• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Democrats about to trade the War on Women for the War on Gays?

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
67,539
Reaction score
34,329
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The War on Women meme is playing out. It worked a bit in the past - mostly when enabled by idiotic Republicans - but ran up against a few hard realities (women are actually more likely to be in favor of restricting abortion than men. Birth control, it turns out, most people know, is actually not something that will kill you if your employer doesn't provide it for free, women care about issues other than those involving a uterus, etc.), and as the rhetoric got increasingly hyperbolic, it began to backfire, as people recognized it for hysteria.

Furthermore, the presumptive Democrat candidate is Hillary. Waging a campaign with a major War on Women theme is too nakedly self-serving. Better to drop hints about "the final glass ceiling" here and there, and let some proxies just accuse whomever is scoring points against the campaign of sexism on an as-needed basis.

But if you're going to run on the "Republicans are evil meanies", platform, you need a good victim group. One that will get your base ginned up, and about which, hopefully, you can find a Republican or two to make a stupid comment / comment that can be twisted to sound stupid about.


And I think we just saw, with Indiana, a test run of that strategy.
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
women are actually more likely to be in favor of restricting abortion than men. .

Again. No they are not
e8724p.png
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
108,335
Reaction score
52,447
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The War on Women meme is playing out. It worked a bit in the past - mostly when enabled by idiotic Republicans - but ran up against a few hard realities (women are actually more likely to be in favor of restricting abortion than men. Birth control, it turns out, most people know, is actually not something that will kill you if your employer doesn't provide it for free, women care about issues other than those involving a uterus, etc.), and as the rhetoric got increasingly hyperbolic, it began to backfire, as people recognized it for hysteria.

Furthermore, the presumptive Democrat candidate is Hillary. Waging a campaign with a major War on Women theme is too nakedly self-serving. Better to drop hints about "the final glass ceiling" here and there, and let some proxies just accuse whomever is scoring points against the campaign of sexism on an as-needed basis.

But if you're going to run on the "Republicans are evil meanies", platform, you need a good victim group. One that will get your base ginned up, and about which, hopefully, you can find a Republican or two to make a stupid comment / comment that can be twisted to sound stupid about.


And I think we just saw, with Indiana, a test run of that strategy.

I find this an interesting insight, though surely not in the way you intended. That you see legitimate concern with a law as a strategy reveals a ton about how you think, if rather less about how democrats think. But I do understand what you are saying about wanting to call the other side meanies. I mean, imagine if some one tried to suggest the other side was working on behalf of slave owners or something...That would be pretty low, pretty dishonest, but certainly some would think it an effective strategy, since actual legitimate concerns are not something you recognize, it must be strategy, right?
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
67,539
Reaction score
34,329
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
67,539
Reaction score
34,329
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I find this an interesting insight, though surely not in the way you intended. That you see legitimate concern with a law as a strategy reveals a ton about how you think, if rather less about how democrats think.

:shrug: I'm less discussing them using lawfare as a strategy, and more discussing them using hysterical accusation of hatred as a strategy. But the latter will no doubt play a supporting role.


But hey - come the 2016 campaign, we'll see :).

But I do understand what you are saying about wanting to call the other side meanies. I mean, imagine if some one tried to suggest the other side was working on behalf of slave owners or something...That would be pretty low, pretty dishonest, but certainly some would think it an effective strategy, since actual legitimate concerns are not something you recognize, it must be strategy, right?

:shrug: depends - are they actually enabling slave owners by holding up legislation to stop them in order to grandstand about the Hyde Amendment, which has been a bipartisan agreement for four decades or so, desperate (as Indiana additionally shows) to create a Culture War flapup that will hopefully re-energize their base and distract from a world full of failure? And is this a critique of specific actions or a blanket accusation about their character?
 

