Skip to main content

View Diary: “Why Voters Tune Out Democrats,” by Pollster Stanley Greenberg in Sunday’s NYT (213 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You have committed a classic logical fallacy. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gulfgal98, Dallasdoc

    Just because Bad Policy can be Good Politics doesn't mean Good Policy isn't Good Politics.

     C => B is not a contradiction of A=> B

     C<=>B is the contradiction of A => B

    If you don't know what I'm talking about, then you don't know what you're talking about.

    While I don't hold Obama in high esteem, that doesn't mean I would say he's the Devil Incarnate and the lessor of evils. He is merely the lessee of evils.

    by xynz on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 06:15:53 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Nope. Ur symbolic logic theory is meaningless (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      in practice.  It assumes things about voter behavior which scientific studies prove are not true.  Just like the folks who bring out a 'better keyboard' keep losing to Querty.  'Cause its not about policy for most voters.  If it was, Kerry would have been President.

      See, policy doesn't matter.  Results matter.  Hoover coulda danced naked under the moon, and woulda won if the Depression ended in 1930.  Now, it is a fact that his policy was not going to solve the Depression.  But, its the result of the continuing Depression that mattered.  Voters didn't choose Keynesianism, they chose FRD, who did not campaign as a keynesian but on a promise to balance the budget.

      Now, the one thing that has changed in modern politics is that, unless the results are undeniable and clear, i.e., the collapse in September '08, the marketers make the results.  Which means they make the winners. Read Rothburg's article: even when Ds governing in fact improved the lifes of real voters, they still preferred the Thug lies.  IOW, not only did policy not matter, actual results didn't either.

      That's empirical proof.  All your pretty symbolic logic don;t mean squat when the evidence refutes it.

      •  Don't move the goal posts. (0+ / 0-)

        You're the one who said good policies can't be good politics.

        As far as the reality of selling bad policies are concerned: yes, they are the result of effective propaganda and Machiavellian politics.

        But just because Goebbels and Machiavelli are effective, doesn't mean good policies can't defeat them.

        While I don't hold Obama in high esteem, that doesn't mean I would say he's the Devil Incarnate and the lessor of evils. He is merely the lessee of evils.

        by xynz on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:56:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I never said it can't be. I just refuse your (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          IMO pollyannish statement that "Good policy is good politics".

          I said: "The public doesn't care about policy, cause they don;t know policy from propaganda."

          Nothing I said in my next comment moved any 'goal posts'.

          I said the public doesn't care and doesn't know policy from propaganda.  I then said,  they do know results, sometimes.  But they still don't know how those results were got, i.e. the policy instead of the propaganda.  And most don't even care.  They just accept the lazy lie repeated ad infinitum.  

          E.g., the idea that tax cuts are better than spending for economic growth or that raising taxes 'kills jobs'.  Neither is true.  Both are scientifically and objectively provably false, except in the rarest of special cases.  Yet, voters believe them.  Not just some voters, or only Thug voters, but majorities of all voters.  Why?  B/c Faux, CNBC, talk radio et frakking cetra spew that propaganda ad naseum.

          That's the takeaway from Rothenburg's article.

          So, from what proof I've seen (and you didn't provide any contra) your symbolic logic construct remains meaningless in the real world.

          (Excuse my twice mistyping his name.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site