Do Zampolits win Elections?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

In the crush of posts condemning Duers who are not sufficiently loyal, the question arises, “Loyal to whom?”

Senator Obama has never, to my knowledge, characterized people planning to “merely” vote for him, rather than fawn over him, as unwelcome, unproductive, defective or treasonous. No candidate is entitled to any vote, and most are smart enough to recognize that American presidential elections are decided by voters who actively dislike the person for whom they vote.

Obama’s “strong support” in polling is quite good. It’s about 30%. Do you know what Walter Mondale got in 1984? 40.6%. In an election where Obama’s support was limited to Obama enthusiasts, Senator Obama would be in the wrong side of the worst drubbing in modern presidential election history.

So the DU “get the fuck out” movement certainly doesn’t seem to be about winning anything, or “helping” any candidate.

When the self-appointed DU zampolit demands obedience or adoration, the question arises, obedience to whom? Adoration of whom? The candidate or to the Loyalty Officer himself?

The point of compliance posts is not to discourage that which hurts Obama. The point is to discourage that which runs counter to some anonymous Internet posters’ IDEA of what hurts Obama.

Should anyone who says they will hold their nose and vote for Obama be tombstoned? It has been suggested. I wonder… would being banned from DU for saying one will merely vote for him, rather than making some more elaborate obeisance, make a person more or less likely to actually cast a real-world Obama vote?

The candidate who gets the most votes wins most (though not quite all) elections. And you don’t get to vote extra times because you love the candidate more than life itself. The nose-holding voter counts just as much as the devotee in the final tally.

And, unlike the devotee, the nose-holder is a persuadable voter. The nose-holder, the apostate, the heretic is at least as important to victory as the enthusiast.

Now then, how do you appeal to the persuadable voter? Do you seek her vote, or demand that she grovel before you personally? I am guessing that the former is doable, while the later is an absurd goal.

For every active poster on DU there are many more readers. Some are certain to vote for McCain and are irrelevant. Some are certain to vote for Obama and are irrelevant. Some are persuadable and are essential.

The DU message to any reader who might vote for Obama, but has sincere reservations is clear: “Go Fuck Yourself.” I wish that characterization was hyperbole, but that actually is the message!

Since elections are decided by persuadable voters, one might want to consider what appeals to persuadable voters, rather than analyzing DU posts in terms of ones’ personal anxiety level, or in terms of personal validation.

The persuadable Obama voter is independent by nature. Groupthink, dogma, hyperbole and censorship are anathema to her. Propaganda doesn’t work well on an audience that is only a click away from a more entertaining (or at least less insulting to herself) website.

And reading someone on DU voicing precisely her concerns and being met with mob-hostility and calls for ostracism is not likely to endear her to Obama.

To a voter with profound reservations about Obama, the most credible voice is that of someone with profound reservations about Obama.

She is not a moron. Telling her FISA is better than a banana split is not persuasive. Calling her a liar for saying Obama supported designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, then a month later calling her a liar for saying he didn’t does not inspire confidence in the cause. Telling her Obama is a progressive during the primaries, then mocking her for her stupidity in believing you in the first place is not endearing.

Only a handful of souls believe that Obama is always truthful, always honorable and always right. The other 90% of the country thinks he’s a flawed figure who is probably somewhat less flawed than John McCain. The average person is long accustomed to voting for flawed men.

In fact, the only thing I can think of that would drag the rigid corpse of John McCain into the White House would be if all registered voters were required to read DU. Thank heavens they don’t.

I am sure that hunting heretics on other web-sites and reporting back to the DU Madame LaFarge contingent is more fun than a circus. I imagine that posting triumphant threads about who got tombstoned for disagreeing with one’s views is empowering in some sad way. And endless repetition of the grindingly obvious “You have no choice” tautology might be fun... I don't know.

But those behaviors are—however ego-gratifying or entertaining—utter poison to the candidate.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. errata:

D'oh! Switched "helps" and "hurts" (Kind of changes the meaning...)

Should read:

"The point of compliance posts is not to discourage that which hurts Obama. The point is to discourage (whatever) some anonymous Internet poster (thinks) hurts Obama."

[ruggerson]

2. "Are you now, or have you ever been, a supporter of someone other than Senator Obama?"