Last edited Sat Oct 27, 2012, 04:28 PM - Edit history (1)
I had long forgotten about this thread, but recently came across an old "to do" note about it and can't resist with little more than 1 week before the election to urge other people to please consider shifting some of their DU time to getting out there on social media where there are non-lefties. Or in more traditional ways - phone bank, door knock, whatever. Please Google {Social Media in political campaigns} if you don't think social media is important.
[font color=blue]Speck Tater> ... Do you know this to be true, or do you merely wish it to be true.
I, personally, never read comments on Yahoo stories, and I don't really know anyone who does. Anyone who has a life, at least. I stand by my claim that posting to Yahoo comments is worthless and an utter waste of time. ... My guess (and this IS a guess, which I will not try to pass off as a fact) the average independent and swing voter isn't really interested in the race yet, {this written in early June -ed} and probably only reads the first paragraph or two of any Yahoo story before clicking off the page ... by leaving Internet graffiti on a web article they { actual uncommitted voters } will never even see.<[/font]
[font color=blue]"I, personally, never read comments on Yahoo stories"[/font] Speak for yourself. Likewise, A lot of people who read comments on articles don't read DU.
As for anyone who has a life, well, straight up here, OK? Most people outside of DU, and quite frankly, a lot of us inside DU probably think the same of people who post incessantly on DU. I see a lot of people on DU with high post counts who thump their chests about it and demean anyone with a few hundred posts or less as "newbies" (and a few thousand posts as "relative noobies"
.
While in their own minds they may be progressive superheroes, I wonder if they have a life and if they are accomplishing anything on DU or away from DU. Certainly the incessant messaging of like-minded people, as we mostly do with our posts on DU, while pooh-poohing anyone getting out on social media and engaging with non-Dems / independents -- isn't going to help any Democratic candidates get elected. I'm not talking about all the messages here, but the majority of the ones I've seen. (I'm mostly talking about the replies; most of the OPs I find informative or at least interesting).
It's like preaching to the choir. What if Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders preached social justice behind closed doors to their choirs and never got out into the streets? Same with DU -- our incessant posting does nothing, nothing to help elect Democrats unless some of it is used outside of DU.
Keep in mind that "people without a life" vote too. As do all the other kinds of people you demean in your post such as independents and swing voters.
[font color=blue]"will never even see".[/font] LOL. They sure as heck won't see it on a DU posting. Any actual uncommitted voter who comes on DU and dares ask a probing question will be MIRTed out in a hurry.
[font color=blue]Speck Tater> The comments capability is not added to a web page to provide a source of information, but to provide a way for the web site to stroke the egos of people who are in need of validation by seeing their name in "print". <[/font]
Speak for yourself about your need to have your ego stroked. Myself, I use a pseudonym. Did you really think my real name is Progree and that my friends and family know me as Progree? On Yahoo News I use about 3 different pseudonyms. On Facebook, yet another one. That anyone posting here or on some other message board does it to see their name in print is about the most fantastical thing I've heard in a long time.
Oh, and just so you know in the future. The news sites didn't add the comments feature so people could stroke their egos. They added it so that they could get people to keep coming back so they can stick ads in their faces. Now you know.
[font color=blue]Speck Tater> My guess (and this IS a guess, which I will not try to pass off as a fact)<[/font]
Nobody tried to pass anything off as a fact. In case you haven't noticed, around here most people don't preface every statement with "in my opinion". If you felt I was trying to pull something over on you, I'm extremely very sorry.
[font color=blue]Speck Tater> is that the average independent and swing voter isn't really interested in the race yet, and probably only reads the first paragraph or two of any Yahoo story before clicking off the page. Swing and independent voters are not like Freepers or DU'ers. At this point in the race they really don't give a damn yet. {This written in early June -ed} They are not independent because they are weighing the issues carefully. They are independent because they are not engaged in the process enough to care at this early date. They are not political junkies like the people who DO read the comments (but will NEVER be swayed by them). ... Chances are 75% of the uncommitted won't bother to go to the polls, and those that do won't make up their minds until they are standing in the booth with a pencil in their hands. And when they make that decision they certainly will not bear in mind some witty repartee seen in a Yahoo comments section 5 months earlier.
<[/font]
This argument that only hard core righties and lefties read the comments is reminiscent of how so many progressives pooh poohed the impact of right wing talk radio for nearly a decade, thinking few others than already-committed righties were listening. Not so - I have independent relatives who listen to that stuff.
As for not giving a damn at this point in the campaign (in fairness your comment above was written in early June) -- I sure saw plenty of political ads in June, and July, and August, ... and I'm not talking about the primaries which were over by then. You must be baffled by seeing so much spent on ads so early? How do you explain that? Are the people spending their money on general election ads in the summer a bunch of idiots? I don't think so.
As for independents and swing voters not caring about the race, do you have anything to back that up? I know a lot who are not firmly decided because they are thoughtful people weighing what they like and don't like about different candidates. E.g. someone who is staunchly "pro-life" and worried about trillion dollar deficits and concerned about the economy may think "successful businessman" Romney is better in these areas.
While at the same time leaning Democratic on the environment, consumer protection, Social Security and Medicare, progressive tax policy, and on and on.
