Skip to main content

View Diary: Mitt Romney stars in new Obama ad: 'Let Detroit go bankrupt' (161 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Fine, then I'll say it nicely: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, Lightsource777

    Think about how this site was after the first debate. There was a strong contingent that felt that Obama had won the first debate; panic settled in after seeing the polls, panic enough to shake even people who were prepared to see a minor slide downwards.

    The fact is that there are few tasks which people do better - rather than worse - under the desperation of panic and despair. They tend to be tasks that are short-term and tactical rather than long-term and strategic.

    Never attribute to malice what is owed to ignorance or honest disagreement.

    by ConfusedSkyes on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 03:02:42 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you for being civil. (0+ / 0-)

      Look, it's not an idea I made up. This is a long-standing political idea that has a basis in both psychology and sociology and there is a reason political campaigns, in a race that everyone knows is going to be tight in the end, get edgy when the narrative develops that their candidate is going to blow their opponent out of the water (which is what was happening pre-debate 1).

      When the race depends on the ground game and motivating your base and your volunteers and just plain street politics (like it does at the Presidential level), most campaigns like to have the narrative be that their candidate is down (rather than blowing away his opponent) and that in order to win it will come down to getting voters to the polls (which it does). The LAST thing the Obama campaign wanted or needed was the idea out there that he was going to mop the floor with Romney so don't worry about it y'all, HE'S GOT THIS (bullshit), so everyone just sit tight, stop donating, stop canvassing, stop working....just relax and watch the polls!

      "Fortunately, I'm adhering to a pretty strict, uh, drug regimen to keep my mind, you know, uh, limber." The Dude

      by Methinks They Lie on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 03:21:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's a debunked idea. (0+ / 0-)

        Like, completely. It needs to be replaced by the narrative of running up the numbers and winning a mandate - advancing the goal to a higher one is more likely to keep people inspired rather than shifting the goalposts.

        Never attribute to malice what is owed to ignorance or honest disagreement.

        by ConfusedSkyes on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 04:25:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And where has it been debunked? (0+ / 0-)

          Perchance?

          Link?

          ;)

          "Fortunately, I'm adhering to a pretty strict, uh, drug regimen to keep my mind, you know, uh, limber." The Dude

          by Methinks They Lie on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 04:26:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Here. (0+ / 0-)

            http://www.kaaj.com/...

            That's from 1998.

            Never attribute to malice what is owed to ignorance or honest disagreement.

            by ConfusedSkyes on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 05:36:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Are you f-ing kidding me? (0+ / 0-)

              Seriously. What is that link? Some dude's blog?

              Talking about 2 miniscule studies from 1998?

              Wow.

              Okay, I don't have much time for this silliness, but I will point out one GLARING overlook here friend: They looked at voter behavior. Notice that? Who was I talking about?

              Clue: Not voters.

              Hint: Volunteers, campaign workers, base politicos....

              You want to be the underdog when it comes to motivating people to WORK for your campaign. Come election day you want to be closer to a tie of course but you NEVER want your base nor the "undecideds" to think that your candidate has it in the bag. This is just common political knowledge we're talking about here. And I haven't even started in on your link...okay well I will now I guess:

              The 1996 campaign illustrates this phenomenon: Immediately following the nomination of Bob Dole as the Republican candidate, almost weekly poll reports showed Bill Clinton leading Bob Dole. Such frequent reports probably helped to consolidate and strengthen Bill Clinton's lead, helped him to overcome occasional negative publicity about his past record, and resulted in his strong showing on Election Eve.
              "Such frequent reports probably helped to consolidate and strengthen Bill Clinton's lead..." Um, no. The use of the term "probably" is an easy target for an argument that there is no science in this "study." Probably? This is a guess. And I can't even get into the methodology of these so-called studies because this dude's blog doesn't present the data nor the methods sections.

              But here's the nugget of truth regarding the 1996 campaign (which I remember vividly, that's how long I've been around this): Bob Dole was a TERRIBLE candidate. Period. There was no "snowball effect" of the polling. The polling favored Clinton because the public liked Clinton and Dole was perceived as likable as a door knob. Sorry.

              Try again.

              "Fortunately, I'm adhering to a pretty strict, uh, drug regimen to keep my mind, you know, uh, limber." The Dude

              by Methinks They Lie on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 07:28:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  ... (0+ / 0-)

                "Some dude" is professor emeritus of psychology at UCLA and this -abstract- is from a peer-reviewed social-psychology journal.

                Never attribute to malice what is owed to ignorance or honest disagreement.

                by ConfusedSkyes on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 07:51:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  By the way, if you're upset that no (0+ / 0-)

                one is treating you respectfully, then make sure you don't immediately commit the same offense yourself, and without looking before leaping, no less.

                Silliness indeed.

                Never attribute to malice what is owed to ignorance or honest disagreement.

                by ConfusedSkyes on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 07:53:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yeah I came at you hard, but I never called you (0+ / 0-)

                  stupid or said your comment was dumb. I criticized your argument (which is based on what?) and the fact that what you used to support your argument was neither relevant nor strong enough to stand up to scrutiny. That's different than what the two commenters I responded to did to me.

                  I apologize for coming back so hard like that. I admit I was a bit over the top.  

                  "Fortunately, I'm adhering to a pretty strict, uh, drug regimen to keep my mind, you know, uh, limber." The Dude

                  by Methinks They Lie on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 09:53:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  You can find some more with any time looking, too. (0+ / 0-)

            But you don't have to; this is one time a little human observation should be sufficient. People fight with desperation over things they think they can control when they are down. Influencing others, which is notoriously complicated, is not often one of those things. Then throw in the fact that confidence is an essential part of spreading a message, and it is hard to be confident when you think you are losing.

            Never attribute to malice what is owed to ignorance or honest disagreement.

            by ConfusedSkyes on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 05:38:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site