EdwinWillers

"Who will tell us the truth?"
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
5,643
Reaction score
3,229
Gender
Male
The War on Women meme is playing out. It worked a bit in the past - mostly when enabled by idiotic Republicans - but ran up against a few hard realities (women are actually more likely to be in favor of restricting abortion than men. Birth control, it turns out, most people know, is actually not something that will kill you if your employer doesn't provide it for free, women care about issues other than those involving a uterus, etc.), and as the rhetoric got increasingly hyperbolic, it began to backfire, as people recognized it for hysteria.

Furthermore, the presumptive Democrat candidate is Hillary. Waging a campaign with a major War on Women theme is too nakedly self-serving. Better to drop hints about "the final glass ceiling" here and there, and let some proxies just accuse whomever is scoring points against the campaign of sexism on an as-needed basis.

But if you're going to run on the "Republicans are evil meanies", platform, you need a good victim group. One that will get your base ginned up, and about which, hopefully, you can find a Republican or two to make a stupid comment / comment that can be twisted to sound stupid about.


And I think we just saw, with Indiana, a test run of that strategy.
Good post.

I find it rather inconceivable though that Democrats would discriminate in favor of the homosexual mafia, let alone treat them as a "victim group" - especially on the premise of... discrimination. The Indiana "strategy" failed pretty quick (or will fail soon enough), once the transparency and hypocrisy of it became so evident, and so quickly. As a "trial balloon" it popped pretty quickly.

Not sure who they have either as victim alternates.
They've already tried and failed with children.
They've already tried and failed with the elderly.
As you note they've run the course with trying to make women victims, on multiple fronts.
They've tried and failed with college students and student loans.
They've tried and failed with "the poor" and the homeless.
They've tried and failed with victims of crime - especially gun crimes.
They've tried and failed with illegal immigrants.
While making inroads on the marijuana front, pot heads aren't exactly a stellar "victim group" - leastwise not when stoned.

Hillary can't even be given victim status anymore with her pathetic record and the horrifically boring prospect of her sitting in the White House. They tried and failed trying to paint her the smartest woman alive.
Probably the only redeeming quality Hillary has at this point is Bill, whose return to the White House would provide a solid 4 years of voyeuristic entertainment for the country.

Whatever they opt to do, it's impossible at this point for it NOT to appear (well, to be) totally self-serving.
They've pretty much run out of victims to patronize. And given the divisiveness this presidency has nurtured for the last 6 years, any strategy to sling mud on the right is destined to fail as well with a populace tired of it and eager to see real, substantive change.

The homosexual mafia can't do that, any more than a haggard old biddy who's only rallying cry has become the contorted image of her hysterically screaming "what difference does it make?!!!" Unfortunately for Hillary, that's exactly what voters are thinking of her running for president.

Sadly, her only chance for winning is probably a platform where she appeals to her own self-induced victimhood. Not exactly inspiring.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
67,539
Reaction score
34,329
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Good post.

I find it rather inconceivable though that Democrats would discriminate in favor of the homosexual mafia, let alone treat them as a "victim group" - especially on the premise of... discrimination. The Indiana "strategy" failed pretty quick (or will fail soon enough), once the transparency and hypocrisy of it became so evident, and so quickly. As a "trial balloon" it popped pretty quickly.

I think we view that occurrence very differently. Sure, their success was only nominative and superficial - but that's all they are after. Create chaos and trouble, accuse Republicans of being meanies, move on. Sure, they didn't change any policy, but they just got what they would view a notch on their stick.

Not sure who they have either as victim alternates.
They've already tried and failed with children.
They've already tried and failed with the elderly.
As you note they've run the course with trying to make women victims, on multiple fronts.
They've tried and failed with college students and student loans.
They've tried and failed with "the poor" and the homeless.
They've tried and failed with victims of crime - especially gun crimes.
They've tried and failed with illegal immigrants.
While making inroads on the marijuana front, pot heads aren't exactly a stellar "victim group" - leastwise not when stoned.

I think college kids as victims will make a comeback - the student loan issue is huge for my generation, and the Party Of Free Stuff will find it pretty natural to make a political strategy of winning students by promising them easier loan terms, loan forgiveness, free community college, etc.

