Elusive Trope's picture

    The Purple and Ambivalent Voter

    By Elusive Trope on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 1:07am |

    This started out as a response to a blog about how Democrats should campaign in a purple district or state.  As one might expect, the general consensus is Dems need to focus on jobs (and its companion the economy). 

    A significant key for the discussion which I don’t think is adequately addressed is that we are dealing with a purple region of the country, whether district or state.  We can get into whole debate about what makes such a region purple, but I will use the 30-40-30* explanation.  By this I mean that 30% of the population will vote Republican pretty much no matter what and 30% will vote Democrat come hell or high water for the most part.  This leaves us the middle 40.

    (*These numbers are arbitrary.  I could have easily chosen 40-20-40 or 37-28-35, but I’m just keeping things simple.)

    It would be a mistake I believe to look at the 30-40-30 through the conservative, moderate and liberal prism.  In other words, the two “30”s do not represent conservatives and liberals, nor does the “40” represent the moderates who trying to decide between the Republican or the Democrat.  In either of the “30”s there are plenty of moderates, and even the seemingly contradiction folks – the liberal Republican and conservative Democrat.

    The “40” is composed of (self-identified) conservatives, moderates and liberals, although one would find I believe that the moderates are the dominant group.  What separates the people in the “40” from those in “30”s is their ambivalence on a number of issues when viewed through the standard Republican and Democrat frameworks.  In other words, these voters just as likely (more or less) to resonate with the talking points of either side, or inversely just as likely be repelled by those talking points.

    The term “ambivalent voter” comes from a blog by Andrew Levison posted at The Democratic Strategist:  TDS Strategy Memo: Why can't the Dems make jobs a winning political issue? It seems like it should be a "slam dunk" but it's not. Here's why.

    I think this article explains incredibly well the challenge the issue of jobs, the economy, and government’s role confronting Democrats in the purple region.  The article’s opening sums up the position of many on the left when it comes to Democrats and this issue:

    One of the most exasperating Democratic failures of the last two years has been the Dems inability to turn high unemployment into a winning political issue. To many progressive Democrats the failure seems literally incomprehensible. After all, millions of Americans are deeply and painfully affected by job losses and opinion polls show with absolute consistency that voters strongly accord "creating jobs" a higher priority than deficit reduction. This holds true across an extraordinarily wide variety of different polls and question wordings.

    Given these two facts, many progressives conclude that the only plausible explanation for the Dems failure is their timidity and fear of challenging conservative myths with sufficient boldness. Had Democratic candidates and officeholders displayed sufficient passion and commitment on this issue -- and championed genuinely aggressive action to create jobs -- many progressives and grass-roots Dems argue that they would surely have been able to mobilize the huge latent well of support that the opinion data shows must exist within the electorate.

    I will skip over the description as to why the opinion poll data is less clear-cut than it appears when it shows good support for job creation and cut to the chase:  

    To understand why Democrats find themselves unable to refute the conservative objections and win widespread public support for aggressive job creation efforts, it is necessary to look beyond the individual opinions that are expressed on surveys and examine the larger conceptual frameworks into which individual opinions are organized. The opinions that individuals express on opinion polls are not stored in hundreds of separate little mental cubbyholes from which they are retrieved when needed but are rather organized into larger "knowledge structures" - various kinds of cognitive schemas, narratives, media frames and mental models that create a mental "picture" or "story" that explains a complex reality like the economy. When people are asked a question on an opinion survey, they refer back to the larger mental framework and either locate a particular opinion that is held somewhere within it or use the framework as the basis for essentially "deducing" or "computing" an opinion.

    When it comes to jobs, lowering the deficit, and the role of the government, their are two basic competing frameworks or narratives. Levison provides outlines of the Democratic and Republican narratives. starting first with the basic Democratic stump speech:

    1. America has a basic moral obligation and moral commitment to maintain high employment - an obligation first codified in The Employment Act of 1946. It is this commitment that undergirded America's prosperity since the Second World War.

    2. The great depression demonstrated that reliance on the free market is not sufficient - government must play a central role in insuring jobs, growth and prosperity.

