I’ve noticed that I encounter two general types of thinkers - let’s call them digital and binary.
Digital thinkers are people that can see both sides of an argument, and rarely back their positions on all-or-nothing - they’re willing to compromise.
Binary thinkers view the world as a series of absolutes - good/bad, right/wrong, etc. Once they define a position, I.e. Republican good/Democrat bad, they typically stick with their position even if shown it isn’t true. It seems to be how they’re wired.
One way I’ve found to get a binary thinker to consider voting for a Democrat is to change how the bins are defined. Instead of saying ‘This Democrat is good and the Republican is bad’ instead compare the Democratic candidate to ‘good’ Republicans - Eisenhower, Lincoln, etc. - and contrast the Republican candidate with these Republicans too. Also point out differences between your candidate’s views and the views of more-liberal Dems. Then point out that we have a two-party system, so you can’t have two Republican candidates (and the Tea Party works against moderate Republicans) - so the Democratic candidate should be seen as the moderate-Republican candidate that was just forced by ‘the system’ to run as a Democrat.
It sounds crazy, but I’ve found it sometimes does work.
We hear it as a shocking thing to say that almost people would reject – but I think there is a high likelihood that republicans will hear it as “we don’t want to pay more taxes and loser minorities don’t deserve as much money as me.”
You’ve just defined the problem. False equivalency. Sorry, friend. But Democrats and Republicans are MILES apart. They share very little in common except an expensive electoral system that requires all of our politicians to hold their hands out. And even at that the Democrats always favored campaign reforms…the Republicans not so much. Please stop with the false equivalencies. It’s damning our country.
Sure, just as soon as we find a unicorn grazing in our yard to carry us. Then everything will be bunnies and sunshine and magic gold coins will fall from the sky.
No, it’s not crazy and it may have worked for you ‘sometimes’ but the reality is it’s a big waste of time IMO. Getting lazy ass Democrats to the polls to vote is where energy and resources should be spent.
" I do not support a livable wage…What I support is making sure that we have an economy that is robust with low taxes and less regulation.”
translation: I fully support the use of the lives of the impoverished - like fire wood - to feed the fires of the economy so that it heats up to a level that satisfies me
This was a stupid thing to say - and it is almost a certainty that she - or her staff will issue some lame ‘clarification’ that undoubtedly will harshly blame Democrat Jon Ossoff for the divisive misunderstanding.
Russia distinguishes between a minimum wage and “subsistence minimum”, what you would actually need to survive in your region or city. Typically, the subsistence minimum is a multiple of the minimum wage. For example, if you lived in California the multiple along the coast is probably about 4.0 or $29 an hour. That’s just to be solvent, servicing debt, etc. Nordic countries, including Denmark, set minimum wages by sector and industry, so that is an average.
It took them 6 years to turn on Mr Bush a decade ago. We go through this every decade or two. In a few years, half the people who voted for Mr Trump will deny ever doing so, or say something like, “He’s not a real Republican”. This is the pattern.
I just hope they don’t take 6 years this time. I’m hoping for 2.
That you don’t care if your constituents live or die?
I forgot, of course that’s what you mean, you’re a Republican. It’s just that most Republicans don’t come right out and say it. I guess you should get some credit for honesty (c.f. Michael Kinsley: “a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth”)
I think the better answer there, Darcy, is ‘do both’. Do everything to win over hearts and minds AND do what can be done to get unmotivated voters to the polls. Any strategy that delivers more votes to the right side of history should be employed—but no one of them should be the only one relied on.
