| Democrats are wrong! Republicans are wrong! Now support me! |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 03.28.04 (3:25 pm) Good luck. I am (for the most part) a democratic, and I have been saying for years that I wish just one of our guys would step up to the plate and tell me why I SHOULD vote for him and NOT for the other guy. So far ... no takers. :( posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 03.28.04 (3:34 pm) Reply to: juniperflux Isn't it frustrating? If you visit the Dem's website, the only explanation of their take on the issues is a contrast with the Republican's- actually, no, more of a criticism of how the Republican ideas are wrong. And it's the same with the Republican site- little explanation, just attacks and criticism on the opposition. I think I'm going to become a campaign manager so I can change this. ;) posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 03.28.04 (5:28 pm) There's a basic problem with your proposal. People don't vote based on issues. They vote based on personality and whether a person seems "presidential." This phenomenon is well known. During the last election, polls showed that on most issues, most voters agreed with Gore. But many of these voters voted for Bush. They all had some vague answers even though the pollsters first determined that Gore is more aligned with them based on their own responses to questions. But Bush seemed warmer to them. So if the Republicans know starting off that they cannot win based on issues, they must either mislead people about what the Democrats will do (They will raise your taxes!) or mislead the voters about what the Republicans will do (We will lower your taxes!) and they know full well that when some think tank does an independent analysis on how it actually affects the typical voter, the typical voter won't even hear it. So if the Democrats can't win on the issues even if they are in line with most voters, then they must either engage in damage control, which tends not to work, or they must tear down the other side, which actually can help. Bush ran on a platform of being an outsider, and being a uniter who can work well with both sides of the aisle. He no longer has any of that going for him. But going back to the issues will not get Kerry elected because Bush started the attacks early on. Kerry will attack Bush to show that Bush's policies did not work. Saying what his policies are won't get him elected even if most people agree with them. "Yes I like what he is saying, and agree with what he wants to do, but will he make a good leader?" posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 03.28.04 (7:18 pm) Reply to: mblog You don't think part of demonstrating the ability to be a good leader lies in being capable of adequately explaining your ideas and positions on issues? I would think that more people would support a candidate whose strategy relied more on effectively imparting their own view over constant criticism of the other view. I think, for example, it would benefit Bush more if he simply explained his actions rather than having those who oppose his actions criticized. That's not to say that there is no room for the sort of campaigning that focuses on pointing out the downfalls of your opponent's views, just that we would all benefit from more of a focus on explanations rather than criticisms. As juniperflux pointed out, if you ask a Democrat why you should vote for him, he will likely only attack his opponent and explain why you should vote against the Republican. But I guess that is the typical rationale when it comes to voting- rather than voting for a particular candidate, you vote against the other(s). posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 03.29.04 (10:02 am) Reply to: DragonBait22 But it's not what you think that counts. That is relevant for one vote. Personally, I vote based on the issues. But for those who vote based on issues, there is no contest. The Republicans and Democrats are far enough apart that it's not likely that either party will convince folks who follow issues closely to change sides. So it boils down to the undecided. They are not going by issues anyway. So it does matter what the press says and how it translates. I've seen far too many 90 minute speeches on C/SPAN that get cut down to 25 seconds or less on the evening news. Candidates know this. But it's naive to say that they are not talking about the issues. They spend a lot of time talking about them, but few get to hear about it, or don't go looking for what the candidates are saying because Cartoon Network is more compelling for them. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 03.29.04 (10:37 am) Reply to: mblog You make some good points- especially about 90 minute speeches being turned into nothing but a sound byte. And I wasn't saying the candidates don't talk about the issues, I just think most focus on the wrong things when discussing the issues. To simply state where you stand on the issues does little good; few explain why and how their view is better (rather than not worse) and the way their policies can be implemented to work. I've never seen any sort of political speech, included wimpy local politics, in which anger towards the opposition didn't dominate. That's fine so long as the message itself isn't lost in the anger, but a great deal of the time it is. It is just my opinion, but I've had much more success convincing others of my ideas by explaining how they work and how they are good, rather than just saying the other ideas are bad. That sort of rhetoric isn't likely to change anyone's mind or sway undecideds to your side. This post was actually directed at several who post on politics here on tblog because I get tired of reading the same thing over and over- one side attacking the other, and the attacked getting defensive in their retaliation rather than simply explaining their side. Oh well, I'm going to go watch some Cartoon Network. ;) posted by: brogonzo (reply) post date: 03.31.04 (12:12 am) Reply to: DragonBait22 I'm thinking I might be one of the bloggers indicted by your post. I would like to say, for the record, that I really do try to back what I say up with researchable facts. Yes? posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 03.31.04 (10:35 am) Reply to: brogonzo No, you weren't a target here. Though I rarely agree with your political views, I do think you do a good job of presenting them and I haven't noticed you reverting to attack mode rather than providing facts. You also seem to actually pay attention to comments you get in dissent and instead of just shouting down anyone with opposing views you discuss the topic at hand, rationally. Yours is one of the few political blogs I actually enjoy reading anymore. |
|