why are negatives so important?

[reddread]

was this something Atwater invented, or just a psych stat fact of life?
What is the most important statistical trend in this primary?
what (typically or most likely) determines our basic decision?
is it just economic self interest and/or altruistic/mutual social disposition?
does talking shit have the most effective outcome?

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. Because it gives those losing on other data points, hope.

[reddread]

8. I cant quite get what you are saying

could you give some examples or clarify?

[reddread]

10. too busy to expound more clearly?

I would like to understand your point. "data points"?
is that a Star Trek reference?

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. I'm saying that the dwelling on unfavorabilities ...

Is because the HRC has high (er) favorability numbers, and is leading among most demographics, negatives among all voters, is the only data set that gives DU:Bernie comfort.

[reddread]

12. oh, OK

Im pretty sure Bernie supporters(not.com) on DU are warm and cozy inside and out.
What Im really poking around about is political slandering as a tool.
does it work best?
now the subset question might be, is it the best tool for message board users?
Should it be directed directly at the candidate, or are supporters a cleaner target?
so many questions.
thanks.

[1StrongBlackMan]

13. Oh okay ... I read that wrong ...

I suppose it depends on what one is attempting to accomplish.

[retrowire]

2. It's called scrutiny.

It's how you inform others of valid criticisms.

It's a form of critical thinking.

[MineralMan]

3. Any port in a storm.

If the ship is sinking, it's time to get to a safe harbor or to abandon ship.

It's easy to do opposition research and spread it around, but that trick never works. It's a desperation move, driven by a sudden need to either fix the leaks or abandon ship. Expect more of it as the actual primaries and caucuses get closer. Desperate times require desperate measures, it seems.

[Crystalite]

4. If we're talking about favorable numbers, this is why it matters and a part that's misunderstood.

Polls collect and report largely quantitative data, and even the qualitative pits are often misreported or undervalued.

Let's pretend that Hillary has >60% favorable numbers tied, somewhat, to her name recognition and slick sales department.

Those individual responses might be very strong or very soft; a "just barely likable" registers just the same as a "love her forever".

The negatives, be they new or existing, can really be used to punish a candidate and impact the favorable numbers and, thus, the outcome of an election.

[reddread]

6. thank you

[Hortensis]

5. Studies find most people consistently vote values, over self interest.

That's across the political spectrum, and pretty solid info according to social scientists.

As for just the power of just some negatives, how about this: The GOP's/business's great success over the past 4 decades was built on convincing conservatives that Democrats were anti-values (HUGE negative) and must be opposed at all costs, and on hiding various methods of funneling money and power upward behind fake values messages.

That hugely successful negative divided and effectively conquered the electorate by breaking our power to stop them.

BTW, because of this indoctrination, to this day many people refuse to identify left or liberal, or don't realize they are ("I don't want to pay lazy bums to watch TV while I work, so I must not be a liberal&quot . Studies based only on people self-identifying liberal or not are always flawed.

[reddread]

7. thank you

[reformist2]

9. Once a person forms a negative opinion of something, they don't change their minds easily.

That's the predicament dems will be in if they nominate Hillary. We will need to persuade a sizeable percentage to change their minds about Hillary - either that, or we need to clean the table among everyone else who has no strong opinion about her!