How to convince primary voters to switch candidates to your favorite.

[MineralMan]

Here are some tips you can use anywhere, in person, on-line, at rallies, or any other time:

1. Call supporters of the other candidate insulting names. That's a sure-fire method.
2. Refer to the other candidate they support only in negative ways.
3. Imply that the candidate they support actually represents the other party.
4. Find as many arguments against the other candidate as possible, regardless of the source or truth.
5. Repeat the insulting names for a candidate's supporters as many times as possible.
6. Do not let up. Never admit that the candidate you support might not be victorious.

[mmonk]

1. We're essentially not fighting your candidate

as much as we are trying to gain a voice and representation.

[MineralMan]

3. I see. I must be confused, then.

I'll check into that. See, I like Bernie Sanders, and would vote for him in a second in the general election. It happens that I believe sincerely that he cannot win in the general election, but that Clinton has a much stronger chance, based on many factors and my experience in presidential elections.

I think either of them would do a good job as President, given the environment in which they will be placed. My only real goal is to make sure that a Democrat wins. I'm convinced that Clinton has a better chance of that, once the primaries are over. So, she's who i'll be supporting.

[Punkingal]

7. Add another item to your list, then...

"Tell their supporters over and over again their candidate can't possibly win the GE."

[MineralMan]

9. That's another one. People, however, do have opinions

on viability in the general election. Some of those opinions are well considered, while others are wishful in nature.

In reality, questions of viability are very valid concerns when selecting a nominee. I've watched too many elections where a nominee was not viable. In each case, that candidate lost the election, despite my support in the GE.

Whatever the argument, it can be made in a positive way, rather than simply being negative about the other candidate. Positive arguments promote change of mind. Rude attacks almost never do, especially if directed at a voter, rather than at a candidate. If I say, for example, that I believe that the candidate I support has a better chance to win in the GE, that is a positive argument. If I say that supporters of the other candidate are idiots, I've made a negative argument.

Too many people are doing this incorrectly, and on both sides, I'm afraid.

[Punkingal]

14. I agree, people do have opinions about viability...

I've been around the block a few times myself with elections, as you have, the first candidate I worked for being Jimmy Carter. I see something different this time around...and it's about time.

There was a Reagan Revolution at the ballot box. There can be another.

[Gothmog]

40. There is no polling supporting this revolution

[strategery blunder]

42. Didn't Carter lead the polling for most of the '80 election?

I keep reading around here that people laughed at Reagan, thinking he couldn't win.

Well, we all know how that turned out.

[MineralMan]

44. I wasn't laughing at Reagan. It seemed obvious that he

would win to me. The final blow happened with the October surprise. But, I think Reagan would have won anyhow, due to inflationary pressure and other factors. It was one of the most disappointing elections for me in my life. The next two terms were disastrous, in my opinion, and set the stage for many more disasters.

[Punkingal]

47. That election broke my heart.

[Punkingal]

46. There is if you take into account the mood of the electorate...people are dissatisfied.

It was that way in 1980. Election polls, no, you are correct about that right now.

[brooklynite]

54. ...especially if it's true.

[bkkyosemite]

29. I'm sorry you feel that way

[Uponthegears]

2. Small edit, then you nailed it.

Number 3:

"Imply that the candidate they support is not loyal to the party and only cares about himself."

THERE, FIXED IT!

Now, as good as your OP will be with those corrections, let's just add a Number 7:

7. Never, never, never actually debate policy differences.

[MineralMan]

5. It could have been put that way, too, I guess.

I was trying to cover both sides, though. Both candidates have supporters who follow those steps religiously.

[Uponthegears]

43. Unfortunately true

good fellow, unfortunately true.

[hobbit709]

4. Those who have already decided are unlikely to switch.

What needs to be done is to motivate the undecideds.
Most of the undecideds are tired of the same old bait and switch.

[MineralMan]

6. OK. Most undecided voters will decide based on

things that are not actually being discussed here and in other political venues, though. In any case ugly arguments don't work to convince anyone of anything. Ever. They only serve to alienate people.

[Scootaloo]

8. Oh!

1. Call supporters of the other candidate insulting names. That's a sure-fire method.

You mean like in July-August, where if you supported Sanders, clinton supporters insisted you had to be a white supremacist. A gingham-clad white supremacist, because I guess that's worse?