Hillary can't even be given victim status anymore with her pathetic record and the horrifically boring prospect of her sitting in the White House. They tried and failed trying to paint her the smartest woman alive.

Hillary is not a good politician.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
108,335
Reaction score
52,447
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
:shrug: I'm less discussing them using lawfare as a strategy, and more discussing them using hysterical accusation of hatred as a strategy. But the latter will no doubt play a supporting role.


But hey - come the 2016 campaign, we'll see :).

So yeah, you see legitimate concern as strategy. Interesting insight into your thought process.

:shrug: depends - are they actually enabling slave owners by holding up legislation to stop them in order to grandstand about the Hyde Amendment, which has been a bipartisan agreement for four decades or so, desperate (as Indiana additionally shows) to create a Culture War flapup that will hopefully re-energize their base and distract from a world full of failure? And is this a critique of specific actions or a blanket accusation about their character?

And here you are peddling the party line, trying to demonize democrats, in pretty much the very way you are accusing democrats of doing in this very thread. Oh, and hint: It is a lot more complex than you want people to think, and no it is not the norm to include it.
 

EdwinWillers

"Who will tell us the truth?"
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
5,643
Reaction score
3,229
Gender
Male
I think we view that occurrence very differently. Sure, their success was only nominative and superficial - but that's all they are after. Create chaos and trouble, accuse Republicans of being meanies, move on. Sure, they didn't change any policy, but they just got what they would view a notch on their stick.
I'm not sure I totally agree - I think the homosexual agenda is much more than simply trying to stir things up so as to make Republicans look bad. Dems in general might use them in that way though for political gain, sure; but I think the homosexual mafia is committed to their cause.

I think college kids as victims will make a comeback - the student loan issue is huge for my generation, and the Party Of Free Stuff will find it pretty natural to make a political strategy of winning students by promising them easier loan terms, loan forgiveness, free community college, etc.
Won't disagree; in fact, I don't see the POFS changing their tactics in any of those areas. They'll milk them for all they're worth, and then some.

I just think the public is getting tired of the never-ending, ad-nauseum nature of it and wanting something more substantive -- not that many won't take what they can get from them in the process, but I sense the populace wanting something more out of this life than promises and freebies.

Hillary is not a good politician.
...or person, which has been made quite transparent now.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
67,539
Reaction score
34,329
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So yeah, you see legitimate concern as strategy.

No, I see hyperbolic hysterics about an issue in an attempt to paint your opposition as not "wrong" but evil as a strategy.

A conservative example would be those who accused folks who didn't support the Iraq War of therefore being unpatriotic. It's an emotionally satisfying... strategy built around demonizing the opposition in order to discredit their beliefs rather than having to answer them.

Interesting insight into your thought process.

Well, we will see if I am correct.

And here you are peddling the party line, trying to demonize democrats, in pretty much the very way you are accusing democrats of doing in this very thread.

No - if I were to be demonizing them I would be saying that they are all supporters of slavery rather than people who are taking actions that enable slavery. I would be saying that the only reason to oppose the bill is because you support slavery, instead of what I actually said, which was that they opposed the bill because they wanted a culture war issue to re-energize a depressed base.

(worth noting, it wasn't even my title to begin with, but no forum rule required me to quote the article title in the thread title in the General Politics Forum)


That is one of the dumbest arguments I have heard off the Senate floor in some time. Monies that the federal government collects and then uses for it's own purposes are not federal monies if they don't come from taxes? Even the example cited as the "opposition position" (the crime victims fund) is overarchingly controlled by the language that restricts the flow of monies to pay for abortions. And yes, in fact, you will note that since 1976, it has been continuously included. The Federal Government does not provide abortions.
 

Linc

NIMBY
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
54,225
Reaction score
16,161
Location
IL—16
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
One of the oldest 'Nixon' cards has just been played by the OP.
Accuse DEMs of what yer doing, continue to repeat the lie, and then start yer hit ads for the 2016 elections.