    3. Full employment benefits everyone -- both business and workers -- while unemployment not only harms individual workers but impoverishes society as a whole. Government spending during recessions increases consumer purchasing power and produces new sales opportunities for business, which leads to new hiring, greater revenues and increased profits.

    4. There is therefore no excuse for inaction. All that is required is to set aside outmoded conservative myths that modern economics exploded many years ago.

    ….In "red-state" America there is an alternative narrative that goes as follows:

    1. Only the private sector can create real jobs - government just shifts resources from the private to the public sector.

    2. Business is always ready and willing to create new jobs. The only thing that prevents business from hiring more workers is the multitude of impediments imposed by government. Serious policies to create jobs are therefore measures that lower business taxes, remove regulations and eliminate all other government imposed constraints on the private sector.

    3. "Creating" jobs through government action, on the other hand, only creates a new kind of artificial welfare program. The belief that government can "stimulate" the economy is an illusion that is easily refuted by daily observation and good, old fashioned "common sense."

    4. The only way to create jobs is to step back and let the free market work. There is no other alternative.

    In the 30-40-30 perspective, we have one “30” embracing the first narrative and the other “30” standing firm with the second narrative.  As Levison puts it:

    The defining characteristic of their perspective is an "all or nothing" view of the opposing narrative. The opposing perspective is totally wrong and all those who accept it are simply deluded.

    The “40” meanwhile aren’t so sure.

    The second major group is the "ambivalent" voters who are not fully convinced by either of the two narratives. They have "not completely made up their minds," or "see some truth on both sides," This group represents a smaller segment of the electorate than the two base groups but they are of critical political importance because they are the most persuadable "swing" voters who can be won by either side.

    I would suggest that in some purple states and especially districts, this ambivalent voter makes up the largest of the three groups (hence why I chose 40 to represent this group).  Even if they are smaller than the other two, in those purple regions they are necessary to win in order for either the Republican or the Democrat to achieve 50% plus one.

    Levison provides two explanations as to how the ambivalent voter makes their political choices between the two conflicting narratives.  The first is the “either one complete narrative or the other.”  In this view, the voter adopts one narrative as true, then switches (or flip-flops) to the other view.  In a sense, it would say that these ambivalent voters are one moment a member in one “30” group, and then for some reason (a stump speech by the president, some PAC funded commercial, spending the night talking politics over beers with a particularly persuasive friend), the individual is in the other “30” group.  As one might infer, I don’t think this explains the majority of ambivalent voters.  Neither does Levison:

    The alternative understanding of how "ambivalent" voters make political choices between two conflicting narratives….there are also "open-minded" individuals who examine and compare opposing narratives using an "on the one hand, but on the other hand" mode of thought and who apply "common sense" to reach conclusions.

    Most do not radically switch their position from one day to another - in the way that Newt Gingrich completely flip-flopped over the Ryan plan, for example - but rather gradually modify the balance of positive and negative features they recognize in two alternative perspectives. Equally, at any specific moment ambivalent people generally do not rigidly insist on the absolute correctness of one of two opposing narratives but rather offer an "on the one hand, on the other hand" balancing of the two opposing perspectives.

    For the Dem in the purple districts and states, his first three of four “important practical implications for Democratic strategy” derived from seeing the ambivalent voter through this second perspective are critical for success in my opinion.

    • First, simply repeating the traditional Democratic narrative -- regardless of how frequently or emphatically --- will not produce significant attitude change….

    • Second, doubts about the ability of government to create jobs reflect not only a disbelief in Keynesian remedies for unemployment but also the profound doubts many Americans have about government in general….

    • Third, attempts to convince the critical group of ambivalent voters have to be based on those voters' distinct way of thinking about political issues - the desire to find a "common sense" middle ground. Attempts to persuade them that the Democratic view is completely right and the Republican view completely wrong are unlikely to be effective because such attempts run against the grain of their mode of thinking. The most effective strategy will be to present facts that weaken the plausibility of the conservative view and to argue that the Dem position is actually closer to a common sense middle ground than the more extreme Republican view.

