2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: If I'm trying to change people's minds, I don't insult those people [View all]frazzled
(18,402 posts)It's not so much the direct insults or name calling, it's the insinuation that people just don't understand or know enough about the issues, because if they did they'd certainly be for my candidate. (See, for instance, the insinuation that Delores Huerta must be dumb because she apparently doesn't know that Sanders is calling for a minimum wage $2 higher than Clinton.)
Actually, I kind of cringe when I hear the plea to just stick to the issues to convince people. Because people, here at least, generally know where candidates stand on issues. And because, truth be told, the candidates within each of the parties are not really that far apart from each other on the issues. When it comes down to it, it's a D v R situation in this country right now, and whether a candidate says this or that about a subject on their website is no promise of how that will shake out in reality should that candidate be nominated or elected. So many other considerations, reasonable or not, such as character, experience, demeanor, etc. come into the equation, aside what is being said on the campaign trail regarding this or that issue.
Bill di Blasio was our perfect progressive candidate. He's having a helluva time trying to get anything done at the moment, and everyone seems to have a beef with him now. We can't think only about the issues, and conking me over the head with hypothetical responses to vast, complex issues right now to convince me I'm stupid and wrong ... well, that may just push me in the opposite direction from what you are intending.