I didn't ask the CEOs of major corporations that support the GOP to change the mind of the Arkansas governor.
Nor did I ask Jeb Bush to flip-flop away from supporting Pence--like Romney 2.0.

You people on the fright-wing did this to yerselves.
Small government like hell.

You will begin to reap what you have sewn Saturday at the Final Four in INDY .
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
67,539
Reaction score
34,329
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No, I see hyperbolic hysterics about an issue in an attempt to paint your opposition as not "wrong" but evil as a strategy.

A conservative example would be those who accused folks who didn't support the Iraq War of therefore being unpatriotic. It's an emotionally satisfying... strategy built around demonizing the opposition in order to discredit their beliefs rather than having to answer them.



Well, we will see if I am correct.



No - if I were to be demonizing them I would be saying that they are all supporters of slavery rather than people who are taking actions that enable slavery. I would be saying that the only reason to oppose the bill is because you support slavery, instead of what I actually said, which was that they opposed the bill because they wanted a culture war issue to re-energize a depressed base.

(worth noting, it wasn't even my title to begin with, but no forum rule required me to quote the article title in the thread title in the General Politics Forum)



That is one of the dumbest arguments I have heard off the Senate floor in some time. Monies that the federal government collects and then uses for it's own purposes are not federal monies if they don't come from taxes? Even the example cited as the "opposition position" (the crime victims fund) is overarchingly controlled by the language that restricts the flow of monies to pay for abortions. And yes, in fact, you will note that since 1976, it has been continuously included. The Federal Government does not provide abortions.

Wait a minute. I just got successfully trolled.


Well done threadjack, Redress. Well done indeed. :tips hat:
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,958
Reaction score
17,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
It's far too early for that. You have to keep in mind too that just like national Republicans, national Democrats react to external developments. While you have qualms with the narrative, I will point out that the language in the referenced laws, *in addition to* the developing reactions against the rising tide of gay marriage victories across many states in the country, made this a much more likely story had it been both relatively consistent with other states and had there been a dialogue about serving this group of potential customers.

The issue of women, homosexuals, and race plays a significant part of the Democratic Party's base identity since the late 1960s in much the same way that evangelical and conservative catholics, the wallstreet elite, and populist white working class workers represent a significant portion of the Republican base. They feed off of the things that each portion feels like it is experiencing and move from there.

It's less sinister and more of a reflection of living in the moment in a democracy.If rape becomes a part of the discussion again, the affairs impacting homosexuality will be present, but may take a back seat to something that temporarily has the national attention.
 

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Or is it a trade by social conservatives of the lost cause of a war on equal marriage to a last stand for a public right to refuse public accommodation? Man the lunch counters, baby!!

Excerpted from "Why a G.O.P. Gambit Backfired in Indiana" by AMY DAVIDSON, The New Yorker, MARCH 31, 2015
The Indiana law is the product of a G.O.P. search for a respectable way to oppose same-sex marriage and to rally the base around it. There are two problems with this plan, however. First, not everyone in the party, even in its most conservative precincts, wants to make gay marriage an issue, even a stealth one—or opposes gay marriage to begin with. As the unhappy reaction in Indiana shows, plenty of Republicans find the anti-marriage position embarrassing, as do some business interests that are normally aligned with the party. Second, the law is not an empty rhetorical device but one that has been made strangely powerful, in ways that haven’t yet been fully tested, by the Supreme Court decision last year in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. That ruling allowed the Christian owners of a chain of craft stores to use the federal version of the RFRA to ignore parts of the Affordable Care Act. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent, argued strongly that the majority was turning that RFRA into a protean tool for all sorts of evasions. As Jeffrey Toobin has noted, she was proved right even before the Indiana controversy.
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
So yeah, you see legitimate concern as strategy. Interesting insight into your thought process.

