Quote:
Originally Posted by PilotMan
Seems like the real strategy is the one they've been using for a while now. Muddy the waters with enough reasons, doubling back on existed, multitudes of different accusations, that all generally serve to overwhelm the main points, sew confusion, and then blame the government and the media for everything to the point that the average person stops listening and is willing to accept "both sides" as a valid argument. It's exactly what I hear when I hear Jim explain his points. And I see Jim as a pretty average consumer who keeps most political stuff on the periphery, but still runs all of it through his filters. I imagine that's more representative of the public in general than the focus that we give things here on the board. It's also exceptionally effective. Just muddy it all up so it's what people want to ignore and blame for bothering them, then actually attend to the issues at hand.
|
100%
They can't come out and just say, yeah this is bad. Trump really fucked up and the evidence suggests he's unfit for office at the very least.
Something like that may lead someone to think, hey maybe the dems are the good guys in this. I don't agree with their policies, but I'm not sure I want my vote attached to these other guys.
Instead, you do your best to downplay the charges and try to convince as many people as you can that dems are just as bad. Luckily, you've spent years training your base to accept the info you give at face value and not to believe anything else.
Is this a winning strategy? No, but neither is backing Trump. It's a safe strategy with your voters, though, and if you gerrymander enough it keeps you competitive in elections.