There is No Such Thing as Spontaneous Public Opinion

Just my personal opinion but I don't think the left has been lacking in getting it's word out. IMO, the left just has too many irons in the fire.

Democrats and Republicans have roughly equeal shares of the voting public. The Republican mantra for the last 20 years has been "cut taxes". That's a very simple single ideaology to convey. Democrats have generally been pushing for spending increases in welfare, medical care, education, environmental protection, animal rights, etc... There are 300 "centers of energy" on the left and only a handful on the right. The Republicans have been able to use a simple "divide and conquor" strategy.

Right now all Kerry really has going for him is that he isn't Bush but he can't even come out and say that without ruining himself. If he could articulate a positive simple agenda that was more than "Anybody But Bush" he'd be leading in the polls by 20 or 30 points. For some reason he doesn't seem to be able to do that.

What could he say he is for? He has already taken both sides of all the issues.

Is that necessary, Foxfyre?

Thomas, I'm fine with this sig for now, it was more about the "oooh yeah!!" to "Hmm maybe not so much" thought process.

Fishin', good point. I think that is along the same lines -- choose simple, digestible points and hit 'em again and again. That's part of marketing, too.

I disagree with the premiss, "There is No Such Thing as Spontaneous Public Opinion". I could, with enough money employee people to ask people's opinion all over the nation, at the same time before the press could get a story out that this was being done. Note, this isn't a questionaire, not a point question but a true person response in their own words regarding a subject. The results would then be "Spontaneous Public Opinion" after the results were analyzed. Granted this would be expensive and time consuming in the analysis, and is not done today.

If what is meant, however, is what is actually done in a poll - then, the statement is true. Questions are slanted to a desired result (often skewed based on pervious questions), they aren't in the respondents own words and they are of a range of people from usually 750-1500 - hardly in my view sufficient.

Sorry. I was being a smart aleck. But in my opinion the flip flops are precisely why Kerry isn't getting much momentum. A candidate needs to give at least the illusion that he passionately believes in something. If the daily news continues to be bad for Bush, Kerry could win without a message. But give the country a few months of good news and I think Bush will win it easily.

Don't want to peak right now, especially when Bush is taking matters into his own hands so effectively......

Hmmm. I have no idea what's going to happen. I mean, nobody does of course, but sometimes I think I have more of an idea than I do now.

I think Bush and co. are very, very good at the marketing aspect I talk about. I think that's a large part of why there are in power. (Marketing as opposed to actual actions.) I think the "flip flop" label is an excellent example of marketing, in that they got it to stick. Obviously it takes deficiencies on Kerry's part to allow it to stick. But Doonesbury was characterizing Bush as a waffle a long long time ago, and for just as much (if not more) reason.

Yup...Kerry as flip-flopper is the strategy, and it is voiced repeatedly as per standard marketing technique. Fox is either part of that strategy or a desired consequence of it. Of course, the Bush re-election team went searching for some issue they could press, and though in this case it has some degree of merit, the truth of such a claim isn't necessary in order for it to be accepted as factual given that the marketing of the idea is done effectively (eg putting McCain's morality in question with the 'do you know he has a colored child?' push-polls).

As Thomas points out, there doesn't have to be a single center from which some new consensus or notion originates. And it is certainly more agreeable to freedom and democracy where multiple sources of viewpoint are available and in play.

But I think it is a great historical fallacy and a dangerous misunderstanding to suggest that the conservatives have achieved this degree of power simply on the basis of a single pithy motto. I keep recommending Eric Alterman's book because it tells an important story and equally important, because it is an example of journalism at its academic best.

I share Soz's anxiety about this particular administration winning a second term. Now, if McCain were the candidate and the crowd of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz were gone, and if the influence of the social conservatives was diminished to what it was two decades ago...I wouldn't be concerned, other than in terms of social policies where I'm more left than is McCain. I would not be, as I am now, to no small degree terrified.

I agree with that, but I disagree when some Democrats conclude that they should emulate the tactics of Bush & co. The Democrats may well increase their chances of winning if they do, but they would also remove the major reason I want them to win.

I want today's Democrats to win against today's Republicans not because Republicans are inherently evil, which they're not. I want the Democrats to win because the Republicans, a fundamentally respectable party, have gotten highjacked by the political equivalent of a cult. This cult is so dangerous that America's democracy is on the line right now. My immediate hope is that a Democratic victory will bring Democratic grown-ups back in charge of the White House and Republican grown-ups back in charge of the Republican party.

But if the Democrats win elections by emulating the Republicans and becoming a cult too, we have two cults in Congress instead of one. Realistically, that's where things would be headed if the Democrats embraced the current Republican tactics, and this would make the original situation worse, not better. I am unwilling to go along with that. I don't want America to be run by a Democratic cult instead of a Republican cult, I want it to be run by grown-ups instead of cults. Whether they be Republican grown-ups or Democratic grown-ups is secondary for me.


I think Doonesbury's Bush has always been the asterisk he is today. Doonesbury's waffle was Clinton. But I agree about Bush's waffling of course.

Now there's a post I agree with almost to the letter, thomas.

The Conservative Party in Canada, which held sway as one of the two main parties (along with the Liberal Party) which held control of the country, alternating as heads of government for more than a hundred years. That party no longer exists. Under Brian Mulroney, it became so destested that it effectively ceased to exist nationally. Some months ago, it was formally subsumed into another right wing party.

My hope is that this present extremist Republican party will continue to screw up so badly that the fringe elements in it will be completely discredited. Perhaps a high hope, but it's the one I wing heavenward.

On the left, I think we have to do precisely what Al Franken is doing. That is, work very hard to counter falsehoods and propaganda from the extreme edges of the right, but ALWAYS steering away from our own falsehoods, from fallacious argument or character assassination, and by being willing to immediately correct anything we've said that is shown to be erroneous. I am pleased to see that Kerry is not mouthing the low slander. That's a big plus for me.

The point where thomas and I would likely disagree is on what sorts of social policies the Dems ought to embrace and follow. But we'd both agree that whatever those policies might be, they ought to be voiced clearly and honestly, and implemented with integrity.

This present Republican crowd is, among other things, a seriously worrisome mix of exceptionalist ideology and of American isolationism. Though its corporate and military fingers reach everywhere (eg, eldest Bush son humping prostitutes in Bejiing while cutting business deals with the children of the Communist Party bosses) they foward certain protective economic policies which don't match the laissez faire rhetoric, instead matching presumed electoral factors.

Outside of that economic sphere however, is where I see the greater danger in this mix. The disdain for international bodies and agreements, and the push towards agressive unilateral military actions (along with the neocon notion of actively preventing any other power from arising which might challenge American economic and military dominance in the world) is an isolationist urge, though it may not look it at first glance as it has an outward component.

But it is rather the strategy of Israel. Isolate by crushing those around you. Neither crowd are big on inclusion.