The Republican Nemesis

[Linette]

When "Ed N Sted" read James Kroeger's The Republican Nemesis, he had this to say on AMERICAblog:

"FWIW, If the Democrats truly understood the information in this James Kroeger editorial, I no doubt they would have taken both the White House and the Congress in 2004.

Democrats will most likely not win again until they do understand it..."

Here are some excerpts:

"When historians look back on the current era in American politics it will likely stand out as the period when Republican cunning & marketing savvy completely dominated the political landscape. Obliging Democrats have thrown themselves into the fray with enthusiasm, armed with idealistic visions of civil “discourse”, only to be humbled repeatedly by their political masters. Republican strategists have been able to blend their astute grasp of marketing principles, human nature, & social psychology into a formula that delivers almost guaranteed success at the polls.  While Democrats knock themselves out every election cycle trying to talk to Swing Voters about The Issues, Republicans have calmly focused their attention on winning The Image Campaign. Quite simply: Democrats lose because they don’t understand what moves their target audience."

"The Issues might actually be important to many Swing Voters early on in a political campaign, but when both sides start to pick apart each other’s facts & interpretations, the typical Swing Voter quickly becomes confused. As the debate over The Issues drags on, Swing Voters realize that they don’t understand the details well enough to make an informed decision, so they end up relying on their impressions of the candidates. Republican strategists see this clearly. That is why they continuously try to create doubts in the minds of the Swing Voters about the character of the Democratic candidate. They know that it doesn’t really matter if they can’t find any real flaws in their Democratic opponents. Accusations, insinuations, & innuendo will work just fine. They hope to encourage voters to question the motivation and dependability of The Democrats. They try to create the perception that Democrats are “defective” in a disturbing way. By accusing, the Republicans suggest to Swing Voters that they are not (defective like the Democrats)."

"Republican strategists know they would rarely win if election results were always determined by a logical discussion of The Issues and nothing more (they know that most voters would benefit more from Democratic economic policies than from Republican policies). They know they must win the Image Campaign to have any chance of winning. That is why they are committed, now and forever, to negative campaigning."

"The most important reason why negative campaigning has worked so well for the Republicans is because their negative attacks on the Democrats create a positive impression of Republican candidates, who appear---in contrast---to be individuals who do not possess the defects that they have accused others of having. They define themselves by defining their Democratic opponents . On a visceral level, what the Republicans actually “stand for” in the minds of Swing Voters on election day is that they are not Democrats---those defective people who seem to have been born to ruin everything."

I think Ed is right.

[BamaLefty]

1. Think?

I know Ed is right.

[sellitman]

2. Kicked & nominated!

Yeppers...we suck at image building.

Repukes suck at everything else though.

Some trade off huh?

[Greyhound]

3. Definitely worth looking at

Hope we pick up the thread. :kick:

[sellitman]

4. It's also helpful to have the source code for the voting machines.

Just a bit helpful.

Ya think?

[samdogmom]

6. I'm with you. It's easy to rule the world when you can steal elections.

Case in point, it's now coming out that they tried to do it in Iraq too. Once a thief, always a thief.

[julianer]

5. I've got a sneaking suspicion that

after this debacle, what people will be looking for in their politicians is straightforward honesty.

[sellitman]

8. That's what they got in junior!!!!!

:sarcasm:

[Bill Bored]

7. Welcome to DU.

There is truth in what you say, but we should also not discount the possibility of Election Fraud. It's too easy to pull off with e-voting technology and there have been enough reports in the press and elsewhere to invite additional investigation and legislation which hasn't happened esp. at the federal level. For various reasons, the vote cannot be verified and until it can be, there is no confirmation that we've failed to deliver our message.

If the votes are actually being counted, you'd think the current lack-of-approval ratings would give the Dems a big advantage in 2006, if they can be maintained. All we'd need to do is offer a reasonable alternative, checks and balances, etc. and we should pick up some votes.

But it would be better to offer a vision that truly appeals to the masses, and that does include image as well as substance.

We should also have our OWN wedge issues, such as health care and so on, the way they do. Why were there ballot referendums in swing states about gay marriage but not about health care for every child or protecting the lives of pregnant women?

We need to be seen as a populist party to attract people with bread and butter issues as well as social ones. I don't think this is happening for various reasons. People actually think the 'pukes care about the little guy!

[Fovea]

9. I believe that the voters in question

will come to recognize the gulf between negative campagning by the pugs, and bad governing.