2. Refer to the other candidate they support only in negative ways.

Like that time a core clinton supporter came up with an OP calling sanders a segregationist, blamed him for the Chicago PD's abuse of black people AND Virginian slavery? Like the accusations that he's a rapist/ Liek the assertions that he's a racist, disloyal Jew working for Israel?

3. Imply that the candidate they support actually represents the other party.

Like all the times that sanders has been compared to Rand Paul? Like how people supporting him have been accused of wanting Trump to win?

4. Find as many arguments against the other candidate as possible, regardless of the source or truth.

You mean like using neo-nazi sites like stormfront or Tomatobubble or Gateway Pundit to attack a jewish candidate?

5. Repeat the insulting names for a candidate's supporters as many times as possible.

[link:http://jackassradicals.com/memberlist|
Like so?] Let's not forget that those gingham-clad white supremacists are "berniebros/bots." Also let's not forget that black Bernie supporters are really white people in blackface.

6. Do not let up. Never admit that the candidate you support might not be victorious.

You really want to try that angle there, MineralMan?

[MineralMan]

11. I wasn't specific about candidates. There have been supporters of both

candidate who are going about all of this in the wrong way. Clearly. I speak only for myself, and am not part of any group. I am not responsible for what others write or say. I control nobody, nor am I controlled by anybody.

My OP was a general one, and aimed at a very broad spectrum of supporters of all candidates. However, I have not seen such tactics from any O'Malley supporters, for which I congratulate them.

[Scootaloo]

13. Agreed, with a singular exception, O'M supporters have been chill.

But you really can't act all like "both sides are just as bad" in these regards, MineralMan. The use of neo-nazi websites alone makes sure of that.

[MineralMan]

16. I reject all use of right-wing, neo-nazi, or any such websites as sources

for arguments against any Democratic candidate. You will never see me doing that, and I do not even go to such websites. However, both sides have done that, and both sides make a serious mistake when they do.

I can, indeed, say that both sides are doing it wrong. In fact, I did just that in the OP for this post.

"Hillbots" and "Bernibots" are exactly the same stupid insult, directed at supporters of either candidate.

Accusations of racism or sexism are wrong, regardless of which Democratic candidate they are made against.

Using right-wing or opposition sources of any kind is a stupid mistake that harms one's argument.

All are being done by supporters of both candidates. Such tactics are useless and harm our chances of success on a national basis. Why would we do such a thing?

[Scootaloo]

19. No. Sanders supporters have not used neo-nazi sources or claims.

[morningfog]

10. Seeing as this is directed to DU GD:P, you fail in your presumption that anyone here is trying to

convince primary voters to switch candidates. That is simply not the case.

[MineralMan]

12. I posted it here, but it is aimed at a broader set of venues.

Are people on DU not trying to convince others? Really? If not, what could the point possibly be?

[morningfog]

15. It is not aimed at a broader set of venues. That is disingenuous.

You posted it here and it is a recitation of the perceived behaviors here. GDP is the only place, in fact, that I see examples of your list.

And, no GDPers are not trying to convince others to switch. GDP is a tribal fighting board. It is more akin to team rivals talking smack when their team scores a point. It is not to win support, to change minds or convince a change in candidate support, but to fight about who they feel is the better candidate, simply for the fight.

It is really just a muckraking clearing house.

[MineralMan]

17. DU is the only discussion forum where I post.

However, I have seen all of the points I raised used on many other venues. I do not post on any of those venues - only here. So, here is where I make my comments. You can take them personally, if you wish, or you can think a little more broadly.

[morningfog]

20. I don't take your comments personally. As I said, you missed the mark entirely

in your premise. I don't think your comments are of any value considering you misunderstand that.

[randys1]

33. Jesus, I sure HOPE the reason they post all this is to try and change minds, otherwise

it is just attacking and bashing a liberal Democrat for no good god damn reason.

[Prism]

18. You know

It's just too early for passive aggression. Have some cheerios or something first. Good lord. And take pity on your audience.

Here I am, blinking in the morning light, trying to rub that last gin and tonic out of my eyes before showering for work, glancing around for news.

But wait. No. This person needs, first thing in the blazing morning, to log on and passive aggressive troll for attention.

Dude.

