Why is this campaign so ahem, toxic?

[nadinbrzezinski]

My husband and I were talking about it, and we have noticed a pattern. We have different groups engaged in group think. Moreover, it does not matter what you show these fans of different candidates, their candidate is the greatest thing since sliced bread... and don't bother me with facts.

Well folks, we have a theory... the campaigns have perfected PSYCHOLOGICAL CAMPAIGNING and generating group think.

Some of us have not bee affected by it, because we are less susceptible to it. My personal theory is that those of us who have gone through basic have gone through those games. So we might be less susceptible, or our psychological makeup has left us in awe at how people can follow A candidate (insert it here... bush, Clinton, McCain or Obama... doesn't matter, they are appealing to slightly different groups) blindly, while the rest of us are left shaking our heads.

If we are right, there is a danger to this.... True Believers come to mind

So yes, I beseech all partisans to ask ... am I being manipulated? Not that I truly expect that to happen, but it would explain why you can present facts... such as Bosnia gate, or Wright (for fairness sake), and partisans will not even consider the information, or see it as relevant.

Now back to your previously scheduled party civil war.

[QC]

1. Because the candidates are more or less identical on the issues.

Both are timid corporate centrists, nice enough but certainly not so radical as to scare the CEO class.

And since they are pretty much the same, it is all coming down to character.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Think about it though

they are actually appealing to different groups...

Though I agree with you, policy wise there is no light between them... or mostly no light

[Smarmie Doofus]

16. This may have to do more with race and gender.

>>they are actually appealing to different groups... >>>

It's easy to see why AA's are breaking 9 to 1 for Obama.. despite the fact that Clinton has always been popular among blacks.

And paradoxically ( or perhaps NOT) she seems do be doing well among male blue collar whites.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. She is, and that is paradoxical... I remember readying some years

back an article here on psychological studies and marketing efforts, as well as the human mind...


At the time many of us wondered if that was what was used by the Bushistas... now I wonder if it is being used by all campaigns. local, regional and national...

I concentrated on these two in particular since they are the ones that matter to most folks here

Oh and all campaigns have an element of marketing to them

[Smarmie Doofus]

19. They've ALWAYS been better at marketing than we have.

>>>>back an article here on psychological studies and marketing efforts, as well as the human mind...
At the time many of us wondered if that was what was used by the Bushistas... now I wonder if it is being used by all campaigns. local, regional and national... >>>>

I'd guess it's in large part due to the fact that the GOP essentially has *represented* corporate America in the electoral arena.... though the corporate elite hedges their bets by contributing to select DEMs as well.

The last time the DEM's out PR'd them was in '64, I'd wager... and that was a freakish election year.

Gradual consolidation of influence over the news media itself... relatively recent, probably started effectively in the Clinton administration...kind of sealed the deal for them.

Defeating them is going to be *very* difficult... esp if our own nomination battle drags on.

[Smarmie Doofus]

15. MMmmmm . They sure are close.

Maybe you have something there.

[Levgreee]

2. If it was Edwards and Obama, or *insert any two candidates excluding Clinton* it wouldn't have been

so dirty.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. If psychology is playing a role here, I doubt it

It would have been dirty, just different

I am talking mass psychology here

[depakid]

5. "PSYCHOLOGICAL CAMPAIGNING and generating group think."

That's an astute insight- and one that's on display daily in this very forum....

[NJmaverick]

6. You have two high quality candidates running against each other

Since they are both very good, both side is very excited about and extremely supportive of their pick. So it's natural with that much emotion, for the sparks to fly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Bush generated the same kind of loyalty... and we still have the 19%

and McCain is also generating the same kind of loyalty.

There is more to this than just two good candidates

[TahitiNut]

8. Close in their positions - close in the delegate count - best Dem prospects since 1964.

Only in 1932 was the generic advantage of the Democratic Party clearly better than 2008. Thus, the corporatist appetite is almost unbounded ... first to totally demolish the candidates with the temerity to overtly oppose their interests (Kucinich first and Edwards a distant second) and now to wield influence in whatever way they can ... POURING money into the campaigns (mostly Clinton's).

The small differences are thus magnified and the pent up anger and dissatisfaction of the last seven years is being vented. That the subtext of sexism and racism is part of the atmosphere merely heightens the visceral motivations.

Far too much is about ephemerals ... and those just aren't as amenable to rational contemplation.

On top of that, the media LOVES sensationalism. So, they're egging on the "sides" ... because it sells in this era of rampant tabloidism.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Agreed, there is that, but I am also looking at this

broadly, including the other side... and quite honestly Rove perfected some of these techniques

[backscatter712]

10. Hillary. That's why.

I'm sure I'm gonna get flamed from two fronts - from the Hillary campaign because I'm laying the blame directly at her feet, and from folks who say the poo-flinging comes from both sides.

