To Dems pushing Fear at Progressives...I mean this constructively. PLEASE, STOP!

[HereSince1628]

You are using the worst damned WRONG approach you could choose.

If FEAR was going to be useful, don't you think it would have worked already ALREADY?

Think about the interests of the -others- you want to convince. Don't merely message to progressives what ever it was that won you over. In particular, don't message to progressives what makes you anxious in a manner that blames them for your anxiety.

Think about your target audience, and send them a message that is structured to work with them.

Progressives are dreamers. They are attracted to hope, and hope for things that they desire.

And most progressives are much like Nelson Madela, who argued that people should vote out of hope and not for what they fear.

Think about this. Is Trump -REALLY- more scary than the horrible, murderous, militant defenders of racist apartheid that Mandela and citizens like him faced in South Africa? I don't believe that argument can successfully be made.

And YET, Mandela believed in hope, dreaming of it, enduring to keep the dream alive until he and others could achieve it. They hoped and dreamed DESPITE real imminent reasons to deeply fear their oppressive political enemies.

If you want to secure progressives/Sanders supporters. SEND THEM A MESSAGE THAT WORKS FOR -THEM-! Pick some things they really desire and give them hope that their vote will make it happen.

If you do, and they can be made to believe it, they will come running.

[tk2kewl]

1. 61 views

Zero messages of hope

[AllyCat]

3. Yes, but an alert

You'd think we would WANT unity.

[HereSince1628]

7. Yes, dems are divided into the hopeful and the fearful

They can't see the persuasive limits of what drives them.

Jost et al in their now famous theoretical paper on what motivates conservative thinking made it clear that FEAR was the most powerful motivator for conservatives.

It should come as no surprise at all, that progressives on the opposite end do not have FEAR as a prime motivator.

Nothing makes the significance of the left-right divide in the party any more obvious than the complete failure to grasp that FEAR works best on the right, and almost not at all on the left.

[tk2kewl]

15. Don't Think of an Elephant

[Hortensis]

17. No, actually, that is not a natural assumption.

Last edited Thu Jul 21, 2016, 07:29 PM - Edit history (4)

For one thing, conservative is a personality type and progressive is a generic political leaning that can be applied to people across the spectrum. Bernie's been using it for those progressives who follow him, liberals of all degrees mainly, far lefts for sure, and some far rights and even cross-ballot moderate conservatives.

Yes, "conservatives" are more motivated by anxiety (fear) than liberals, but to many different degrees, many moderates not really so bad that they can't set mostly functional policy goals for a diverse society.

Extremist personalities on both the right and the left are far more like each other than either is like moderates of the left and right. Extremists on both left and right have a tendency to believe the world's going to hell in a handbasket RIGHT NOW unless people like them save it. Like the far right, the far left is not good at understanding their world, which almost always, among other things, denies the superiority of their ideology and their solutions, so that just makes things worse for them when they gather in movements of their own.

So you see, anxiety can be a big motivator for both conservatives of all strengths and for those with extremist traits on the far left.

Liberals include all the the "stay cool, man, it'll all work out" people. Fortunately for the world, not all of us think it'll work out without getting off our butts and making it happen. And those people typically at least used to join with moderate conservatives to do just that. Not in this past era, though, where moderate conservatives were trained to think liberals were the whole problem.

So it's our job, but fortunately we're on it. And HereSince1628, as a progressive your ideals are your motivation--the best way you decide to take to achieve your goals is the way you should go. Period. If Bernie had won I wouldn't be asking his people to coax me. I'd have already have joined him as a matter of course.

Go, Dems of all kinds and far-lefters, and welcome anti-Trump conservatives!

[MichiganVote]

2. I think Donald Trump is fearful. I'm not going to apologize for recommending fear.

His ideas, his words, his past and present actions ARE fearful. There is a clear choice in this election going forward. Either you vote with the party, however flawed or inadequate or you vote for Donald Trump or you don't vote for either.

Even if someone does not vote for a presidential candidate, there are scores of congressional races that include a myriad of politicians.

If anyone cannot stomach that their preferred candidate, idea or VP pick is not chosen, then politics is bound to be an exercise in frustration. Nobody gets everything they want-ever.

[AllyCat]

4. There are people who don't see it that way

We have to be more than "Anyone but Trump". We need to show voters how we will make it better for them.

[MichiganVote]

6. That's fine. Find me someone more fearful as prez than Donald Trump and I'm on board.

This is the election as it is, not as some may want it to be.

[AllyCat]

18. I thought Cruz would have been more frightening.

I really think Trump is easier to beat than Cruz if we keep on task and get people to vote.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

140. You vote in a election with the candidates you got

maybe not always the candidates you want but there should be no debate here over which candidate is going to do the most good for the most people (Hillary). If people can't work enough energy or enthusiasm to vote for her, then, well, I don't know what else to say to them.

[MichiganVote]

141. Yup.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. I give you FDR, 1933:

"Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days."

[MichiganVote]

9. Um..ok, not sure what your point is with that quote but- you're happy, I'm happy.

[Bluenorthwest]

37. You were asserting the virtues of using fear as a motivator, I pointed out Democratic

traditions in the other direction.

[MichiganVote]

43. Was I? See I thought I was pointing out a genuine fear that I and others have re: Trump.

So there was the country, deep in the depression, people starving losing all their material goods etc. Roosevelt, gave that 1932 inauguration speech having campaigned against Herbert Hoover in the 1932 presidential election by saying as little as necessary about what he might do if elected. He had to do that. He would not have been able to keep the wolves at bay otherwise. There were scores of people in power who were perfectly content to have American starving in the streets in this country.