    One other significant take away from this perspective is the weakness of jobs and all of the connected issues as being a wedge issue in the purple region.  The wedge is going to work on the people within the two "30"s.  One way to think about it is that people in the "40," our wondrous purple and ambivalent voter is in the "40" because they are internally wedged.  Taking a wedge issue approach will only serve in most cases to enhance the sense of ambivalence.

    The goal then for the Democrat candidate in the purple district or state is walk that tightrope of respecting both narratives, while, emphasizing one particular narrative over the other. 

    Comments

    Trope, I think that it's very important to think hard about what makes people believe one story over another, and I don't think that Levinson does it. This line seems to be the core of his message:

    The most effective strategy will be to present facts that weaken the plausibility of the conservative view and to argue that the Dem position is actually closer to a common sense middle ground than the more extreme Republican view.

    Well, duh. The trouble is convincing people that your "facts" and the way that you interpret them are more plausible than their "facts," which brings us right back to the question of communicating a compelling narrative.

    But how do you tell a story that is closer to a "common sense middle ground"? First, I'm not even sure what that means or how it is any different from simply telling a compelling narrative. Second, shouldn't we look at examples of effective stories and storytellers? Did FDR, who obviously succeeded in persuading many of those ambivalent voters, disseminate a "common sense middle ground." Did JFK? Did Reagan?


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 9:03am

    And perhaps the storytelling of Lincoln. Although Lincoln used much of his storytelling in the context of his cabinet and close circle. Well documented in a first edition 1880's book of remembrances by people who knew him and which I can't put my hands on at the moment.

    Gets right back to messaging.


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 10:15am

    Will Rodgers could deliver a short message.

    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/will_rogers.html

     


    by Resistance on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 10:28am

    Exactly what Obama needs to do. His recent statement that it's o.k. to call health care "obamacare" because he does in fact "care" was ineffectual at best. Not Rogers, but a story.

    "Now have you heard about "Obamacare"? It's the tea party's label for our health care plan. But it's like my Dog, Bo. He doesn't care what the label on the can is. He cares about what's in the can. Dinner time is not a tea party with him. He wants meat and potatoes. I'm the same way. I don't care what the tea party calls my health care plan. I call it covering all children and eliminating pre-existing conditions. I call it allowing children to stay on their parents plan until they are 26, I call it meat and potatoes for the American family.

    Rough draft.  


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 11:45am

    Nice. I think you ought to volunteer your services.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 11:56am

    Thanks. When they call me for a contribution I'll offer "in kind" services instead.


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 12:43pm

    to call health care "obamacare" because he does in fact "care"

    FACT OR FICTION

    It's better than cat food;, but then again the Cat Food Commission WAS Obama's plan; wasn't it?   

    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/11/10-10

    Obama Cares? Who would have thought


    by Resistance on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 1:37pm

    This is basically on the right track.

    If memory serves, though, Obama did focus on the benefits of the plan, plenty.

    The communications problem was that the plan has too many moving parts for people to hold on to it as "one thing."

    In advertising, we say a letter has to be about "one thing," and you have to keep coming back to that one thing. It can have a lot of supporting parts, but they have to support the one thing.

    Ideally, the one thing is both new and old, or new and familiar and familiar in a good way. This allows you to reassure and surprise and put some excitement into your proposition. So it can't be same old...but it also can't be so new that it seems from outer space. The familiarity factor makes it easy for people to "get" what it is and hold on to. The new makes it exciting and worth trying.

    Obamacare stuck because it was "one thing" people could hold on to. No one knows the actual name of the bill and no one can tell you what's in it, even if they've been told many times. Even if they like the plan.

    So Jason's name AmeriCare would have been excellent. Easy to hold onto, patriotic in feel. A positive and reasssuring feeling. The guts of it should have been Medicare for All. Again, easy to hold on to, familiar in a positive way, and yet new, because the program would no longer be just for oldsters.

    And by bringing in a lot of new, young, and healthy people, it could easily have been sold as a way to shore up Medicare's finances. A win-win. No mandate; maybe a small extra tax to cover it.

