THE SILENT MAJORITY: PART TWO

Sometimes I am down right horrible, and run my own little unsupervised experiments.
Not sure if I should apologize to Sam Taylor for using his site for my experiment to see if I could control the direction of dialogue or send a bill to the Bellingham Herald for my services. (It’s all about me, don’cha know…)
As you know I wrote about this topic somewhat in part one and wanted to know more about the voters who let the rest of us make decisions, and what motivates them to come out and participate. This part of my exploration was to find out if no matter if it was the opponents or McCain Palin, could the topics be used to talk about my candidates and almost get everyone to ignore the other two. I was amazed at what I found.

Part of the problem and the current solution is negative campaigns.
It interests some and turns off some folks.
Negative campaigning has some effect, but quite often not the effect that one would think.
The effect that I wanted to see was if dialogue changed to my candidates, whether it be for or against was irrelevant as whether it was about them.

It appears that there may be something to it. As the news media began to question Sarah Palin’s credentials and experience, it didn’t matter. KOS attacking her and slandering her didn’t matter. Why?

Because it was and Is currently, ALL SARAH ALL THE TIME. What happened in the polls nationwide and in the State of Washington? John McCain took the lead or climbed solidly in the polls.

If the other side talks about Sarah, even though it’s negative so to speak, that’s a good thing. They are talking about Sarah…oh yeah, and John’s ability to have good judgment or John’s stealing centrist voters… but nothing about the other two guys. You’d almost forget they were running for office. The rest of this I posted on Sam’s Taylor’s blog.

This may be the public process,even though online commenting is still in it's infancy for public dialogue.Once this fella that I seldom agree with, described on-line comments like a town hall meeting, where everyone wears ski masks and carries baseball bats. I think that is a pretty good description of what goes on.

Whoever gets elected has a tough job ahead, and most folks have a hard time separating campaigning from legislating (or managing)I make no bones about it. Campaigning is a sport to me. You win some and lose some. I figure that we are competing with our opponents for the coveted title. And that the other side is playing to win as much as I do.The goal is to win the hearts and minds of those who participate not so much.Where this banter gets us is name recognition of our candidates.

With all the page views on Sam's website, I have no delusions that anyone takes me seriously, but I found that we have discussed McCain and Palin almost exclusively.Is it that more people are interested in them already and tune in, or is it that we have gotten them interested in McCain/ Palin and they are now tuning in?

I think that there are two kinds of public dialogue. Once folks are elected, no matter what party they are from, on how to progress forward and solve problems with doing no further harm to us in the process. However, I think that campaigns, as a sporting event, are an us vs. the other guys endeavor. Both sides engage in debate of issues, smear tactics, rah rah cheering, and yet nothing any of us says will be taken into consideration by the big players.

It's not a matter of if but how the folks who vote maybe once or twice every four years are affected by the viewpoints in any forum. Whether it be 'Ski Mask town halls' like this or the negative attack ads by both sides or a serious civil discussion of the issues and debates between the candidates. Those who pay attention to issues will ignore the banter and probably listen to debates. Otherwise it is all about popularity and name recognition. No matter who the thread has been about, the dialogue has turned to discussing McCain and Palin and not the other two guys. Both here and nationally. Whether it is positive or negative about them. It has been ALL about McCain and Palin.

Never take my ignorant word for anything, but take a look at the threads on Sam's recent posts during and since the two Big conventions and look at the news.
Sure, I'm biased and presume that the Media is left leaning and attacks my folks running, But I have to agree with Tim Eyeman. "All press is good press as long as it's about me."

We may not like it, but for many folks who work 40 to 60 hours a week, it comes down to name recognition and who they identify with. This is the public process, but only a part of it, and it is still in its infancy. We are better than this, but intellectual civil dialogue doesn't get as much name recognition out there.

Remember when George H.W. Bush was asked a question about the national debt by an audience member who had friends out of work? He did a great job of describing the technical differences between the deficit and the debt. Great issue discussion and dialogue. (put everyone to sleep, even though he described it perfectly.)

Clinton then made an incredible move. Didn't address the debt or the deficit, but simply went out and told that audience member, "I feel your pain"

GHW Bush had brilliantly boring dialogue, but folks identified with Bill. "one of us, so to speak."Like it or not, that's the public process....so who have we been talking about for Sam's readership?...McCain and Palin.To quote Rowan Atkinson, "I'm in a race. I am winningk!"

Stay tuned for part 3.
Not bad for a megalomaniac with little or no edumacation, and as ignorant as I choose to be. (Even though I got as long winded as Hamster guy…a second time…)

Now that Sarah looks to be the Vice President for the next 8 years, I am now requesting all my readers, friends and enemies alike to start campaigning for Sarah to pick me, Poindexter for her running mate in 2016... yes I would be the first cyber vice president...thank you very much...