Roosevelt, witty and charming, used his charisma with the American public to favor a buoyant, paternal tone in his speeches. He used humor often. Roosevelt’s first inaugural address outlined broadly how he hoped to govern and reminded Americans that the nation’s “common difficulties” concerned “only material things.” He was not making light of their needs or losses.

Those of us today who choose to talk about the fear of a Donald Trump presidency do so to warn of the strong likelihood of another depression of spirit, the economy and of worsening foreign relations. If Roosevelt were alive today, he might well use another paternalistic tone with so called, 'Sanders supporters'.

But don't think for a minute he was not fearful then and would not be fearful today. If you have the opportunity, read his personal letters. They are very insightful.

[Arkana]

138. Dollars to donuts we see this either in video form or repeated in a speech at the convention.

Especially after that hate-and-fear-fest we just saw in Cleveland.

[HereSince1628]

10. No one is asking you to...maybe just don't use it on people for whom it won't work.

Everyone has their own feelings, cognitive predilections, and consequently motivators.

These things aren't particularly rational, but they are powerful in steering our beliefs and behaviors.

If you want to get someone who is different than you along this axis, to do something you want, you can't expect them to respond to the same effectors of motivation.

As always, know your audience. Use that knowledge in arguments to your advantage.

[MichiganVote]

11. So do these people wear like shirts that say, "Don't scare me" or something??

I'll talk my way-you talk your way. This isn't a Psychology class you know.

[HereSince1628]

12. Maybe on DU they have avatars or other indicators of their progressive nature.

But, this message was broadcast in the same manner as the FEAR thread that motivated it was broadcast as if all Sanders supporters are doing something that raises the likelihood of political apocalypse.

[MichiganVote]

20. In this country, if you do not vote republican, in 'other' circles,

you are considered a progressive. Other than trolls, I don't know of anyone who shares on this board intending to come here to say, 'let's just keep everything the same'.

To be a Democrat on this board is not to self identify solely as a 'progressive'. It is to expect to endorse change. How much, on what, with whom-all debatable.

No one here should expect to hear that Donald Trump is not a threat to minorities-he is
No one here should expect to hear that Donald Trump is not a threat to immigrants, legal or otherwise-he is
No one here should expect to heat that Donald Trump is not a threat to women-he is
No one here should expect to hear that Donald Trump is not a threat to our Bill of Rights-he is
No one here should be confused about his threatening intentions militarily, diplomatically or legally-he has made his positions clear

Just voting against Trump, makes our country safer, better and more 'progressive'.

[HereSince1628]

32. Well you're arguing strawmen.

[MichiganVote]

34. And that is usually the response when nothing else need be said.

[HereSince1628]

39. You're wanting to get into something other than how to message progressives

as are many others.

And I find that all quite telling. As much as many DUers want to beat up a rather mythic class of Progressive/Sanders supporters for what they see as resistance to joining the coalition for NOV, many DUers as evidenced by responses in the FEAR thread in this forum don't really want to consider the ways in which those who identify as Progressives are motivated.

Choose or don't to take advice given in a constructive effort. I'm not really interested in arguing everyone's definitions of 'progressive'. I was interested in helping anxious Dems try to message so they can successfully lower their anxiety

[MichiganVote]

48. Am I? See I think its valid for people to express their fears and I think its valid

for you or others to coin a different message to so called, 'progressives', liberals, conservatives or anyone else.

At this point, the convention/ national campaign hasn't even begun. Perhaps your energy could be put into contacting the campaign people.

[HereSince1628]

49. This thread was set in place as a counter to a DU thread, why would I contact the campaign?

It's intended to not hijack someone else's thread but to provide a perspective which seems very much unknown on DU.

[MichiganVote]

50. Because you seem to espouse a type of communication with progressive people, or

Bernie supporters or whatever. If you believe what you say, why shop it around one little message board? Go big, give the campaign the benefit of your ideas.

[HereSince1628]

55. I have every confidence that the political scientists with HRC's campaign know this

I have every confidence that anyone who has had even an introductory marketing or interpersonal communications course understands the importance of constructing messages that resonate with the intended target audience.

Unfortunately, DUers mostly don't have staff to remind them periodically of the basics.

[MichiganVote]

29. You know what? I hate to break it to you but 'Sanders supporters' is a mirage.

Sanders did not win the nomination. He is not going to be the Democratic nominee. So apparently what you are really suggesting, is that so called 'Sanders supporters' are not Democrats. Ok, so don't be a democrat.

But when or if, Donald Trump suspends civil rights, fucks up the economy, starts a war, reduces higher education to the likes of his Trump U bullshit and a myriad of other disasters awaiting us, don't come crying. You seem to want to offer me or others the option of feeling good about 'communicating' hope, love and whatall to the so called 'Sanders supporters'. And should the Dem nominee lose, I can comfort myself by saying, "Well, at least I didn't scare some people".

Maybe, just maybe, the 'Sanders supporters' as a manipulative as the Trump nutjobs.

The choices are clear. Vote for the Dem nominee or not.

[AllyCat]

26. Come on. That doesn't contribute to the conversation

If we want to help people see what we see, we have to figure out how to talk to them constructively.

