Why bother?; Drumpf, himself, will depress voter turnout with evangelicals and true conservatives.
Democrats love to talk about Republican voter suppression, and various ways, such as strict voter identification laws, that have been employed to keep Democrats from registering and casting effective votes. But ironically, the path to Democratic victory in November could be to adopt some methods to depress the Republican vote, specifically to encourage conservatives to stay home on Election Day or to vote for third party candidates.
Completely ludicrous comparison.
One is using spin to suppress the opposition party’s turnout through creative advertising. Unsavory perhaps, but legal.
The other is using the courtroom via very strict, tailored voter ID laws to deny a particular group of people their due right to vote…which, if legal, is due to a SCOTUS oblivious to the realities of life in the USA.
Democrats love to talk about Republican voter suppression, and various ways, such as strict voter identification laws, that have been employed to keep Democrats from registering and casting effective votes. But ironically, the path to Democratic victory in November could be to adopt some methods to depress the Republican vote, specifically to encourage conservatives to stay home on Election Day or to vote for third party candidates.
Seriously? You’re suggesting that convincing voters that your opponent doesn’t represent their ideals is the same as using legislation to try to prevent people from registering to vote and/or voting?
Please, one of the TPM editors should go in and change the lede. It’s beneath a quality political publication like this.
discouraging demoralized opponents is a far cry from voter suppression
Democrats love to talk about Republican voter suppression, and various
ways, such as strict voter identification laws, that have been employed
to keep Democrats from registering and casting effective votes. But
ironically, the path to Democratic victory in November could be to adopt
some methods to depress the Republican vote, specifically to encourage
conservatives to stay home on Election Day or to vote for third party
candidates.
Jesus Christ and a Cracker, I can’t believe this shit is what passes for a TPM article today. Talk about false equivalency!
Just a horrible comparison TPM just horrid
I agree. I usually allow journalists a pretty wide birth to make a point as no analogy is perfect. But this falls into the “burn a village to save it” realm of doublespeak.
Bad comparison (as pointed out very well above). With regard to an active (legal) campaign to discourage GOP voters, I look at that as something that belongs in the sector of a campaign under a separate heading and one which should be used–if at all-- by people knowing what they are doing. I also happen to believe that positive themes automatically discourage people on the other side.
If the Cons are not discouraged by the donnie…
But ironically, the path to Democratic victory in November could be to adopt some methods to depress the Republican vote, specifically to encourage conservatives to stay home on Election Day or to vote for third party candidates. This may be an unsavory tactic but smart politics.
Voter suppression and “encouraging” voters to stay home or vote third-party are NOT the same thing. What a dumb-ass comparison.
Josh needs to take this nonsense down and have a real writer do a story on the subject.
Discouraging? Hey, I thought they’d want to vote for a Christian that reflects their values, but…
if they want to vote for a godless, thrice-divorced, tax-dodging Mafioso heathen moneychanger, false-idol-worshiper; and burn in hell (cast into the lake of fire!) for all eternity by turning their back on God and literally driving another nail into Jesus Christ as he’s up on the cross,
then who am I to discourage that?
Republicans, interestingly enough, use both voter-suppression and discouragement strategies. Think about all those negative ads, or the pundits declaring that both parties are indistinguishable. So if convincing people not to vote for the candidate of their party is “unsavory” then at last we have a true “both sides do it”.
“Democrats love to talk about Republican voter suppression” Garbage. Democrats no more “love” talking about voter suppression tactics than they “love” talking about the holocaust. We HAVE TO talk about these things because of their significant importance, and because people who have the means (pulpit), the resources, and should know enough to do so, like pols and the press, too often don’t. Instead, we get voter ID laws and MSM acquiescence to and amplification of the false-flag “immigrant/other, liberal agenda, voter-fraud, both-sides-do-it” bullshit narrative.
A far better approach would be to do whatever is necessary to drive a negative gap in the polls so large that it is all but certain that Trump will loose big time. Many will not bother voting for Trump if he is perceived as a loser. Trump will surely lose if even Fox pollsters can’t hide the fact he can’t possibly win no matter how many old white guys turn out to vote for him.
What we need is large and active anti-Trump voter registration rallies in every congressional district in the country every week directed at unseating any republican who dares voice support for Trump.
The reality is that Trump is a loser because he will never convince women that 3" is “Yuge”.
I sent an email to the tips and comments address (talk@talkingpointsmemo.com) because I found that statement so ludicrous.
But such tactics are in at least some tension with Democratic Party rhetoric about encouraging everyone to cast a meaningful vote.
Uh…no, no it isn’t. It’s the difference between choosing to not cast a vote, and being unable to vote when you want to. We complain about Sander supporters sitting out the election because it’s one less vote against Trump, not because it’s a Constitutional issue.
There is no problem here. The Democrats just have to make lots of commercials showing a clip Trump having one position on a topic then follow it up with another clip of Trump taking the opposite position on the same topic. You know, Mexicans are rapists and murderers followed by “I love Mexicans” or the ban the Muslims speeches followed up by Trump’s new “outreach” to Muslims, and so on. At the end just ask which Trump is on the ballot.
false equivalence: if everybody is eating eel pie but then someone tempts then chocolate cake, they still get to eat something. that’s not at all the same as a closed kitchen.