Wait til noon or some shit.

Have mercy.

[MineralMan]

21. It's almost midday where I am.

I've had my breakfast, my coffee, and have been sitting here in front of my computer for three hours already.

Sorry if I disturbed your morning routine, but I'm in my own time zone.

Further, I'm not a "troll." Your insult is misplaced, frankly.

[morningfog]

24. No, your OPs are constructive, productive and contribute to elevating discourse.

BWWAHAHAHSHHAHHAHAH

[MineralMan]

25. I rest my case.

[morningfog]

26. Which case?

You've made a "case?" Where?

[morningfog]

22. Passive aggression is the only means he knows to get the attention he seeks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. 7 and 8

7. Patronize them on the internet
8. Disrespect them on the internet

Who doesn't like to be insulted, disrespected, and patronized?

[JonLeibowitz]

30. I personally enjoy it and take it to mean i struck a nerve with my factual posts.

[whatchamacallit]

34. That's rich

comin from you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. I treat others the way they treat me.

Always respectfully,
DSB

[whatchamacallit]

37. Well then let's fix your sig

Conditionally respectfully,
DSB

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. I can still love em while responding in kind./nt

[PatrickforO]

55. I LOVE it.

The thing is, this is a quasi-anonymous discussion board, so I don't expect people to like or even agree with me.

[NorthCarolina]

27. Can't believe you actually posted the Hillary playbook.

We already knew her crew was using and abusing these tactics though. Nice to see the confirmation of our speculations though.

[MineralMan]

28. I mentioned neither candidate.

That was intentional. Please try rereading my OP. Thanks.

[LexVegas]

31. Also, smear every endorser for the other candidate, especially if its women or minorities. nt

[whatchamacallit]

32. Ah, the MM shuffle

When she's assumed to be winning, it's post after post of smug crowing and exhorting Sanders supporters to accept "reality", and when it seems she's not, it's calls for decorum...

[MineralMan]

35. Nope, sorry.

You are incorrect. I have said all along that Sanders would be a good President and that I'd vote for him and campaign for him if he became the nominee. All along.

I still say that. However, I believe that Hillary Clinton is a stronger candidate for the general election, so she has my support in the primary season.

If you support Bernie Sanders, then good luck to you. If he wins, I'll be working for him following the convention. Can you say the same for Clinton? Will you be campaigning for her if she is the nominee? It's your choice, of course. That's my test for anyone. Those who strongly support the Democratic nominee are hard-working Democrats. Those who do not are not.

You will do as you do. I'll be doing what I always do.

[Gothmog]

39. These good tips

Many Clinton supporters (myself included) like Sanders. I just do not think that he is electable and this election is too important to take the risk on a candidate who can not win in the general election

[Autumn]

41. Here's another way to get primary voters to switch candidates to your favorite.

Start a nasty web site about them.

http://jackassradicals.com/forum/general-discussion

[MineralMan]

45. Such websites are a dime a dozen. They're also worthless in

influencing anyone. They're simply distractions, so I have nothing to do with them.

[Sheepshank]

50. ..because everyone votes based on a satirical site *roll eyes* n't

[Autumn]

51. What? You think that only Bernie supporters turn off people from their candidate?

That site is just chock full of awesomeness by Hillary supporters and guaranteed to win a few Sanders supporters over.

[Sheepshank]

56. Satire with a bite of truth.....damn some of,that made me laugh and nod yes! Nt

[Motown_Johnny]

48. If that were true, Hillary would be surging.

Sorry,


You Fail !!!

[Sheepshank]

49. I think giving so many of my friends that are politically naive, a link to DU

should do the trick. I am 100% positive, the anti Hillary vitriol and swarming would set the stage.

Then I'd give them links to Rep Lewis' page so they can witness the Bernie negative swarming in action, the link to Travon Martin's mom and her endorsement of Hillary and that ultimate swarming, BLM and that negative swarming, to Gabby Gifford's FB and to that negative swarming. Likely I won't have to go much further. They will absolutely not want to align with that type of constituency. These Bernie supporters have done all the work for me.

[highprincipleswork]

52. Really curious about which side you are describing.

[MineralMan]

53. Both sides.

They're both the same, I'm afraid. We're really stupid about this.

Dark times ahead if we don't smarten up, I'm afraid.