[MichiganVote]

31. The threat of fear does not equal a lack of constructive dialogue.

[qazplm]

112. the audience you speak of

will never ever ever vote for Hillary, no matter what she does, so no one is talking to those folks.

[HereSince1628]

114. That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

But this thread was about messaging being pushed at Sanders supporters by HRC supporters as evidenced in that other thread in this forum.

Clearly some DUers are interested in persuading Sanders supporters that they lament aren't moved by motivations similar to their own.
And this thread was for them.

[Scruffy1]

89. I'm with you.

Besides I don't take orders well. This is how the R's have succeeded. They know that fear is the most powerful human motivation. Besides which I often wonder if people who conjure up Ghandi, Mandella, etc, really know much history or only the media version. Currently South Africans are worse off economically than they were under apartheid, largely due to their leaders giving away the store to the white elite in order to get the vote. The truth is usually complex.

[MichiganVote]

91. I recall after 911 all the fear people had. Given what people knew, it was justified.

But I thought most of the political stuff was overblown and useless. It brought about a huge overreaction resulting wars and way too many risks that were not needed.

I believe in verifiable fear. Donald Trump represents real fear, not real opportunity for Americans or others. He will return us back to the early days of this century with delusions of the 60's and let's face it, most of the young people now eligible to vote don't really understand what this progression of repression has really been about.

Trump is a threat.

[onecaliberal]

5. Fear is what did it for me. Just saying.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. By "worked", do you mean "left Clinton massively ahead in the polls"? N.T.

[HereSince1628]

19. I mean particularly whatever works to induce the fearful motivation in them the project

onto others as if it is universally persuasive. It isn't.

It works best on those who respond to fear. And research in sociology and psychology suggest it works best on people who are more conservative. Progressives are at the wrong end of the political spectrum for it to work.

Think about various human/civil rights movements apart from Sanders, people in those movements act out of hope and desire in spite of if not because of dangers that others fear.

It's part of the progressive mindset to not only desire change but to act when others would become rooted by fear.

What I am arguing is simply: failure to understand what turns-off progressives leads to failure to persuasively communicate with them.

[world wide wally]

14. I don't care what side anybody is on, but if the human traffic cone is elected,

you better be afraid.

[MichiganVote]

24. Lol! And yes, I will be afraid.

[riversedge]

16. Why do you separate Dems and Progressives?? Enough of that crap.

[HereSince1628]

21. I wasn't dividing them so much as asking Dems trying to reach progressives

(most of whom are dems but many millions who are unaffiliated) to stop using an approach destined to fail.


I don't really care what Greens or Republicans or Libertarians are trying to say to progressives.

I want the Dems to win. If they think they need to convince progressives to vote with them, then they need to use persuasion that has a chance to work

[riversedge]

36. Anyone who is paying attention--even remotely, should not need convincing at any level.

[Squinch]

80. Really. If this shit doesn't convince them, they are just trolling. It is just not credible.

[MichiganVote]

22. +1, you're on the right track

[AllyCat]

30. There is a Progressive Caucus. Are you saying they

Aren't Dems? Many people have different views but identify as Dems. We want more than what we saw Clinton asking for during the primaries and feel the Party could do better to address the issues affecting Americans most.

Personally, the new Party platform is what changed my feelings about supporting Clinton. In no universe would I vote for Trump.

[ibegurpard]

129. Because the terms are not synonymous

[sufrommich]

23. Anybody who's not afraid of the direction the republicans will

take this country is a moron. I don't care if they're from the left or right,I refuse to take anyone seriously who constantly needs a reason to vote against pure evil. Vote for whoever you want,the rest of us will get this.

[HereSince1628]

28. That's fine as a personal opinion.

Months of invoking fear hasn't much worked. Since April, HRC's running avg on national polling numbers hasn't moved much.

No bump after securing AP's declaration of victory. No evidence that those who backed Sanders are pushing her numbers up.

So I don't think the numbers support that the FEAR argument has been persuasive since earlier than April

[sufrommich]

38. The national elections haven't even started,it's the doldrums of summer

and the dems haven't even had their convention or hit the campaign trail. Yes,it's my personal opinion,so is yours. I'm sick to death of so called progressives throwing temper tantrums because Bernie didn't win,I'm not interested in kowtowing to morons willing to let the world burn because they lost. This crap belongs over at Jackass Radicals,not here.

[HereSince1628]

40. It may be, but that's beside the point as there is that FEAR thread running in this forum

And the point of this thread is the author, and many of the people replying in that thread "DON'T GET" how fear doesn't work as a persuasive political argument when it's made to Progressives

[Squinch]

82. Then don't use it. Others disagree with you. They will use it. Stop telling them not to.

[MichiganVote]

33. Yup

[arthritisR_US]

53. What amazes me is they call themselves progressives who want the

greater good for the masses. They get 80% of their demands into the Democratic platform and that isn't enough. The republiCON platform offers 0% of their demands but they seem alright with that. I'm not presenting fear, just the facts and wonder where in those motivations lie the greater good?

[MichiganVote]

71. The term Democratic Socialist comes to mind. Not going to happen.

[arthritisR_US]

74. Their all or nothing thinking will be your country 's ruin. nt

[MichiganVote]

76. There is no form of governance or politics that is pretty.

[arthritisR_US]

78. How ugly are some willing to let it go? It certainly won't be the

1% who will suffer.

