|
Edited on Sat Feb-02-08 05:21 PM by ocelot
Let’s say there are three presidential candidates – call them Larry, Moe and Curly (no disrespect to anyone intended). Each of them holds positions within the mainstream of the Democratic Party, but they present their policies and themselves in different ways. They have different experiences, backgrounds and personal attributes. But they have all attracted many enthusiastic supporters.
Consider, as well, that all of them want to end the war, though their plans for doing so have some differences. They all agree that everyone should have access to health care, but they have different plans for providing it. They are generally pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, and pro-labor. They want less spending on guns and bombs and more on schools, bridges, and poverty programs. So why would one of us support Larry, another Moe, and another Curly?
It could be because among all the issues the candidates address, some particular issue grabs our attention, possibly because of personal experiences; maybe because of ideology. Some of us feel economic issues like job creation are the most important. Others are more focused on ending the war. Others are especially interested in gender/racial equality or health care. And beyond the issues there are intangible, even subconscious considerations. We will be drawn to the candidate we believe we can trust, who seems sincere, who we think will actually do what he or she has promised. And this kind of attraction is hard to describe or quantify. Apart from the specific issues, we can’t always exactly point to what it is about Candidate Larry, for example, that makes us like him more than Moe or Curly.
But everyone has their own very different reasons for supporting a candidate.
So now let’s say that Larry, who has never consistently pulled beyond third place, decides to drop out. Moe and Curly, neither of whom is yet the clear front-runner, would like very much to get Larry’s endorsement and to pick up as many of his supporters as possible. They would also like to persuade undecided voters and even convert their opponent’s supporters. How can they do this?
First of all, they must NOT belittle, slime, misrepresent, slander or otherwise trash their candidate’s opponent. This does not win converts. This makes people angry. If I support Moe it’s because the issues Moe emphasizes are important to me. I also like and trust Moe. If a Curly supporter, wanting to win my vote, tells me Moe is a tool and a crook and a liar, that person is telling me that I have been supporting a tool and a crook and a liar, and that therefore I am either a naïve idiot or someone who approves of tools, crooks and liars (meaning I am also such a person). If you do this sort of thing on behalf of your candidate you should not be surprised to meet with intense hostility.
If I was a supporter of Larry who is now trying to decide whether to vote for either Moe or Curly, you will need to explain not why *you* like Moe or Curly, but why *I* should. I’m not you. Maybe I have a different perspective and different concerns. Think about what Larry’s issues were, then tell me why and how Moe will do what Larry would have done. If you support Moe, don’t tell me Curly is an unqualified ass. Tell me how Moe’s positions are closer to Larry’s positions than Curly’s. Tell me something that will help me trust Moe, not why I shouldn’t trust Curly.
People become very invested in the candidates they support. If you insult a candidate you insult his/her supporters as well. And if you pour on enough vitriol you will also manage to repel even those who are as yet neutral and are simply looking for a reason to vote for someone.
I was an Edwards supporter who will probably caucus as “undecided” next week. Eventually I and many others will end up choosing between Clinton and Obama. Please stop making it so hard for us to like either of them.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