    You no longer have to worry about your insurance. You can leave your job if you hate it and not worry you won't be covered. Forget about pre-existing conditions, because Medicare is designed to handle pre-existing conditions. Providers are still private, so it isn't government-run health care.

    Of course, the opposition would have attacked it as government-run health care. BUT, in this case, we'd have had an easily understood program with many decades of goodwill to blunt the attacks. Everyone's known someone on Medicare, so they couldn't have demagogued based on the great unknown. And it's well-liked, so they would've had to turn around people's feelings that have been built up over decades of very positive and personal interaction with the program.

    With Obamacare, there was no reservoir of good feelings and experience to help us. And the LAST thing people want when it comes to their health is the uncertainty of the unknown. As crummy as our current system is for some people, at least we know it, and that's made it a better alternative.


    by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 6:53pm

    I like it.

    Is it too late to use this idea?


    by Resistance on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 8:38pm

    Hope not, but probably so, for Obama.

    At any rate, he has to be about jobs now.

    Even if he wins and the economy recovers, the most he could do (maybe) is add a PO to the mix.

    He thought he was doing the right thing by offering a "middle ground" proposal, but all he got was everyone hating it--sort of as with his presidency, I'm afraid.

    People don't really want "compromise," they want the "right thing" and someone to show them why it's the right thing.


    by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 11:17am

    But how do you tell a story that is closer to a "common sense middle ground"?

    My understanding for what it is worth is that if one is targeting this group, not to engage the other side, not to present one's narrative as the alternative.  We get so used to down and dirty politics, the need to destroy the opponent, that it seems like crazy talk to suggest that a politician actually acknowledge that some of what his or her opponent is saying has merit.

    A key point here is that these particular voters do not believe one story or narrative over another.  Instead they hold both of them, at times or in certain circumstances leaning towards one or another.  Another time or circumstance and they could just easily lean the other way.  

    I believe they are making the case, especially within the timeframe of the next election, there is no politician that is going to get them to fully embrace one of these stories and discard the other.  Expending one's energy attempting to do so is wasted energy for the most part.  In fact it is as likely to repel them as it is to attract them.

    It is more difficult to develop a compelling story in the middle ground.  It is easier if one has the "enemy" propelling one's story.  People tend to go to the movies to see the epic battles. 

    So when we are talking about "weakening the plausibility" from this middle ground perspective, we are talking about achieving this not through a direct attack. Rather it is achieved by pulling off from their position that which can be incorporated, leaving them with just the non-middle ground pieces.

     


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 10:59am

    For example?


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 12:15pm

    Something very similar to what Obama was saying on his recent bus tour. Just talk about specific jobs initiatives, infrastructure, but also controlling spending in other areas.  If it isn't a military district, I think the ambivalent voter in general would be ok with targeted cuts at the Pentagon.  There would be a focus on long-term deficit reduction. Talk about working to see these come to light and not stopping until one does. 

    Most of the specifics would depend on where one was at, who one was running against (Bachmann-like or Mitt-like).


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 5:46pm

    You lost me somewhere in the first paragraph. I was looking for an example of something that Obama could tell the purple people that they might find persuasive enough to favor the liberal story over the conservative story. I'm not sure what this has to do with targeted cuts at the Pentagon.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 11:23pm

    We're on two different tracks.  You're thinking about how Obama or other Dems can win the purple people over to the liberal story, and I am thinking about how the Dem running for a seat can appeal to the purple people by incorporating both stories in a way that will not damage the liberal agenda overall if the politician holds true to their word when elected.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 8:01am

    What is "the liberal agenda"?


    by Dan Kervick on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:12am

    For the purposes of this blog, it is the points made in the blog above regarding the standard Democratic stump speech in regards to the economy, jobs and the role of government.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 5:47pm

    I thought that we were talking about weakening "the plausibility of the conservative view." I don't see how targeted Pentagon cuts weaken the plausibility of anything. Nor do I see how it's a winning campaign issue for Democrats.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:36am

    weakening the plausibility of the conservative view is another way of saying of weakening the plausibility of cuts only approach.  In order to due that with those buy into both narratives, one has to also show one is willing to cut those areas where cuts can be made, while increasing spending in areas that need to be increased in.  (Everybody knows about the $2,000 hammer or the $5,000 toilet seat purchased by the pentagon.) The purple voter is someone who buys into the narratives, among other narratives, that there should be some increases.  Once has established this common sense approach, the purple voter is going to be more open to the idea of increased revenue to have money spent on the government, which in general they don't trust to spend the money well. 