[MichiganVote]

81. Well to be fair, they do suffer occasionally via history. And some are even innocent.

Marie Antoinette had no political clout much less experience outside court life. But as these things go, her son virtually starved in prison and she of course lost her head-literally.

People believe what they believe. And unless he is elected, Donald Trump will become a footnote in history. Intolerable to him surely, but ok with those of us who know better.

[arthritisR_US]

83. Respectfully I must disagree. They don't suffer occasionally, they suffer routinely.

[MichiganVote]

85. Not sure of your meaning.

[malaise]

25. Great post

[MohRokTah]

27. Your concern concerning this concern is concerning. eom

[etherealtruth]

35. I haven't been pushing fear (not a single post) ....

However, i am terrified of a Trump presidency. A presidency that has the potential to appoint 3-4 justices to the SCOTUS. It could take generations to recover from this .. if ever.

[HereSince1628]

41. Everyone has their emotions, everyone's emotions are valid for them, but

if you don't understand how emotions especially emotions about politics work in different audiences, then you risk making, and persisting, in arguments that project -your- emotional reactions onto people who don't share them.

This is really pretty straight forward mainstream stuff developed and used by industrial/military psychology and marketing.

The fear argument has been pushed for months. It's being pushed hard today in that other FEAR thread. It hasn't, doesn't, and won't work to win over all those nasty "sanders supporters" who refuse to react as they "should".

I tried to explain why.

[etherealtruth]

57. I understand the use of fear ....

It is expertly used by the republican party, the NRA and other right wing groups .... I didn't read the other "fear" thread but highly doubt it has the sophistication of the republican party/ NRA fear mongering.

I am fearful of the advancing age (~80 years old) of four justices of the SCOTUS and the possibility of 4 right-wing appointments to the court.

I am afraid to drive my car 100+ miles an hour on the freeway and I am afraid of a SCOTUS dominated by right wingers.

Both of the front runners in the democratic primary were equal in my view (the net sum of their pluses and minuses were very equal) ... and both were head and shoulders above the republicans. I am fearful that apathy of voters will allow that to happen

[HereSince1628]

63. Your emotions are valid. But they may not motivate others as they do you.

Considering this commonly stated fear this campaign cycle by BOTH democrats and republicans...

Since WWII, presidents have had the chance to nominate pretty much one SCOTUS justice per term. Of course, the senate must confirm these nominations. And so, control of the senate is as scary as a Trump presidency to dems, or a Clinton presidency to r's.

It's true that supreme court justices are appointed until they quit or die. But, the balance of the partisan and other biases of the justices are regularly available for adjustment. Because I focus on the balance of the court rather than the individuals term of service, I'm not as fearful on this 'generationally critical' issue as people who focus on the nature of life-time appointments.

Yet, even as a Sanders movement supporter I totally agree that Dems need regular control of the senate and the WH to make that balance happen, and that's the controlling reality with or without Trump.

To be quite frankly, Greens, Libertarians or the Socialist Worker's party aren't going to control the senate any time within my prognosis. So, for me getting a balance in SCOTUS that reflects my interests really depends on voting for senators who most favor my interests. And they aren't Republicans.

The same senate confirms federal judges, who are the ones who make decisions that require review by SCOTUS. Why don't we hear about the importance of confirming such judges who will make decisions that affirm civil and constitutional rights over partisan, religious or economic biases?

I don't hear near enough about how we reduce fear of federal judge nominees getting nominated by voting for Dem control of the senate. That seems wrong. It seems like the argument about the president's nominating power is being way over-played.

[LWolf]

42. It seems like

it might be more effective to come up with some new talking points; the same talking points repeated ad nauseum every single presidential election cycle are known well enough that anyone on the fence has heard them before. They're counter-productive.
More substance, less ritualized responses; that would be more likely to change MY mind, were I open to changing it.

And if someone's mind is made up, what, exactly, is the point of hammering them with failed talking points?

The only real purpose I can see is to set dissenters up to be scapegoats should the hammers lose. And THAT'S not the way to influence people.

[HereSince1628]

46. I think much of what you say is true. IMO voting Dem still has pro-Bernie angles

at least for Bernie supporters who understand and support Sanders' choice to establish his movement within the Democratic party.

I think there is a mostly positive, rather pragmatic for the movement, non-fear argument that can be made to Sanders supporters who haven't really considered why Sanders wants his movement inside the Dem party.

[LWolf]

60. What Sanders is doing

inside the party right now, both in campaigning for Clinton AND in still taking his momentum to the floor of the convention, makes perfect sense to me. A good look at his long record will show that this is exactly how he accomplishes things. He goes after the big issues, and if he can't make the whole thing happen, he reaches out to see what pieces he CAN get.

He's got the energy and people of his movement behind him; why not use it?

He's also quite realistic in realizing that he'll be able to accomplish more if Trump is not the president.

His down-ticket strategy, looking to the future, is also nothing but good.

There ARE still pro-revolution angles.

It's only counter-productive, imo, and likely to backfire, to keep pushing Sanders and his supporters to kowtow. THAT's not going to happen, and it's likely to drive some potential Clinton votes away.

[TheProgressive]

44. Progressives are dreamers? "They are attracted to hope, and hope for things that they desire"?

"Progressives" is the current label for people who want to 'progress' and who get things done. The founders of our country were 'progressives' (at least most of them). Progressives want to make people's lives better. Progressives want to insure a clean and livable environment.

