix or no fix.) Bernie resonated. People felt something about him. And they felt he was wronged.

Trump is certainly not a sympathetic character. But you cannot ignore the guy. Unlike Hillary, who was polished and hid behind perfect soundbites, Trump's horribly, gaudily "real." He demands one look at him, and in so doing, also look at his detractors. And he is so omnipresent, and the stories about his alleged criminality so continual and loaded with heated rhetoric, that this forces people to ask, "Is this guy really as awful as they claim?" When a swing voter goes down that rabbit hole, they see a lot of accusations that haven't borne fruit. This junkyard of overheated claims causes them to conclude that maybe they're being bullshitted a bit about the guy. Again, it's one thing to be Trump and bullshit all day, endlessly and openly. It's another thing to hold yourself out as truth telling media, a truth telling "resistance," and be shown to be bullshitting. I think Trump perversely and undeservedly gets the sort of sympathy Bernie and Obama received. Hillary, OTOH, never connected as human enough to elicit it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Let me dumb this down as much as I can-

there are people who might think, "hmm, this Trump seems to be doing some bad stuff. I think I may vote against him as I am troubled by the bad stuff." But then there is a pile on of only so so bad more stuff, and other bad stuff that someone turns around and says was not true.

At some point the impact of the original bad stuff gets lessened, and maybe the person decides not to vote against Trump. No one is saying a strong dem vote is switching to Trump.

You want to dumb it down even further?

Trump wants to fight about accusations of his alleged criminality. He wants to fight about whether he should be impeached. If your opponent wants to talk about something, do you so allow him to frame the issues? Or do you talk about something else, like say, policy, where you can show him to be a buffoon?

I'll never teach a class in advanced debate or political posturing, but I do know that when the other side wants to discuss an issue - really badly - I should probably take it outside its comfort zone by discussing something else.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Do you honestly think that there is a single person anywhere who legit might have voted for a Democrat for President but who will vote for Trump because Larry O'Donnell ran that story that accused Trump of financial ties with Russians without sufficient basis?

Sebby doesn't think that. He knows that Trump and Republicans will complain that the episode proves that media don't treat conservatives fairly, and they will say that this is good news for them. It's a standard GOP talking point, something you would see if you watched FOX News or MSNBC or CNN long enough. Its function is to feed the conservative sense of grievance, and to try to make the media the subject of conversation rather that Republican candidates. It's not anyone's genuine explanation of how any actual swing voter behaves.

There are a load of votes in the Blue Wall right now thinking, "Biden or Trump?" Trump arguing, "I had your back, and this corrupt media, egged on by the Democrats, is bullshitting you" is a strong argument.

We don't know how swing voters behave. But we know many of them are open to grievance arguments. And campaigning against the media is a winning strategy, particularly in the Blue Wall.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You assume people have read things in detail. There are people who have a passing knowledge that Trump did X and it is bad. Trump of course says "not X," but this person is sort of thinking maybe Trump is lying. Then em sees someone say "Trump did y." A day later he says, "sorry Trump didn't do Y."

Since em did not form a very detailed study of x, that can shake how em feels about Trump.

No, I assume that most people have not read things in detail. They will not notice O'Donnell's story, or the subsequent correction. And if they do notice the correction, it will not have any impact on their views about Trump otherwise, since why would it. Anyone who sorta thinks that Trump is lying is right, because he lies all the time. His supporters understand that, but are OK with it because they think it's triggering the libs. Anyone who sorta thinks that Trump is lying is not going to change their mind about that because it turns out he can also tell the truth once in a while.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If they're aggravated with what they think is a dishonest media, they will doubt Trump is as awful as the media claims. This makes it easier for them to vote for him over Biden.

This is the whole f*cking point. If they're aggravated with what they think is a dishonest media, they are conservative. Period, end of story. They are not swing voters. They are conservatives who like to pretend that they are swing voters, in the same way that FOX News is a conservative operation that pretends it is fair and balanced.

Even the least sophisticated Rust Belt voter understands he's a con man. But that's a devil they know.

Hank, this is what I was saying to you.

When the media is busted - over and over, as it has been - hyperbolizing or shading against Trump, the media looks sneaky. Nobody likes a sneak. And these people in the Rust Belt are huge fans of conspiracy theories. They suspect everything because they've been lied to for decades.

Anyone who buys the basic framing that they are choosing between Trump and the media is not a swing voter. I know you voted for the Libertarian and so you may not have focused on the other options, but "Sneaky Media" is not actually on the ballot.

Stop with this. The horse died months ago. Both sides are in perpetual states of reaction.

Not in the same way. Conservatism is fundamentally about reaction in a way the liberalism is not. You cannot find liberals with bumper stickers about making conservatives cry. Your both-sideism is blind to this.

It's not just O'Donnell....

What you initially said, that I reacted to, was specifically about O'Donnell. If your point now is that that wasn't right, I agree.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It does work for Democrats. Just not for Hillary.