Don't you know? When liberals fight for the rights of women, gays, blacks, Latinos, or minority religions and atheists, it's just pandering for votes. When conservatives fight to maintain the power of their white, heterosexual, Christian, patriarchal base, they're just standing up for their principles.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
67,539
Reaction score
34,329
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's far too early for that. You have to keep in mind too that just like national Republicans, national Democrats react to external developments. While you have qualms with the narrative, I will point out that the language in the referenced laws, *in addition to* the developing reactions against the rising tide of gay marriage victories across many states in the country, made this a much more likely story had it been both relatively consistent with other states and had there been a dialogue about serving this group of potential customers.

The issue of women, homosexuals, and race plays a significant part of the Democratic Party's base identity since the late 1960s in much the same way that evangelical and conservative catholics, the wallstreet elite, and populist white working class workers represent a significant portion of the Republican base. They feed off of the things that each portion feels like it is experiencing and move from there.

It's less sinister and more of a reflection of living in the moment in a democracy.If rape becomes a part of the discussion again, the affairs impacting homosexuality will be present, but may take a back seat to something that temporarily has the national attention.

Hm. I think you are assuming that campaigns are planned much less than they actually are. The War on Women narrative wasn't in response to any particular major series of nation-gripping events, but rather a deliberate, crafted, meme designed to motivate portions of the base while divesting low-information moderates from the GOP. It worked, some, until it fell into self parody from over-use.

The War on Gays, I think, will be a similarly deliberately crafted message. Events will play a supporting role, not a lead one.
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,958
Reaction score
17,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Hm. I think you are assuming that campaigns are planned much less than they actually are. The War on Women narrative wasn't in response to any particular major series of nation-gripping events, but rather a deliberate, crafted, meme designed to motivate portions of the base while divesting low-information moderates from the GOP. It worked, some, until it fell into self parody from over-use.

The War on Gays, I think, will be a similarly deliberately crafted message. Events will play a supporting role, not a lead one.

Some of it will be intentional, but these things often rely on them being part of the public consciousness for a great deal of time or at the very least, at that time. If they can find an instance where Candidate A has a story that breaks about their belief that homosexuality is a sin, Candidate B will hit them on that. If an external event happens, they will of course start public comment.

Now, you and I disagree about who the low information voters are and how they get their feigned interest, but we both agree it will be there.
 

Dovkan

Banned
Joined
Mar 23, 2015
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
557
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Believe it or not, homosexuals don't have the rights they deserve and people are trying to discriminate against them, call it a "fake" 'war' put forth by democrats if you want, doesn't change the fact.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
54,150
Reaction score
19,779
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Hm. I think you are assuming that campaigns are planned much less than they actually are. The War on Women narrative wasn't in response to any particular major series of nation-gripping events, but rather a deliberate, crafted, meme designed to motivate portions of the base while divesting low-information moderates from the GOP. It worked, some, until it fell into self parody from over-use.

The War on Gays, I think, will be a similarly deliberately crafted message. Events will play a supporting role, not a lead one.

LOL What a bunch of bull. The war on women was and is a REAL issue and one that State legislatures all over the country started. Just like the Indiana legislature started this latest assault on SSM and LGBT rights. The GOP legislatures are playing the lead in this and no amount of spin will change that fact. What is more interesting is that they are doing this instead of governing. Even at the State level the GOP has become unable to form a consensus on anything of value to the electorate. It might cause some problems for them down the line.

Screen-Shot-2015-01-05-at-12.53.54-PM-1.jpg
 
Last edited:

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
67,539
Reaction score
34,329
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Some of it will be intentional, but these things often rely on them being part of the public consciousness for a great deal of time or at the very least, at that time. If they can find an instance where Candidate A has a story that breaks about their belief that homosexuality is a sin, Candidate B will hit them on that. If an external event happens, they will of course start public comment.

"A Story Breaks" is hardly necessarily a random event, and a wide variety of events can be folded into a competent strategy. You start out with the "we're going to emphasize the war on gays" approach, and then you create, foment, enable, capture, or spread events necessary to continue to get broader public attention onto that message, while you additionally continually message your base.