Progressives are not war mongers, however, will defend our country to the death. Progressives want a civil society for *everyone* independent of what 'categories' they happen to fall in.

Dreamers? Hardly. Progressives get positive things done as indicated above. Hope? Sure. But Progressives, once again, get things done that benefit society.

One one is better or worse than anybody else. We are all human. Nobody wants to be 'ruled'. Most sane people want a civil government who understands the 'commons' and can differentiate between things that need to be in the Commons and the things that need to be in the 'private' but regulated sector.

America and the World will not be 'better' until we elect more Progressives into office. Until then, it is mostly the status quo and that is unacceptable.

[HereSince1628]

47. I'd entertain arguing about the Progressive label elsewhere, but it's not the point of this thread

For now, I'll just foretell my position on this...I think progressives have dreamed great dreams, hoped great hopes, turned hopes and dreams into plans and have struggled, fought in civil conflict for those dreams and even pursued war to achieve the realization of those dreams.

[TheProgressive]

52. I was just correcting you on your position of Progressives.

It was a major point in your post, yet you do not want to talk about it?

[Thinkingabout]

45. It is time to unite and defeat Trump in November, let's focus on Electing

Democrats at all levels, we know Republicans are not going to work on passing progressive ideas.

[stopbush]

51. Why don't the progressives do their own homework and come up with

their own reasons to support the D candidate, who happens to be Hillary Clinton? Why do the vast majority of Ds who ALREADY SUPPORT Hillary Clinton because they like her and her policies and who believe she is the best person for the job need to spend (waste?) their time trying to convince the unconvincible to support the D candidate? I thought we were all Ds here, progressives included. Perhaps while we're at it we need to convince Americans that they need to vote in the American elections.

Can we admit that the only way some Sanders supporters would ever support Hillary is if she were to step aside and hand him the nomination?

This OP is another example of still fighting the primaries as far as I'm concerned.

[BobbyDrake]

118. Exactly. The OP is all about "Pay attention to meeeee!" Nothing else.

If they really were looking for a reason to back Clinton, they'd have found it already.

[TeamPooka]

54. How do you know Trump isn't Hitler? That's how hitler happend, by people not realizing they should

be very very scared and take the threat seriously.

[HereSince1628]

58. The topic is about how to persuade Sanders/progressive voters who orient differently

to fear than do HRC supporters, why that doesn't work, and generally how to approach a persuading Sanders/progressive voters.

You're working at a strawman shaped rather like a red-herring that's headed off the topic of the thread

[Moonwalk]

62. Well, you see, but that confuses me...are you saying that progressives need to be...

...persuaded to vote for Hillary? Or Democrat for that matter? Bernie, Elizabeth Warren...all the "Heroes" of the progressives are democrats voting democrat at the moment. So...what orientation is this that requires progressives be persuaded?

And here's what really confuses me. You're condemning fear mongering, but aren't you using that to make us dance through certain hoops? Aren't you essentially saying we'll lose progressives if we don't do X, Y and Z? That's kinda frightening.

But hey, if you understand this orientation and others do not, and there is a very real risk that progressives will throw away their vote if fear tactics are used rather than "hope" tactics...then please. Post such lures. Show us how it's should be done. That's the best way to teach. Saying "don't do this, and don't do that," only muddies the waters. Post a few such progressive-friendly "vote democrat" essays and show us what we should be doing.

Because you have now really scared me. I would hate to see progressive throw away their votes and condemn us to Trump because we urged them to vote with anxiety rather than dreams. Please give me an example of how to do it right.

[HereSince1628]

65. I'm saying the FEAR argument oft presented on DU to persuade Sanders/progressive voters

doesn't work as people who employ it think it does.

I'm hoping to give some practical, advice. Which boils down this way... quit making arguments that don't work, consider the audience that is needing persuasion and make an argument that works.

I actually gave you a general approach in the OP.

Take the advice or not. Argue how it's wrong, partly wrong and try to improve on it.

Or demean me as a nobody who has no right to suggest advice if you wish. Those all choices you are free to make

[Moonwalk]

86. I don't understand your practical advice. Please give me an example. How....

SHOULD we be saying this? And, forgive me, but I'm still confused as to why we need to persuade anyone. Are you saying progressives are not going to vote for Hillary Clinton or any democrat in the upcoming election? What, exactly, are we NOT persuading them to do when we use the FEAR argument?

And your general approach in the O.P. doesn't help at all. I don't get it. Is there some reason you can't give us a specific example of this "Hope" message that you believe would persuade progressives?

I'm willing to take advice. I'm willing to learn how to argue "right" and improve. But I don't know how to argue the way you want me to. Because I don't know what that looks like. Show me. That's how I learn. I need an example.

[thucythucy]

134. I voted for Sanders in the primary

and I'm scared shitless of a Trump win in November.

To me, "Sanders/progressive voters who orient differently" are folks who either aren't paying attention to what's been happening in Cleveland, or are so ensconced in positions of privilege they think they can just sit back and eat popcorn while Trump burns down the rest of the world.

If, however, you're a person of color, or an immigrant, or a person with a disability, or a woman who might need certain forms of health care, or LGBT, or Muslim, or in any way dependent on the social safety net, or.... well, anyone who isn't a white male born here, then you ought to be VERY afraid of a Trump presidency.

This isn't fear mongering, it's fact. And if what I've just written doesn't concern some "Sanders/progressive voters" who orient differently, it means to me that those voters basically don't give a fuck about millions upon millions of fellow Americans.