Y'know what, I call them as I see them. Obama's made a few jabs, but for the most part, he's run a clean campaign. The vast majority of the poo-flinging comes from Clinton's campaign.

One phenomenon I've noticed that happens in politics is that when one side flings poo, it looks to the casual observer like both sides have been furiously poo-flinging. It's only when you look closer that you discover that even though there's shit all over the place, only one side has poo on their hands.

And that's the case here. Obama's hands are clean. Clinton's aren't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. In a psychological campaign the poo flies from both sides

sorry, I also call them as I see them...

:-)

But the question here is whether this is the perfection of mass psychology? If this is what we are seeing the issue goes beyond this campaign

In fact, you could say it started in 2000 with the Liar in Chief... and the amazing loyalty of the bushbots... which can only be explained by psychological mass psychology

[napoleon_in_rags]

11. Seeing people from the other group is scary. Why is your icon Cthulu?

As I recall "cthulu" was the phrase chanted by persons of mixed black white race as they worshipped a horrid thing that brings apocalypse in Lovecraft's "Call of Cthulu". I think Lovecraft used the "mulattos" (as he called them) to establish a sense of unknowness and otherness in the people of mixed race, which was probably effect at the time of publishing. But why do you and other Obama supporters have this icon?

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Funny I started using the icon WELL BEFORE the 2006 race started

it has nothing to do with Obama...

I happen to write sci fi, and am a fan of Lovecraft as a MASTER OF HORROR in the early 20th century

And since I cannot see icons, for whatever reason I have not bothered it changing it to something more neutral... since never realized it was a political statement

By the way... come november I will be voting for whoever makes it out of this dust off, but not happily or willingly.. after all both are corporatists and centrists and there is not enough light between them policy wise.

In case you wonder... I am no supporter of EITHER candidate.

[napoleon_in_rags]

20. I wasn't trying to sound accusatory.

I just thought it was funny how you were talking about the irrationality of groupthink with the icon from Call of Cthulhu. It was strangely appropriate. :)

[Smarmie Doofus]

14. "True believers " ? This is an odd pair of candidates....

>>If we are right, there is a danger to this.... True Believers come to mind>>>

.. to inspire any variety of 'true believerism'. (TB) At least any variety of TB that I've ever heard of.

I associate TB with ideology and there is precious little ideological difference between the two. There could be a pinch of TB... maybe more than a pinch... on the basis of demographic identity ... but that doesn't account for the huge numbers of whites supporting Obama and males supporting Clinton.

I agree, the fanatical devotion that they seem to inspire in *some* of their devotees is hard to fathom . But I suspect that the TB we see on this board on behalf of each of them is probably unrepresentative of the TB in their support among the DEM primary electorate as a whole.

When it gets down to it... you have to vote for *somebody*.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Yes, but it is not just this site

both obamanites and Clintonistas are viscious on the interwebs, in ways that I have only seen once before, Bush... and we know Karl Rove perfected this

[Bongo Prophet]

21. Interesting premise, NB - could you go into more detail as to the actual "how" of it?

I understand tribal identity, targeted demographics, use of victimization and the power of mythical archetypes. These are elements that would be used even with a Kucinich or Clark or Edwards in the mix. Just the details would change, or the angle of attack.

I would like to hear more of your thoughts on it - you have an outsider's perspective with the added benefit of good background to provide insight. (the sc-fi, deism, game theory, etc are all useful tools at your disposal) Plus, you write succinctly and effectively, a skill I am always looking to improve. ;)

[shockra]

22. I've been thinking about this in a different way for the last few days...

since I started reading about Mike Gravel's National Initiative for Democracy. I think a very large part of the problem is representative government. In the Bush years, the government stopped paying attention to what the people want in any way, shape, or form. We've learned our representatives feel entirely free to ignore us. They're corporate-controlled.

So basically what we're asked to do now is something paradoxical. Elect a dictator. We have no way of knowing if any of the candidates would give back any of the dictatorial powers Bush has acquired during his term (odds are, of course, they would not) or any of the rights we have lost, either (odds are, they would not). So we're left with trying to discern each candidates character and how often they lie to us, when we know politicians lie as a rule.

It paints us into a very tight corner, because we have to believe for our mental health, that we can trust the new occupant of the White House with the kind of absolute power that this office never had before. And that is impossible. No one really could be trusted with it. But we are now so much at their mercy we have to pretend we can trust with all our might.

The National Initiative for Democracy gives power to the citizens to make laws, on a federal level. In short order. The only government in the world that has this system now is Switzerland, the country considered synonymous with peace and neutrality! Our government has gone entirely in the opposite direction.

We are experiencing many things for the first time in this election, but I believe behind all of it there's an extreme anxiety that our voices and needs may continue to not matter, unless we pick "the right person."