(a) It is not something anyone has ever said about any Democrat.
(b) Even if (a) is not right, since whatever phenomenon you are describing about is specific to particular candidates, it's NOT about how swing voters react. It's about the candidates. Obviously, Trump runs against the media. Obviously, it can work for him. THIS IS NOT BECAUSE THE MEDIA OCCASIONALLY MAKES MISTAKES. Trump would run against the media even if Larry O'Donnell didn't get a story wrong. He calls accurate stories "fake news." If that's what you are talking about, talk about that. But don't pretend that Larry O'Donnell getting the story wrong is making a difference.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There are a load of votes in the Blue Wall right now thinking, "Biden or Trump?" Trump arguing, "I had your back, and this corrupt media, egged on by the Democrats, is bullshitting you" is a strong argument.

We don't know how swing voters behave. But we know many of them are open to grievance arguments. And campaigning against the media is a winning strategy, particularly in the Blue Wall.

(1) If it's a "strong" argument, by which I think you mean that it will be politically useful rather than that you yourself are persuaded by its logic, it will be "strong" whether or not Larry O'Donnell makes that mistake.

(2) That link says all sorts of interesting things, but I don't see that it anywhere says swing voters are open in grievance arguments. People who are animated by grievance are conservatives.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

(1) If it's a "strong" argument, by which I think you mean that it will be politically useful rather than that you yourself are persuaded by its logic, it will be "strong" whether or not Larry O'Donnell makes that mistake.

(2) That link says all sorts of interesting things, but I don't see that it anywhere says swing voters are open in grievance arguments. People who are animated by grievance are conservatives.

Obama won the Blue Wall. Then Trump won the Blue Wall. Obama won PA, then Trump won it.

Unique turnout does not explain it all. Some people - a lot of people - who are neither conservative nor liberal are changing votes from cycle to cycle.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Obama won the Blue Wall. Then Trump won the Blue Wall. Obama won PA, then Trump won it.

Unique turnout does not explain it all. Some people - a lot of people - who are neither conservative nor liberal are changing votes from cycle to cycle.

Sure thing. Not a response to what I was saying, but whatever.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Anyone who sorta thinks that Trump is lying is not going to change their mind about that because it turns out he can also tell the truth once in a while.

I was talking about peeps who think he may be evil but don't have the energy to read a bit- then they get affirmation that not reading is okay cuz it may all be lies.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"Trump's low approval provides a unique challenge for Democrats"

Yes, this is frustrating as fuck, but it keeps people thinking they need to drive to the fucking polls, rain, snow, shine, whatever, then I can live with it.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Hank, this is what I was saying to you.

So to show you're right and I'm wrong you cite........ Sebby as fact?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Politics is zero sum. If you scream about how the President is criminal, get him impeached or indicted. Otherwise, shut up and focus on beating him at the ballot box.

Three years of hand wringing and media about scandals sure to result in indictment or impeachment and what have we got? Tumbleweeds.

Democrats can beat this guy in the election, or they can continue to look like people crying for fouls in a game of street ball. They might even be able to do both. But engaging in the latter makes the former a lot harder.

This is so fucking exhausting. Really.

Three years of handwringing over constant news of complete corruption and numerous fucking scandals, self-dealing, and favoritism to our fucking enemy. Yeah.

Why do we not have impeachment? Because Republicans have destroyed the entire system so that they can reshape government in the image they want.

If you don't think these things are affecting Trump's standing, you are fucking koo koo for Cocoa Puffs. Yes, his base won't budge. But everyone knows he's an idiotic lunatic looking to enrich himself through corruption. And many people who voted for him may not be paying close attention to the intricacies of the Mueller Report, but they know that there's a ton of fucking smoke. They also know he's fucking everything up with this absolutely brain-dead tariff war. I'm not going to mention kids in cages and all the other racist shit.

So stop acting like people need to just focus on beating him at the ballot box (whatever that means). This shit is all related. All of it. Everything he's done is fair fucking game and it's all going to hit him come election time.

Lawrence O'Donnell's little correction is a blip. It will not affect anything. It will not get anyone to think, "Well, now we know all this stuff is made up." Ty is right that the only people repeating that bullshit are you, Hank, and the most idiotic of Trump supporters. And Hank is already voting against him, so everyone else on that list can be fucking ignored.*

TM

*That includes you who will find some reason to throw your vote away in PA and act like it won't mean a thing.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I was talking about peeps who think he may be evil but don't have the energy to read a bit- then they get affirmation that not reading is okay cuz it may all be lies.

You (and obviously Sebby, but what else is new) are overstating this phenomenon to a degree that is patently ridiculous. There has been a wave of shit about Trump's complete bullshit. There has been maybe a scintilla of corrections over accusations of Trump being trash.

Just stop it.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You (and obviously Sebby, but what else is new) are overstating this phenomenon to a degree that is patently ridiculous. There has been a wave of shit about Trump's complete bullshit. There has been maybe a scintilla of corrections over accusations of Trump being trash.

Just stop it.

TM

So the question is who of us know people better? You are always yelling and fighting. I’m sweetness and light. I’d bet on my side.