I would guess from your moniker "HereSince1628" that you aren't an immigrant, which would explain a certain portion of your unafraid "orientation."

There are very very many of us feel we can't afford your level of detachment.

My shred of hope: that a Hillary landslide may well give us a spate of progressive legislation much the way the LBJ landslide gave us the Voting Rights Act, Medicaid and Medicare, as well as several sane and reasonable USSC justices to swing the Court back to sanity. I'm particularly heartened by Hillary's past work with children and children's health care. There is NOTHING in Trump's background that comes close to this sort of concern for others.

But it's fear that is my primary motivation right now. I would think anyone who considers him or herself a progressive would be able to empathize with that.

[tclambert]

56. I think fear of a Trump presidency is a legitimate fear, and will motivate a lot of voters.

Hopefully more voters than he can get to fear Mexicans and Muslims and women and blacks. His pushing fear buttons worked wonders for his campaign so far. Complacency and playing nice all the time could lead to "I, The Donald, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me, Me."

Hillary should run ads with hope and positive messaging, yes, some of the time. But not all the time. She's got to call him out on being a liar, a fraud, and an incompetent know-nothing who is completely unqualified to hold office.

[HereSince1628]

67. FEAR will certainly motivate many voters. But that misses the point.

The point is if you are trying to reach Progressives which was and remains the purpose of that FEAR post in this forum sent to Bernie supporters ,

FEAR -hasn't- worked on the progressive left for the months that it's been used.

FEAR isn't going to work on the progressive left the same way it works on people who are more conservative.

[Squinch]

84. If you don't fear trump you are stupid. Saying that we shouldn't point out the appropriateness

of that fear is stupid.

92% of Sanders supporters are voting for Hillary. Your argument makes no sense.

Once more, stop telling us how to persuade you. No one cares about persuading you. You are not a child. Make a choice.

Hillary or trump. It isn't hard.

[MichiganVote]

93. +1

[loyalsister]

59. The Daisy ad worked

But, I wonder if the cold war would have lasted as long as it did without it?

[pansypoo53219]

61. we need to go left on OFFENSE. reaganism is DYING. KILL IT DEAD NOW!

[Scruffy1]

90. I think a large part of the Democratic Party haven't even heard of the term offense.

The right wing understands the value of attack. it keeps the other side on defense.

[tk2kewl]

137. Reaganism is dying?

The leading Democratic VP candidate just called for bank deregulation.

The current Democratic POTUS offered up Social Security on The Alter of Bipartisanship.

The previous Democratic POTUS murdered welfare and slashed the capital gains tax.

Reaganism isn't dying, it just has a new face.

I see very little chance the Democrats will go left as an offensive tactic at this point, though I am patiently waiting to see if they will.

[Cryptoad]

64. Vote how u want ,,,, just

dont whine about it!

[CobaltBlue]

66. Fear tactics are used in effort to control what people will do. I reject those efforts.

This 2016 United States presidential election, I predict, is going to be won by Hillary Clinton.

People who fear it won't happen…I'm not a professional who can give them the help they may need.

I would like to see people have more confidence. If they were confident in nominating her, they should be confident that she will win the general election.

[HereSince1628]

68. Fear can be manipulative. It can also be legitimate

Bravado can be just as manipulative and dangerous as fear.

My point is that arguments used by HRC supporters/DEM unity advocates to try to persuade Sanders/Progressive voters -must- be made in a manner that works for the Sanders/Progressive voters being targeted.

Pretty much everybody has some fear and anxiety. But, people vary in their vulnerability to and influence by anxieties and fears.

The history of the past 4 months suggests that fear Trump isn't a persuasive argument with most Sanders/Progressive voters. Using it regularly and intensively hasn't done anything to move HRC's running avg on national polls.

I agree with you that HRC should win this election. All she is running against is the notion that a republican is better than a democrat. I don't expect that to protect Trump from plagiarism, let alone legitimate measurement of his ill-preparedness for the presidency.

[Squinch]

135. You still don't get it. No one is trying to persuade Sanders voters. Sanders voters have already

overwhelmingly decided to vote for Hillary.

The 8% of Sanders voters who are going to trump or Stein are idiots. They are not people worth wasting our time on.

BUT there is nothing wrong with acknowledging the fact that trump is a terrifying prospect.

Now here's where we seem to be losing you, so hold onto your hat for this: the act of acknowledging that trump is terrifying doesn't have anything to do with you. It isn't about persuading you. It is about the fact that Trump is terrifying. Not everything is about you.

Let me repeat that: not everything is about you.

You need to get it out of your head that people are trying to persuade you. You are either already persuaded, or you are too stupid to persuade.

If you don't like to talk about fear in your posts, then don't. Stop dictating to others that they are not allowed to acknowledge an obviously legitimate fear of trump.

[heresAthingdotcom]

69. How 'bout some examples....

i don't read everything posted but what I've seen so far is a challenge to some Bernie Supporters to consider the alternative ....

Bernie lost... you can vote for Hillary, the Libertarians, the Green, Homer Simpson or don't vote...

your choice but please don't help elect Donald Trump....

[HereSince1628]

73. I'll let people speak for themselves...

I support the Dem party. Unlike some, I support Sander's choice to establish his movement inside of the Dem Party.

I do think the existence of Sanders movement inside the Dem party, and how the party facilitates that movement is something the party and HRC supporters haven't considered as a reality.

