Democratic debaters still need improvement in appealing to voter's emotions.

[PBass]

I'm referring to the type of ideas that seem to be in Drew Westen's book "The Political Brain"... that voters respond better to emotional cues than policy positions.

During the 2000 general election, I thought Al Gore whipped the snot out of Bush in the debates. I didn't think it was even close. Gore knew the issues inside and out, and could rattle off facts and statistics on any topic. Folks like us laughed at Bush because of what we thought were his feeble answers... "I don't know the answer, but I'm going to take a hard look at the issue, and I'm gonna take care of it!"

Turns out that in the end (besides all the voter fraud) Bush was doing a good job appealing to voters emotions (He says he's going to take care of it, that's a relief) while IMO the Gore approach was like attending a lecture at school, and was overwhelming (Shit, how am I supposed to remember all those facts and figures? He's stressing me out.)

It was the same way in 2004's debates, wih Kerry... a fountain of information... versus Bush who sometimes gave almost childishly simple answers like "we're looking at the problem and working on it". Kerry seemed to require a lot from the voter (shit, I can't remember all that!) versus the simplistic Bush (he said he's gonna take care of it! One less thing I gotta worry about.)

I cringe now, when I hear the Democratic candidates still talking like this during tonight's debate:

"34 percent of people aged 65 and up are paying two-thirds more than they did between the years 1990 and 2000"

Quoting statistics may be a winning tactic for the Democratic primary, but in the general election, the Democrats better start talking about "A new day for America" and not coming off like policy wonks, because policy wonks apparently don't win that many elections. Unfortunately, winning seems to be more about making voters feel good about their choices, than who has the best handle on the facts.

This time around, I'm sorry to say that John Edwards seems to be prone to the "too-many-facts-itis" tendency, while Obama is great with emotional appeals, and Hillary is a mixed bag (sometimes bad, sometimes good). I think this will be critical during the general election. The Dems don't have to be as insipid as Bush was, but they need to figure out a way to make the voters feel optimistic about their candidacy.

I also wonder if Edwards' Two Americas platform is potentially divisive or makes some voters feel bad about themselves (Oh shit, is this guy saying I'm a part of the Bad America?)

Long night, hope that made sense.

[xchrom]

1. both gore and kerry won. n/t