This cartoon is right about how the wingnuts operate.
I can see how this strategy can boost fundraising and fire up the base. But it is not clear to me that it is an effective strategy to get votes, apart from the really hard core base. Of course, the primary races tend to be determined by the party faithful so it might help in winning the party nomination. But what about general elections in anything other than in constituencies where people will vote for their party candidate irrespective of whether they actually approve of this kind of behavior or not.
I am not aware of any study that looked into whether ‘triggering the libs’ is an effective strategy in persuading anyone other than hard-core supporters.
Seth Meyers had a funny segment about this.
But what about general elections
Leaving aside the observation that the winner of 2024’s Republican primary will be president the following January — Biden has spent his whole campaign and presidency burning through any goodwill his base may have originally had for him — Republicans are not interested in getting out the vote. They want to disenfranchise voters who likely will not vote for them instead, which seems to be working fairly well.
I do like that take.
—
beholder:
Biden won one in similar circumstances, so there’s that about them.
Definitely worth leaving that aside, since it’s not an observation, it’s mere speculation.
Given that premise, did you not notice that burning through any goodwill his base may have originally had for him during his whole campaign resulted in him getting elected?
(Apparently, not that bad)
What a silly claim!
If by “working fairly well” you mean losing an election, I suppose so.
Any strategy built on dumping on your opponent but having no positive points for your side can work in the short term but is a liability in the long run. The Republicans have reached the point that there is little they can do when they take office but cut taxes and wage wars because they support nothing. They make symbolic stabs at things like border control, corruption and trade but if you look closely they are designed more to create controversy then work.
re: earning votes in the general election: One of the glaring flaws in the current state of politics (including here, though less than the US) is a very small number of people that change votes based on actual policies and a much much greater proportion that vote based on tribal allegiance. (A researcher here in Canada found that the ratio was roughly 20:1, tribal to policy, it is reasonable to suggest that it is similar in the USA) Thus, the lack of actual policy is completely irrelevant. The goal is to maximize enthusiasm in the committed base and ideally convince your opponents not to vote (or make it difficult to do so). This can overwhelm the tiny number of actual swing voters. Not to mention, in committed red/blue states, the general election is a rubber stamp for the primary results.
Don’t forget, on the heels of a clearly disastrous 4 years, Trump received the second highest number of votes of any candidate for office at any time.
But in many — perhaps the majority — of districts, winning the primary is what’s important, and the general is a mere formality. Districts are drawn specifically to favor one party or the other. And it isn’t entirely the fault of gerrymandering, either — people tend to move near people with whom they agree politically, “the big sort,” along with the urban/rural divide, mean that close elections are getting rarer.
Canadian Steve,
Far as I can tell, it’s even more polarised in the USA.
Heh. Then there are the defeatist claims by ostensible fellow-travellers — e.g. beholder’s claim @1 that it’s a foregone conclusion (sorry, an “observation”) that a Republican will be president after the next election, so, why bother to vote if it’s futile?
brucegee1962 @5: Yeah. I live in Missouri’s Second Congressional District which is gerrymandered Republican. I considered voting in the last Republican primary since, for state and local races, that’s the only election that actually matters; but I couldn’t distinguish between the candidates who had a reasonable shot at winning. They were mostly all about guns for Jesus. 8-(
Seth does a great Tucker impression!
I never understood how any of their bullshit “triggers” or “owns” me. It annoys me but not even enough to bother finding where their graves are so that I may go dance upon them. The whole idea that somehow their stupidity hurts me is really infantile. How annoying do you have to be to get me to hate you? Not very, really. But other than that, they have no effect on my life at all.
What would really “own” me would be if someone at a big mouthful of poop. I’d hate to see that.
@9 It’s not *really* to own you, it’s to make people on their side think you’ve been owned.
The only thing these boobs trigger me to do is laugh hysterically at their antics. We already know they are racist, misogynistic, islamophobic etc… so Im kind of at a loss as to how them showing us how poorly they can behave over and over does anything but make them look the fool.
@Canadian Steve
I’d like to think that I dont demonstrate tribal allegiance but I find it very hard to see how I could vote for any damn Republican in the current circumstances. (But I cant vote so the point is moot). Even if it was say Joe Manchin against some mythical reasonable Republican how would I be able to justify Mitch McConnell as senate head?
@Deepak Shetty
I think it is not always obvious that there is a clear line. I believe the research in question attempted to distinguish between the voter that chooses based on knowledge of the platform (ie a republican that says they choose republican because their policy platform includes pro life policies) and a voter that chooses based on who their neighbors are voting for or because “He’s our kind of guy”. There is bound to be a range between these of the degree to which one factor or another affects a particular voter.
If “Triggering the libs” is supposed to cause me, as a liberal, damage I just don’t see it. Yes, when this first became a thing there was some consternation but now I kind of think they are doing me a favor. Jeff Foxworthy had a bit about stupid people wearing a sign. Talking that way, or wearing MAGA paraphernalia, is their sign. It makes it easy to know how to treat people. Saves time.
That, and once the shock value wore off it had little effect on most liberals. The only feeling I get is one of disappointment. Another brain wasted by MAGA. So sad.
Of course, the intention is to have an effect on the Republican core. But even there tolerance, the need for higher doses of novel material, has caused a case of diminishing returns. You accuse your opponent of child molestation, kidnapping kids for parts, torture of children for entertainment, and cannibalism. Where do you go from there?
They are into Greatest Hits, discount bin territory. “Lock her up” chants were fun. Now, kind of pointless.
Irony is that the right is edging into having to threaten the left with what the right has accused the left of being into. They accuse the left of being oversexed monsters but threaten liberals with rape. I guess this falls into the meme that, for the right: Every accusation Is A Confession (EAIAC). About those child rape and cannibalism claims …
And reality, as it has a nasty habit of doing, refuses to go away. The ability of people to play both enlightened counter-culture rebel , by not getting vaccinated, and innocent victim; deserving free medical treatment when COVID calls their bluff, is ending. Insurance companies are applying co-pays and deductibles to non-vaccinated COVID cases. Employer mandates are working and, contrary to TCs claims, the military is not being hollowed out by orders to get vaccinated.
Republicans, their leadership, seem to think if they make sure COVID is still an issue in 22 they can claim Biden failed and sink the Dems. This is like burning down your house to discredit the fire department. Perhaps it will work. But the hospitals are filled with GOP loyalists and people are noticing. Owning the libs feels good; dying, not so much. I’m sure there are some very hard-core folks who don’t mind losing a few relatives but I suspect that it has an effect for most. Even if they aren’t willing to openly go against Dear Leader and local sentiment. Will this translate? IDK. A good thing that voting is done in private, but still not a sure thing.