    So weakening the plausibility of the conservative view is not to be equated with fully disproving the legitimacy or validness of the second narrative.  It is about showing that a person or party that takes the view of the second narrative as the sole means to solving our problems are taking an inherently flawed stance since it only incorporate part of the path to success.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 5:46pm

    They have "not completely made up their minds," or "see some truth on both sides,"

    This sounds a lot like... the current mainstream Democratic party, which really does respect parts of both narratives.  So, by the way, did good old John Maynard Keynes.  This is why it's so frustrating to see our side labeled as extremists.  So far, Obamaconomics is two parts tax cuts for businesses and one part stimulative government spending.  From a tax and regulation standpoint, the private sector has totally been unleashed, and very much according to the principles of the second narrative.  But it doesn't matter because no matter what he does, Obama represents the first narrative, which he has not lived up to well.

    Here's the problem: the second narrative is ineffective during a demand recession.  Obama is acting according to that narrative, but he represents the first, more appropriate way of looking at things.  He is failing because he's pursuing the wrong policies and he's ironically undermining the right policies as he does it.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 9:57am

    I think Obama is attempting and will continue to attempt throughout the campaign to shed the one narrative representation he has been given.  If he is successful, I believe he will win re-election (barely), if not Mitt will be prez.  If they nominate Perry, Obama will win, but it will be close to barely.

    The point, in the context of this blog, would be not whether this is or isn't the appropriate approach, but whether it would be a winning strategy for a Dem in a purple district or state. Or in other words, a Dem in a purple district or state can't win harping on the first narrative alone.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 11:19am

    I agree that a Dem can't win those areas with just narrative one.  But why is that so?  I'd argue it's because the policies that narrative one suggests have not been tried, so there's no evidence to make that narrative convincing.  Instead, the policies of narrative 2 have been used, to no discernible effect and the first, untried narrative is getting the blame.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 12:06pm

    starting first with the basic Democratic stump speech:

    1. 1. America has a basic moral obligation and moral commitment to maintain high employment - an obligation first codified in The Employment Act of 1946. It is this commitment that undergirded America's prosperity since the Second World War.

    Too long winded

    ….In "red-state" America there is an alternative narrative that goes as follows:

    1. 1. Only the private sector can create real jobs - government just shifts resources from the private to the public sector.

    SELFISHLY opposed to the ideal of WE THE PEOPLE

    The Government is US 

    America is America, because of E Pluribus Unum,

    The private citizen can not expect to live outside the protection of their neighbors (WE) , whether it was Jamestown, Fort Boonesborough, San Antonio or Vicksburg .

    Don’t expect that if you adopt the selfish idea, that you are not your brothers’ keeper; maybe your brother doesn’t need to man the walls, to protect your sorry Arsch or private business.

    WE THE PEOPLE IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION; are not the servants of private enterprise.

    Anyone opposed to this ideal, must be asked to leave, your selfishness is a cancer. Do your selfish business elsewhere.

    COMMON SENSE

     Protect the whole body, not individual parts

    (The teeth are good, but the gums have got to come out)


    by Resistance on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 10:19am

    Maybe a lot of voters just aren't interested in "narratives", doctrines and theories, and don't care whether those verbal formulas are too far to the left, to far to the right, or just right?  Some follow people who project strength and an authoritative sense of knowing what they are doing and talking about.  Some are drawn to people who are not "scary" or "threatening".   Some look to people who deliver concrete results, no matter what narratives they tell themselves and others in achieving those results.

    I have a colleague who asks me all the time what I think about various people in the political realm.  As far as I can tell she adheres to no political doctrines of any kind, left, right or moderate, and makes her decisions purely on the basis of how she feels about people as people.