Acknowledging that and using that understanding could be useful to efforts to persuade Sanders voters. It is in many ways the very thing that HRC did by moving toward Sanders issues in order to gain his endorsement.

[baldguy]

70. Fear of Trump is legitimate.

More so, if so-called "progressives" don't get off their ass and vote for the progressive candidate, Hillary Clinton.

[arthritisR_US]

75. I totally agree! nt

[Rex]

72. Progressives do not try and divide people into groups to be monitored and yelled at.

That is the other side of the isle. Anytime I see this shit, I just SMH and comment. I will keep on noticing this shit and bringing it up. The concern trolling is getting really old.

Almost everyone here is going to vote for HRC, I cannot believe people still want to pretend this is META. How many years has it been?

Sad.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

77. Why are the long-time Hillary supporters so scared now? nt

[MichiganVote]

79. Uh, because crazy people are on TV endorsing an even crazier Trump person??

[Democat]

100. This thead is about Trump supporters

Posing as concerned liberals.

They will never be convinced.

[AirmensMom]

87. Fear has done it for me.

The more I hear from Trump, the more scared I get. I so much wanted Bernie to get the nomination. I will vote for Hillary, but it won't make one bit of difference because there is no way she will win my deep red state. Hopefully I can do it absentee because I don't want to stand in line with the racist idiots who will be in line voting for Trump. Right now I wish I lived in a battleground state.

[ecstatic]

88. Currently, there's a supreme court opening and 3 justices are between 77 and 82 years old.

"Dreaming" is fine, but at what point does logic and reality set in? I would hope that the idea of Trump appointing up to 4 justices who'd have the power to set this nation back decades would be enough. If not, what is? Sorry, I just don't have the patience.

[brentspeak]

92. It's been the Third Way strategy ever since Bill Clinton. n/t

[GulfCoast66]

94. How do you define progressive?

Especially one that needs convincing to vote for the Democtatic party? Let me guess...Bernie or bust!

I could give a shit about convincing a 'progressive' and this point to vote for the Democratic Candidate. If they have not decided by now they will not vote Democratic no matter what.

And they really need to drop the Bernie bullshit. He being a man of his word supports Hillary and has told his followers to do the same. Those that refuse are really not Bernie supporters but Hillary haters.

And I am over reading how special 'progressives' are and what makes them special. I am progressive and support Hillary.

Finally, all these 20 something white dudes who are not voting for anyone but Bernie? Give them 20 years and $80,000 more in income and they will be republicans. Because if they are not voting for Hillary they are not concerned about the citizens who will be harmed by a trump presidency. Because educated white guys will always be ok.

[MichiganVote]

95. +1

[HereSince1628]

99. Let's use is as Sanders supporters do this was motivated by a FEAR thread to them

A discussion on how pro-corporate economic conservatives aren't progressive is probably an interesting topic, but not the topic of this thread.

[Raine]

96. Good post

Thank you!

[Starry Messenger]

97. If "progressives" are meh about a Trump win, I question their political self-labeling.

Selfishly allowing billions to suffer isn't in my definition of "woke."

[Democat]

98. Those who like Trump better than Clinton are not progressive

Your premise is flawed.

Trump supporters here at DU are trolls, not progressives.

[HereSince1628]

101. No more flawed than the polemic of FEAR directed at Sanders supporters.

I would say your assumption that all those professing support for Sanders on this board are trolls is very over broad.

The failed utility of the FEAR argument is pretty obvious looking at patterns of avgs in the national polling.

I tried in the OP trys in a constructive way to suggest that the problem persuading Sanders supporters with FEAR is an approach that fails to consider what motivates Sanders Progressives.

[etherealtruth]

102. I think Kpete's post summed it up perfectly

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028035558



Trump’s nomination is the first time American politics has left me truly afraid -by Ezra Klein

Donald Trump is not a man who should be president. This is not an ideological judgment. This is not something I would say about Mitt Romney or Marco Rubio. This is not a disagreement over Donald Trump’s tax plan or his climate policies. This is about Trump’s character, his temperament, his impulsiveness, his basic decency.

............

Trump admires authoritarian dictators for their authoritarianism. When MSNBC's Joe Scarborough asked Trump about his affection for Vladimir Putin, who "kills journalists, political opponents and invades countries," Trump replied, "He's running his country, and at least he's a leader, unlike what we have in this country."

But it’s not just Putin. Trump has praised Saddam Hussein because "he killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read them the rights." He said "you've got to give (Kim Jong Un) credit. He goes in, he takes over, and he's the boss. It's incredible." It’s not just that Trump admires these authoritarians; it’s that the thing he admires about them is their authoritarianism — their ability to dispense with niceties like a free press, due process, and political opposition.

............

The simple fact of it is that Donald Trump should not be president of the United States. That is not because he is too conservative, as some Democrats would have it, or because he is not conservative enough, as many Republicans would have it. It’s because the presidency is a powerful job where mistakes can kill millions, and whoever holds it needs to take that power seriously and wield it responsibly. Trump has had ample opportunity to demonstrate his sense of seriousness and responsibility. He has failed.

It is said that the benefit of America’s long presidential campaigns is they offer the candidates time to show us who they really are. Trump has shown us who he really is. He is a person who should not be president. That he is being brought this close to the presidency — that he is one major mistake by Hillary Clinton away from winning it — should scare us all. It certainly scares me.


