General Discussion

booley

(3,855 posts)

11. and this is why we lose

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 03:45 PM

Dec 2011

Because if the best argument is the other guy is worse and you're a bad person for mentioning that even so this guy is still pretty flawed, you actually make people want to NOT do what you want. Even if you have a good point, it's lost among the douche-ness

And meanwhile our candidates can take deeper and deeper swerves to the right and all they have to do is say they still aren't as right leaning as the "other guys" (who are so far right reagan couldn't pass their Reagan purity test)

Which means even if we win...we still lose. Seriously, saying we would lose more in some hypothetical situation just isn't a good selling point since you are still reminding people that we are going to lose if we vote for "our" guy.

It's simple advertising principals. You don't sell your product with the slogan "Sucks less then most other brands, you idiot."

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

70 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Nobodyspecial: Don't Vote Obama -- If you want some crazy-ass far-right extremist running the U.S. [View all] nobodyspecial Dec 2011 OP

... DevonRex Dec 2011 #1

Yep. TheWraith Dec 2011 #31

the Greenwald article this is a parody of is worth reading Enrique Dec 2011 #2

nice spin, but you're wrong SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #57

Ya know... CakeGrrl Dec 2011 #3

Yes Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2011 #5

It's not nobodyspecial Dec 2011 #9

Yeah Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2011 #26

Thank you - best analogy for the "let it burn" position. I will be borrowing this, arely staircase Dec 2011 #14

You're welcome and help yourself! CakeGrrl Dec 2011 #36

+1 Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2011 #4

I imagine that for many voters, it will be a choice between LanternWaste Dec 2011 #6

K&R... SidDithers Dec 2011 #7

Yep, exactly! Spazito Dec 2011 #8

Case in Point!! BlancheSplanchnik Dec 2011 #37

The question isn't whether people are going to vote for Obama hifiguy Dec 2011 #10

and this is why we lose booley Dec 2011 #11

Reality sucks nobodyspecial Dec 2011 #12

Voting my convictions. LanternWaste Dec 2011 #35

Ok let me see if I can sum up millions of words of others in a short post here booley Dec 2011 #39

No ProSense Dec 2011 #17

sorry but you got that backwards booley Dec 2011 #28

So ProSense Dec 2011 #33

Except the argument isn't "Better" booley Dec 2011 #40

Well ProSense Dec 2011 #41

Oh sorry you're right booley Dec 2011 #46

Speaking ProSense Dec 2011 #52

I think you have it backwards. Pointing out the consequences of a Nader vote in 2000 resulted in his BzaDem Dec 2011 #61

Wait a minute. Why aren't CENTRISTS to blame for the lack of voter enthusiam Romulox Dec 2011 #44

Why ProSense Dec 2011 #45

You're Romulox Dec 2011 #47

Oh, ProSense Dec 2011 #56

There is a really easy answer to that. BzaDem Dec 2011 #62

Careful with that argument. Laelth Dec 2011 #69

I highly doubt the Democratic party worries about people voting against the party from the left. BzaDem Dec 2011 #70

They are not swerving to the right treestar Dec 2011 #19

I'm not saying Obama is evil at all. nobodyspecial Dec 2011 #25

Below, you said: "Smart, thinking people don't vote for Obama." AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2011 #67

Your analysis works if the voter acts like a consumer. bigmonkey Dec 2011 #34

We won the last Presidential Election and we're going to win the next one, too. MjolnirTime Dec 2011 #68

I can only imagine that the "let it burn" crowd don't have children to whom they wish to hand arely staircase Dec 2011 #13

But their ideals and conscience are far more important nobodyspecial Dec 2011 #15

yep. nt arely staircase Dec 2011 #16

Exactly. And they don't realize how much suffering there would be treestar Dec 2011 #18

with no assurance things will then (or ever) get better. nt arely staircase Dec 2011 #21

and with no guarantee of the outcome nobodyspecial Dec 2011 #23

If anything, it would enable right wing states' rights types treestar Dec 2011 #29

I hear we eat babies too booley Dec 2011 #30

strawman - I said nothing about people "who are angry with Obama." arely staircase Dec 2011 #38

strawman? Look in a mirror booley Dec 2011 #42

please show me where I have characterized those who are angry at Obama as nihilists or arely staircase Dec 2011 #43

The issue isn't people who don't want to vote or Obama. BzaDem Dec 2011 #63

My problem with the Let it Burn approach - TBF Dec 2011 #20

well, this Southern Progressive does have the ability to return fire. arely staircase Dec 2011 #22

I think the country has a good chance of falling into despotism... joshcryer Dec 2011 #55

There's an argument to be made for what you say. Turbineguy Dec 2011 #24

I think you're engaging in magical thinking. bigmonkey Dec 2011 #48

Yep, I don't get why there is such a consensus nobodyspecial Dec 2011 #50

Well, I did mention Turbineguy Dec 2011 #54

I'm tired of all the extremism and hyperbole on both sides of the issue, period. Quartermass Dec 2011 #27

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had a better choice? JDPriestly Dec 2011 #32

But...? kentuck Dec 2011 #49

Or we can have a right-wing "Dem" re-elected as president slay Dec 2011 #51

We sure do nobodyspecial Dec 2011 #53

But what makes you think that someone is going to get something just because they need it? BzaDem Dec 2011 #64

Preaching to the choir and turning on the pew members in case they might think for themselves. AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2011 #58

There is nothing I can say to win over those nobodyspecial Dec 2011 #59

I think that you're right. People who learn to think are a problem. But only to those who cannot AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2011 #60

Yes, because clearly anyone who would vote for Obama nobodyspecial Dec 2011 #65

Lots of people in the world can think while simultaneously having horrible ideas. BzaDem Dec 2011 #66