    For people like this, my guess is that they are drawn during times of smooth sailing and prosperity to people who are quietly cheerful and not disposed to make waves, and are drawn during times of perceived crisis to people who seem strong and decisive.


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 10:39am

    I remember way back when, in community college, when some woman told me she really liked Reagan.  I asked her why.  She said it was because the shots of him chopping wood reminded her of her grandfather.

    This whole blog is generalizing voters into their little cubby holes.  But if you have product, whether a cola or a politician or a charity, you have to take a particular approach, knowing that it isn't going to work with all the people.

    In the scenario for this blog we have a Dem in a purple district or state, and asking what advertising strategy will work best.  It is not enough to just say jobs the cycle since any opponent worth a cent will also be saying that, too.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 11:13am

    Trope, thanks for this post. It brings up important issues about the compositions and beliefs of Independents. I actually don't know who these people are and sometimes wonder if you eliminated strong "leaners", if there would be even 10% remaining.

    So much of the popular beliefs accrue to the successful messaging of Republicans, it is hard for me to focus on the tome you reference above rather than just address tactics.

    In a little exercise I wrote on A-man's blog, I had just watched Colbert interview Luntz so I tried to channel Luntz in talking to an opponent about "taxes". Democrats are congenitally disposed to wanting to parse things in clarifying language. The opposition propagandize and stonewalls. It's an interesting exercise to get yourself in the frame of mind to posit a not too logical response and keep repeating it regardless of what the other person says. Except in domestic arguments I find it hard to do, like sticking myself with a needle. I am wired to answer the other person with facts and logic. That's simply not the game. Republicans are actually schooled in answering the question which wasn't asked. The results in public opinion are obvious.

    I think Genghis is right in parsing "common sense". We have to deal with what they believe, not whether it is provable or logical.(I hope that is not a misrepresentation) I also think that we simply do not understand the core beliefs of people in the sense of how they in fact do not trust authority.

    I very much appreciate your post. Here's an unanswerable question and perhaps a stupid one. Are Independents looking at the substance of the left-right debate, or are they looking at the process? In other words, if they see Democrats losing arguments by virtue of debate techniques, does that count with them psychologically in some way unrelated to the facts at hand?


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 10:41am

    The issue I suppose boils down to whether one believes there are significant numbers of true ambivalent voters.  If not, if it is really a question of getting a person to switch from one narrative to another, then the strategy is different, something akin to what you saying to do.  But if there these ambivalent voters, then they already, by virtue of them being ambivalent, already in part agree with your position. It is just that they also agree with the other guy, too, to some degree. 

    As was mentioned by another up thread, a lot of things can be in the mix when it comes to voter decision, like personality or whether they come across as being weak in a debate (even if their answers were superior to their opponent).  There is no true and pure ambivalent voter who simply looks at the two ideological sides of an issue and embraces them equally at all times. 

    But if you're salesman at a car lot, one is going to be more successful, all other things being equal, if one chooses an approach and sticks to it, knowing it isn't going to work with every customer.  For a politician I think it is especially true.  Nothing hurts an image more than being one way with these groups, and then suddenly to appear like a whole different person in front of this one other group.  It goes to the issue of authenticity and trust.  Voters don't like flip-flopping on the issue, and they especially don't like flip-flopping on personality.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 11:29am

    Here's the thing about Democrats.   A lot of us are hyper-reflexive, knee-jerk intellectuals.  So any effort to do something about the world quickly turns into a discussion about doing something about the world.  And that turns into a reflexive meta-discussion about how we discuss things, frame them, etc.  And then that turns into an even more reflexive discussion about us.

    The Philadelphia Fed has released its monthly business outlook survey, and reports manufacturing activity has dropped to its lowest level since March, 2009:

    http://www.philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/regional-economy/business-outlook-survey/2011/bos0811.pdf

    The problem isn't primarily that Barack Obama has the wrong messages, although he probably does.  The problem is that he has been doing the wrong things.  It's scary that as the economy seems to be dipping back down into a second recession, which will cost our people millions of jobs, all of the discussions lately are about politics and what people should be saying out on their various campaign trails, and how people can win their elections.