Now, you and I disagree about who the low information voters are and how they get their feigned interest, but we both agree it will be there.

I have rarely (in fact, I struggle to think of an instance) where I have been impressed by an actual "Undecided Voter"s' reasoning. Usually it runs more like this:

Interviewer (I): So who are you voting for?
Undecided Voter (UV): Well, I haven't made up my mind yet.

I: Oh - okay, so what are you looking for?
UV: Well, like, I'm, like, waiting to hear more about where they stand on, like, the economy, and stuff.

I: Okay - so what about economic policy are you looking for?
UV: Well, like, you know, jobs, and stuff.

You know, because usually one candidate will adopt the radical "pro jobs" platform, while the other takes the "no, screw jobs" position. :roll:

And then they emerge from the voting booth and you ask them:

I: So, who did you vote for?
UV: I voted for Obama because, like, Romney is mean to poor people / I voted for Romney because Obama, well, I just don't think that while we're at war with Muslims we should have a Muslim for a President.



If we wanted better governance (or, at least, better educated voters instead of people making decisions because "Well I voted for that feller because he had fewer letters in his name. You can always trust fellers with fewer letters in their name.", we would bring back Poll Testing. Basic questions like: Name the three branches of government, or Who is the current Vice President.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
67,539
Reaction score
34,329
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
LOL What a bunch of bull. The war on women was and is a REAL issue and one that State legislatures all over the country started. Just like the Indiana legislature started this latest assault on SSM and LGBT rights. The GOP legislatures are playing the lead in this and no amount of spin will change that fact. What is more interesting is that they are doing this instead of governing. Even at the State level the GOP has become unable to form a consensus on anything of value to the electorate. It might cause some problems for them down the line.

Screen-Shot-2015-01-05-at-12.53.54-PM-1.jpg

Women are actually more likely than men to support additional restrictions on abortion. :)
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,958
Reaction score
17,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
"A Story Breaks" is hardly necessarily a random event, and a wide variety of events can be folded into a competent strategy. You start out with the "we're going to emphasize the war on gays" approach, and then you create, foment, enable, capture, or spread events necessary to continue to get broader public attention onto that message, while you additionally continually message your base.



I have rarely (in fact, I struggle to think of an instance) where I have been impressed by an actual "Undecided Voter"s' reasoning. Usually it runs more like this:

Interviewer (I): So who are you voting for?
Undecided Voter (UV): Well, I haven't made up my mind yet.

I: Oh - okay, so what are you looking for?
UV: Well, like, I'm, like, waiting to hear more about where they stand on, like, the economy, and stuff.

I: Okay - so what about economic policy are you looking for?
UV: Well, like, you know, jobs, and stuff.

You know, because usually one candidate will adopt the radical "pro jobs" platform, while the other takes the "no, screw jobs" position. :roll:

And then they emerge from the voting booth and you ask them:

I: So, who did you vote for?
UV: I voted for Obama because, like, Romney is mean to poor people / I voted for Romney because Obama, well, I just don't think that while we're at war with Muslims we should have a Muslim for a President.



If we wanted better governance (or, at least, better educated voters instead of people making decisions because "Well I voted for that feller because he had fewer letters in his name. You can always trust fellers with fewer letters in their name.", we would bring back Poll Testing. Basic questions like: Name the three branches of government, or Who is the current Vice President.

It's easier to do that when a substantial portion of the population belongs to that group, otherwise it can't become that big of your emphasis.

I'm not normally impressed with the decided voter, let alone the undecided voter. However, poll testing is beyond pointless. Even if you have the correct points to focus on, it was the human element which entirely eroded its usefulness. Whoever was in charge of the determination used their biases and social pressures to lock someone out of voting, even if a person have the correct answers. Meanwhile the average dumbass that that person liked got in.

Poll testing is not only harmful to the Republic, but it also never worked in the manner intended.
 
Top Bottom