I realize that Republicans' rhetoric about being the party of fiscal responsibility and economic performance doesn't match their record, but they may be swayed by right-wing arguments that the economic crash was caused by government forcing banks to lend to poor people coupled with the Democrats taking control of Congress in January 2007. And that Obama's economy hasn't created any jobs.
And if they read that crap in a Yahoo Comments section or Facebook or other Social media and nobody contests that because those of us who know better are spending all of our time in our warm and fuzzy DU safe havens posting stuff to each other to death, then it should be no surprise that a lot of people start to believe that kind of crap.
There are a lot of news items where I don't have much of an opinion one way or another (in other words I'm like a "moderate" or "independent" on the subject of the article), but read it to learn about it, and I am sometimes curious in what people have to say. I spend maybe a minute or two on the comments on an article if I do look at the comments at all. If you are never curious about what others think, that's fine with me, I don't have a problem with that. But don't assume that this is a universal trait.
[font color=blue]Speck Tater> Remember, people, as a rule, don't weigh the facts and then make a reasoned decision. They make an irrational decision based on emotional factors, and they make it in a split second. Once that choice is made, they stick with it. <[/font]
"Remember". LOL. Speak for yourself.
[font color=blue]Speck Tater> At this point in the race they {independent and swing voters} really don't give a damn yet ... They are not independent because they are weighing the issues carefully. They are independent because they are not engaged in the process enough to care at this early date..... And when they make that decision they certainly will not bear in mind some witty repartee seen in a Yahoo comments section 5 months earlier. <[/font]
As I said, you must be baffled by political ads running in the summer. I gather you don't work in advertising. Lawn signs must baffle you, as perhaps do letters to the editor. What a waste, huh?
You might also try reading some books about how the conservative movement, which was completely out of favor in the 1960's (think Goldwater) and 1970's, has become dominant in the 1980s and after (in the last 31.5 years, there have been Democratic presidents in only 11.5 of those years). What you will find is that they did not sit in their incestuous masturbatorial safe havens with other like-minded people and message each other to death. Nor did they wait until a month before elections to try to influence others. What you will find when you read books such as:
* Banana Republicans, How the Right Wing Is Turning America Into a One-Party State - Sheldon Rampton & John Stauber
* Don't Think Of An Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame The Debate - George Lakoff
* What's The Matter With Kansas - How Conservatives Won The Heart Of America - Thomas Frank
* Toxic Talk - Bill Press
* The Little Blue Book - George Lakoff, Elisabeth Wehling
is that it was a slow and patient process to plant conservative ideas in people's mind. They founded think tanks to come up with "studies" and propaganda. They funded right wing radio and TV to get that propaganda out. 24/7/365. Not just 1 month before elections.
The CONservatives have been planting their memes 24/7/365 for years and decades. Memes such as:
* Job-killing taxes on the job creators
* Job-killing regulations
* The Death Tax
* The earth is not fragile.
* Reagan cut taxes and tax revenues doubled over the decade
* The great Reagan economy (never mind the near tripling of the national debt - Keynesian deficit spending)
* Personal responsibility (whenever any kind of help for the less fortunate is discussed)
* "Liberal" as a bad word
* "Teachers unions" as bad
* Death panels (Google: IPAB death panels)
* Religious freedom (right-wing style)
* socialized medicine (Obamacare)
* government takeover of healthcare
* socialism (everything that Obama and the Democrats are for)
* redistribution (their word for a progressive tax system)
Their year-round propaganda campaigns have been so successful that very few Democratic politicians and no Republicans dare anymore talk about global warming or gun control or raising gasoline taxes or a carbon tax. It seems abortion rights are headed in the same direction.
In a few decades a huge chunk of the white working class has been transformed from standing up to their bosses (e.g. via unions or union-organizing activity, or at least understanding that the corporations don't have their best interests at heart) to licking their butts with "we can't tax the job creators" and we can't burden them with "job killing {workplace safety & environmental} regulations".
[font color=blue]Speck Tater> Your time would be much better spent talking, face to face, with actual uncommitted voters and trying to get them excited enough to vote. Face to face, not by leaving Internet graffiti on a web article they will never even see. <[/font]
Do you have any research that backs up your theory that face to face is the most effective? I know it sounds touchy-feely-good. With people one knows, that may be true, and believe me, if someone is open to talking politics and is at all open minded, I do. But I don't impose myself. As for strangers or people I barely know, it's just not my thing to walk up to someone and start a conversation and then get into politics and all that. I admire anyone with that skill set but I don't have it.
For most people I doubt it's all that effective as some make it out to be, and it's not effective when someone does that to me, especially when it’s the first-level talking points that I've already read or heard many times before. I'm more of a hard facts kind of person and written material is much more effective for me.
As for leaving Internet graffiti - that seems more your style, and it may be ego-boosting (another of your things) to come up with zingers, but it is the least likely to change minds, probably counter-productive. Although whenever someone down-shifts into a snooty snotty style, I can and will reply in kind.
My preferred style is facts -- see for example my collection of economic facts that I put together for myself and others to have on hand when engaging with non-Dems wherever -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439 . Also CabCurious's "Factual Talking Points On The Economy" http://www.democraticunderground.com/125170175 deserves a very special mention. Facts are not graffiti.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read