Almost nobody likes to be told that they are wrong and have bad ideas. The vast majority of people I’ve ever met react extremely negatively to that approach, and every bit of psychological research I’ve read on this confirms that it’s the worst way to interact when you’re trying to persuade someone to change. (There’s a thing called the backfire effect, for example, that you’re probably experiencing right now.)
So if you’re going to use that tactic, you should argue in favor of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. You’ll convert people to Hillary right and left!
I think the best way to change people’s political opinions is to reference a person they can trust, a person who they’d like to emulate, and then explain why that person would share your convictions and vote for your candidate. If that person isn’t you, make it someone you honestly can respect (this is easy for me, because I’m OK with Jesus, it’s just his posse I can’t stand). Pull the wrong-thinking person in, don’t confirm their status as proud outsiders, humanize the group you stand with. Don’t talk about the mistakes or failings of the person you’re persuading at all if you can possibly avoid it. Show them a different path forward that is available to them, do your best not to criticize the path they are on, and let them make their own choices regardless.
A cat is more likely to sit on your lap if you don’t force it. People are worse than cats!
I think it strains credulity to assume that even half of the projected 40% of 13% all decided not to vote Trump after all, or have changed their minds since.
But the assertion doesn’t really depend on that poll result, even if it was offered in support of the assertion. Honestly, now, which seems more probable to you:
A-Trump has many racist supporters.
B-Trump has very few racist supporters.
There’s some element of subjectivity in terms of how to interpret “many” or “few”, but I think if you had to take a guess, you’d go with option “A”, right?
Which isn’t to say it’s fair or reasonable to claim all Trump supporters are racists. Just that this particular point is a peculiar hill to try to defend. Your critique of the political bias on BB is to argue that Trump does not have many racist supporters? Isn’t there a way to critique the political bias on BB using a point that is actually correct?
Trump’s response to Hillary’s statement was to say: [quote=Trump]You are not president of 50 percent or 75 percent: You are president of all the people.[/quote]I can probably guess your feelings about a statement like this.
But did you retweet tweets about the Sanders revolution and how evil the DNC was, while being too busy to actually go to your primary? 'Cause that’s the real way to support a candidate, money and votes are so boomer.
No, I am blaming Clinton for forcing herself on the Democratic Party, for marshaling all her influence to stage an unfair contest that gave her the nomination despite all indications that she would have a difficult time defeating Trump. And I assert she is now having that difficult time. I believe this is her concern for her vanity over all of our well being. And that is what I consider a poor candidate.
The two main forces that killed Sanders’ chance were the primary voters and Sanders. Sander ran a poor campaign with a dismal start that was a struggle for him to ever recover from and failed to persuade enough in enough states. More voters voted for Clinton in the Byzantine primary system in the ways that counted, so she won.
The DNC did play some games, but what the leaks showed was that while the DNC had chosen their favorite, the most scandalous items were staffers coming up with bad ideas that were quickly shot down. Besides the DNC obviously and very expectedly preferring Clinton, a traditional Dem. over Sanders, the Independent-just-turned-Dem., scheduling a debate at a time that ensured less viewership, and being petty, there’s nothing that shows their influence was significant (Sanders was behind in polls and in results for the entire election), and the hated super-delegates were ultimately irrelevant.
You’re mad our guy lost, which I understand. I’m still a bit bitter about it. But obsessing over that resentment over a past lost election is toxic and isn’t going to help any realistic outcome towards any sort of progress that you’d likely want to see.
Hillary Clinton endorsed the fake vaccine/autism link and was still pandering to the anti-vax crowd in 2008, well after the Lancet study was thoroughly debunked.
Hillary Clinton still accepts money from and hangs out with the California Liberal anti-vaxxer crowd, although she loudly pretends to be a vaccination crusader now.
Jill Stein, of course, is an actual doctor, who has supported vaccination for her entire lifetime.
Unlike Hillary Clinton, who is willing to be pro-vaccine as long as that’s what leads to power, while still accepting the votes and campaign contributions of anti-vaxxers.
In real news, both Clinton and Stein apparently know where Aleppo is.
On top of the co-shinanigans between the Clinton Campaign and the DNC both parties clearly lied about it when confronted by Sanders months ago. But this behavior is simply dismissed by Clinton supporters. Sorry - not a quality I want in my president.
Furthermore many down stream democratic officials made moves in the local elections to make it harder for Sanders supporters to vote, or simply directed them to ballots destined to be uncounted. This was not directly Clintons fault, but it spoils the results non the less.
Sanders played by the DNC rules. The DNC and Clinton did not. And apparently that is not cause to disqualify them, and hence we have a candidate that many see unfit in the face of an even more unfit candidate. Disagree with my take if you wish, but this is where we find ourselves, loosing to Trump, or if we are lucky barely winning.
And so Clinton can make an unflattering-but-accurate statement about many Trump supporters, and that makes her an object of scorn. But Duke himself cannot be condemned as deplorable for leading the Ku Klux Klan.
Although the article doesn’t say so explicitly I think the point here is that even if Trump and Pence disagree with Duke their priority is attacking Clinton.
Aside from Trump’s appeal to racists another issue is his–and his campaign’s–unwillingness to offer any real policies or positions, other than “Hillary is bad”.
I supported and voted for Bernie Sanders. But I think it’s kind of ridiculous to attack Clinton for trying her best to win. Of COURSE she marshaled her influence; so did Bernie and every other candidate. She just had more influence than he did.
She didn’t do that. She was a member of the Democratic party who had strong support deep in the party establishment after decades of working hard for the Party, its interests, and Democratic candidates across the country. You can’t fault a candidate for cashing in on support earned in this way, and subsequently winning the primary. Blame instead all the progressive Democrats (like me!) who were more interested in yammering on than in reclaiming the party infrastructure.
Meanwhile, what I’m hearing from the left is “Clinton got sick! She’s lending credence to the Trump assertions that she’s not healthy enough to serve! Bad Hillary, how dare you get sick and endanger the election! You should have known months ago that you were not immune to pneumonia, and pulled out of the race!”
[quote=“Medievalist, post:254, topic:85071”]
Hillary Clinton endorsed the fake vaccine/autism link and was still pandering to the anti-vax crowd in 2008, well after the Lancet study was thoroughly debunked.[/quote]
The Wakefield paper wasn’t retracted until 2010, sorry, and even then her statement was not anti-vaxx; she said she was “committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines.” She has been a strong real supporter of autistic children and their parents for years.
Jill Stein, of course, is an actual doctor, who has supported vaccination for her entire lifetime. as a professional should have been expected to make strong statements rejecting this link when first pressed (or even without being pressed) rather than pandering to her deplorably flaky supporters.
