General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: In case people missed it - California shifted to the right as well [View all]Sympthsical
(10,829 posts)It's like when people say "If it weren't for the electoral college . . ." Ok, sure. We would have won some more. But there is an EC, and we know that going in. So we have to tailor our strategies accordingly.
It's the same thing with the voters. This isn't our first rodeo. We know they don't pay attention. We know simpler messages connecting the dots for them work better than complicated treatises on fascism or trying to even explain what Trump was found guilty of. (Seriously, people hear 34 felonies, but the average voter has no idea what that was about).
It's like leaving the house and asking my cat to mow the lawn while I'm out. I know what's going to happen. The cat knows what's going to happen. So how much disappointment should I really be feeling there when I return to find the hedges untrimmed?
I could get mad and yell about lazy cats (to which he will reply "I try, thanks!" ). But it just feels like I lost sight of the fact that cats don't mow lawns. Voters don't consume information the same way political junkies do. They don't care about the same issues political junkies do. Their spaces are oftentimes not our own. Do we have to handhold them every. excruciating. step. of the way? Absolutely.
It has ever been thus. Humans in large groups don't do mid to long range thinking very well (see: climate change). As you said, they don't see connections. But I don't see that as insurmountable. I just think our approach is off. We're good at talking to ourselves. We're less good at talking to them.