My proposed strategy for recapturing govt in 2006 - debranding the Dems

[Can o Beans]

As a behavioral scientist, I often find myself asking questions related to what causes people to make certain choices with imperfect or incomplete information.

One thing has occurred to me related to this stream of thought over the last several years of contemplation: Many people actively seek choice mechanisms that allow them to make decisions using the smallest possible amount of information, for convenience sake. In other words, they use brands to simplify choice sets. They grab the beer that has the red "Bud" label, or the cereal box that sports Tony the Tiger. In this way, brands foster conditions where consumers can be as intellectually lazy as possible - they no longer have to read the label or study the contents of the package, because brands allow them to "know" (at least in their own mind) what they are getting.

I argue that a number of southern and western US voters use the same tactic to pick their elected officials. They don't actually look at the position of the candidate on the issues that matter to them (the "ingredients") - they look at the R next to their name (the brand image) only when making their choice. Because of this habit, many voters in these areas make choices that are actually not in their own rational self-interest. Many people in these areas of the nation choose the R brand without thought for a variety of reasons - from tradition to peer pressure to a sense of belonging to a group that they aspire to be considered part of due to the beliefs that marketing has told them the R brand contains, such as toughness, liberty, or whatever other BS the GOP has advertised as being associated with that brand choice.

I say we use intellectual judo to force the voting masses to consider their choice before pulling the lever. We need to de-brand the democrats.

What would happen if there were a large number of (say, 4 million, in swing states) Dem voters and select candidates that held their true beliefs intact, but simply switched their brand image to "R"?

1. Polls that asked issue questions of traditional "R" voters would be polluted with a certain percentage of bogus "R" responses, which in some cases could be enough to confuse strategic initiative development for the true R base.

2. There would be a national perception that the populace was swinging to the left in terms of attitudes.

and most importantly,

3. if the "branding" were removed from Dem candidates in swing states, (select "R's" running against true R's in swing states), the voter would actually have to assess the issues to decide where his vote would land - in effect robbing him of the potential to be intellectually lazy when voting, which is what got this country in the mess it is in the first place. And moderate-right voters would be able to justify their choice of someone holding liberal positions by recognizing that s/he was voting for a Republican candidate.

In summary, by de-branding selected democrats, we remove the negative stigma associated with the words "democrat" and "liberal" etc., and refocus elections onto the issues, which we generally know, democrats can and do win on.

I await your critique of this idea.
COB

[XScharlie]

1. interesting...

not sure how it would be implemented, though.

[Can o Beans]

2. Not sure, but

I can see three actions needed (bear in mind that this has not been fully thought out...)

1. Identify places where people would vote liberal if not for the stigma and/or cognitive dissonance associated with voting liberal.

2. Identify places where the GOP perceives that they have a stronghold on their base despite the fact that conditions in (1) apply.

3. Cultivate candidates in the mold of Obama, Warner, et al with liberal values and R registrations. Support them as they climb politically into progressively higher positions of power.

If this works out right, the "faux R" candidates will eliminate many "true R" candidates in primary elections, leaving a choice in places like Colorado, Virginia, etc. between a "faux R" democrat and a "D" brand democrat.

As this condition penetrates key districts and states across the nation, the entire governmental power base swings to the left, which of course boosts funding etc. that can be used to drive future election efforts.

[welshTerrier2]

3. you can't be serious ...

i appreciate your "thinking outside the box" but put this one back in the box and then give the box away ...

let me see if i get what you're saying ... you would have a bunch of "D"'s run as "R"'s ... they would be sort of double-agents ... they would really be "D"'s but they would appear on the ballot as "R"'s ...

the problem with this, it seems to me, is that incumbent "R"'s would be more likely to win (in the primaries) and then the "D" could not run at all ... then who would the "D"'s ultimately run in the general election ...

the Democratic Party needs to stop all this political chicanery and start supporting a movement for social justice, reform and the renewal of the values on which this country was founded ... we need to call for a new American revolution to renew our democracy ...

when the Party fights for the right things, the people will know ...

[Can o Beans]

6. Not exactly...

I would make sure that in selected elections there would be 2 dems running against an incumbent R - one with R branding and one with D branding. In the primary, we would have a good chance (see southern Ohio for example) of unseating the true R.

If you want my more radical idea: What would happen if ALL dems in a certain swing state woke up one day and registered as R's -- ALL of them?

A: The entire voting process would be reduced to the issues rather than the brand. Liberals would win on the issues while "R-only" voters would either abstain or be forced to learn the issues, resulting in liberal victories.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. The problem with this is control of Congress

The majority party controls the house in which it is the majority. Our faux Rs would contribute to a continuing Republican majority ... and therefor control and committee chairmanships.

[Can o Beans]

10. I know that

But what I am asking for here is an entire paradigm shift - where the issue is no longer party, but rather, position. In the long term, this strategy could result in both parties being dominated by liberal thinkers. Which I am sure you will agree is preferable to the current situation, where basically the opposite is occurring...

[Stinky The Clown]

5. How about just disbanding the Dem party?

No, that question is neither snarky nor silly.

What if the Dem party were to simply disband ..... or just as effective ..... had mass defections from the party. Then form a new party with no particular brand image. And build that image in a way that makes sense in today's climate?

I have absolutgely NO idea of the ramifications of this ...... but the suggestion to infiltrate the Republican party just doesn't seem a viable strategy.

[Can o Beans]

8. I think the better idea is as above...

In certain chosen states, what if ALL current democrats went out and registered as republicans?

1. We could get rid of the truly abhorrent candidates earlier by voting in R primaries against the likes of DeLay etc and for the liberal R candidate.

2. "Joe R" would have to actually learn the issues in order to make the truly neanderthal choice. He's too lazy to do that, but if he did, the issues would lead him to the liberal of the candidates, because the liberal position is usually the one that is most congruent with his own self-interests.

I firmly believe that the only thing stopping mainstream citizens in the south and west from voting for Dems is the convenient label that the D next to the better candidate's name provides them. If we eliminate this identifier, we win most elections except in places like Oklahoma, Utah, etc.

[eallen]

7. It wasn't long ago that the south was Democrat.

There are still parts of the south that elect local Democrats. Or at least, people who are called Democrats. The regional alignment switch to the Republicans precisely because they are looking at the ingredients on the cereal box. It's all about God, guns, and gays.

[Can o Beans]

9. I disagree...

Many southern (for example) dems aren't inconsistent with the local people's value set on these issues. They have simply been BRANDED as such by the RWAM. Southern voters have simply been programmed to associate the "D" brand with atheism and homosexuality, etc.

If a candidate in MS is truly anti-gun (as in,"round up all the guns and throw them in the river", then that candidate probably cannot win anyway - the local value set is not consistent with that position.

But, what debranding would do is allow the voter the psychological freedom to vote for a candidate who was for example, pro-gun but anti-assault weapon. In such a case, the R brand would allow the "casual voter" the liberal option.

In synch with this, the studied voter (i.e., liberal voter) would always go for the left candidate, while the ignorant voter would pick from a pool of R's that range from radical right to reasonable. The split in the R vote would give liberals a hypothetical 2/3 chance of winning the seat in question. Or ask yourself this, would the random choice of R-voters picking a liberal R have benefitted us in MO, IA, WV, or CO in the last election? Damn straight.