    The economy is going into the toilet again, and Obama just spent a year not doing much about it, but instead focusing on the deficit distraction and negotiating with republicans on economy-killing austerity plans.  Why is everyone thinking now about the Fall of 2012 and horserace crap?


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 12:28pm

    Why is everyone thinking now about the Fall of 2012 and horserace crap?

    It's because that is what THEY want you to focus on, They want you to focus on WTF 

    WTF, HOPE

    The donut is gone and the hole is left,, theres no beef, theres no plan, they are floundering, the ship is afloat cast about by the sea.

    The Capitalist Parties are trying to stay in Power, but they cant stop the downward spiral. 

    Nations are in agitation and someone is going to be blamed and punished .

    Homeowners are not going to be the whipping boy any longer, that scapegoating  has run it's course, the fraud has been exposed.

    Damn, Greedy, money changer, banker class sitting on Billions given to them from their friends in Government , while the people suffer.

    Better to focus on the Fall of 2012 and the horse race for fear the pitchforks might come back into play,

    This time Obama won't be able to stand between the disgruntled and the Banker class.

    He's been identified as being "one of them"; out to preserve his own SELF interest.    

    "Folks you need to focus on the next election , you don't want those dreaded Tea Partiers do you? 

    It's all a diversion because they cant stop the downward spiral and the anger that is mounting. Look around the World, cant you see the discontent?  

    The politicians want us to stay focused on jobs and not on the shackles.

    They want you to count the chickens of the future , before the eggs have hatched.

    Foolish idea, we may not have the future they dream of, unfounded hope and faith cannot be depended upon.  Fine words shouldn't replace fine conduct

    The Bankers are fearful; why aren't we

    Flattering the American worker as to how resilient we are and then doing nothing to assist us, is  a delay tactic. Keeping us calm so they can buy more time or they lose their power.

    It's probably why the bankers are sitting on the money, they see the storm coming.  

    The Capitalists will not remove our shackles. If the storm comes they got their bailout money, if the storm doesn't come they have their wage slaves.

    Keep rowing the boat,......... till  


    by Resistance on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:27pm

    Lovely comment, Dan.

    Whatever the outcome of the 2012 elections, even if its the best of the best of all possible results, nothing will change until sometime in 2013.

    Meanwhile?

    It's still 2011 where I'm sitting, and the economy is still falling down around our necks. People are losing jobs. Homes are being foreclosed. Manufacturing is moribund. Soon we'll all be trying to earn a living washing each other's clothes.

    The recurrent focus on 2012 re-election strategies and prospects may be fun, but it's about as relevant as playing video cames.

    Now where did I put that GTA-IV DVD? Maybe I left it in the X-Box.


    by Red Planet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:23pm

    Why? Entertainment.  So do you walk up to some reading a novel and say "we're going into the crapper.  Why are you just sitting there reading a novel?"  

    And part of the entertainment for me is inquiring into the psyche of the American electorate.  It's entertainment because there will never be the moment when we fully understand.  The outcome of the elections is as unpredictable as the outcome of two good football teams.  I wonder how many hours have been consumed in the last week discussing on tv, in bars, in chat rooms the upcoming football season, who is going to be in the super bowl, who will win.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 5:56pm

    In the near future, if I'm sitting on a park bench( rather than sleeping and finding shelter under it) and someone approaches while I'm reading a book, I'm thinking ........... In these desperate times; either the person is coming to pan handle or he's got a gun and I'm about to get robbed.

    The outcome of the elections is as unpredictable as the outcome of two good football teams

    Had we addressed the problems and found the right solutions earlier, we might have put off the day of desperation.

    We cant wait on some future event; that's folly

    "Don't you know they're taking your soul tomorrow"  

    As to the question of the Super Bowl ....I imagine the bookies know quite a bit about that. The sooner you get enough information, the better odds you'll get; a good reward for your due diligence.  


    by Resistance on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 6:27pm

    Let me apologize before I get into this but:

     


    by Richard Day on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 5:08am

    Latest Comments