MORE:
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/21/12218136/donald-trump-nomination-afraid
35

[HereSince1628]

103. I too believe Trump is the worst republican candidate in their history

But this isn't about the character of their candidate. It's about the character of popular argument trying to persuade errant Sanders voters to come to the aid of the party.

It's about why the FEAR messaging to that group isn't showing much effect on the national polling. It's about the basic importance in messaging to know the audience the message is supposed to reach.

[etherealtruth]

105. i have posted throughout the thread that my fear of a Trump presidency is my motivating factor

I also have fears that people will not vote and (especially young people) will suffer the consequences .... a right wing court has the potential to destroy women's reproductive autonomy, civil and voting rights, freedom of and from religion .... effects that could be felt for generations.


I voted for Sander's through a process that was the equivalent of a toss of a coin .... to decide between two candidates that I believe the sum of their positives and negatives was equal (sharing that to identify the fact that I wasn't enthralled with either candidate). Fears of a Trump presidency are legitimate ... I am not going to write OPs or replies castigating sanders supporters but I do hope every voter explores and identifies the potential impacts of a Trump presidency ... what it will mean to them and what it will mean to society.

[HereSince1628]

106. Yes, fear works on some, it always has and always will.

Fear is an important feature within human nature. But how it works varies, and as Jost et al demonstrated in their meta-analysis of 88 formal research papers on the cognitive motivators of political conservatism, fear as a motivator is greatly biased to the right. It's also a feature of victimhood.

But setting aside academic research which mostly goes ignored. The available evidence that as an approach that dominates the discussions, social media, and is built into hers and her surrogates speeches FEAR isn't building HRCs polling numbers.

[etherealtruth]

109. It has built Trumps n/t

[HereSince1628]

115. Yes, but conistent with the political research, the Trump supporters are quite conservative.

I'm not at all sure a copy-cat rationale for messaging that work on conservatives is what should be relied upon to win over people much much farther to the left.

[etherealtruth]

127. Its calculated fear mongering on the right ....

The fear of a Trump presidency worked for me as a motivating factor .... and for most Sanders supporters I know (in real life) .

I think the posts you refer to are just continuations of the primary bickering (generally disregarded or ignored by me) .... but fear of losing reproductive freedom, civill rights ... is truly motivating to me

[modem77]

113. Fear leads to hate, and we don't want to be like them.

[HereSince1628]

116. IMO, fear leads to a desire to reduce fear, even when fear is understandable.

Fear, and a significant component of desire for revenge, is what led to the Iraq war, and it's many sequalae.

Frank Herbert had it right when he said 'Fear is the mind-slayer'. Fear destroys and supplants rational cognition. Moving people to emotional decisions that are based on facile allusions to potential reduction of anxiety can be a tool of those who don't want other people to make -thoughtful- decisions.

Fear is the emotional foundation upon which Shock Doctrine is built. Ironically, those who employ Shock Doctrine aren't too fearful. They merely promote and exploit fear in others.

[ms liberty]

104. Good post.

Unfortunately it zipped right by some of the members who should have been paying attention. It's oh so popular right now to treat anyone not enthusiastically on the HRC bandwagon as if they're not really democrats, but are actually traitors who are closet republicans.

[ProfessorGAC]

136. Who Is Doing That?

Specifically who is saying that. I'm not. But, i think that any Sanders supporter that sits this one out is behaving petulantly and selfishly as if they're incapable of seeing the full picture.

The OP was to call that pushing fear. I would call it willfully belaboring the obvious consequences. If you or anybody else here needs to be convinced that any actions increasing the chance of a Republican win are foolhardy, there are no good ways to convince them.

They're just being stubborn, and as i said, petulant and selfish.

[n2doc]

107. Exactly

Look people, who won in2008 and 20012? What was part of their big slogan? HOPE.

We tried fear in 2014. It resulted in a GOP landslide. The people running the Democratic Party need to learn from that.

[Skinner]

108. Let's be honest: Any remaining "progressive" holdouts aren't going to be swayed by anything we say.

These holdouts are not clueless people who don't pay attention to politics. They are political obsessives who are just as informed as we are. They already have access to all the same information we do. They already have responses ready for every possible message we might try to deliver. Any good faith effort to persuade would be taken as an insult.

They only way any of these holdouts are going to come around is if they decide on their own that they are going to take this election seriously and make a serious choice. They have all the information they need already. In their hearts they know the choice this year is obvious.

Our time is much better spent trying to persuade people who don't pay close attention to politics and who are open to persuasion.

[HereSince1628]

111. I am not at all sure that's true. I think that's a great excuse for discarding any interest in them

But I think you've come quite close to the truth about persuasion just before you alluded to them as un-serious and not engaging in making a serious choice: "holdouts are going to come around is if they decide on their own"

Persuasion is almost always about making people feel as if making a decision is a personal recognition that a decision -is their own- mostly because it conforms to things they already believe in.

Salesmen fail when they choose to message in a manner that goes against the grain of a buyers' interests and beliefs. It's pretty basic industrial psychology applied by marketers and taught in all elementary courses in communications.

Does it matter? Well maybe and maybe not. It seems like it would if you want to build HRC's popularity numbers. Look at the polling evidence in the two-way races:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

HRCs running averages of national polls are not and have not been soaring. They aren't even significantly building. Their last significant move up ended about Mar 22. Depending on how a person sets the limit on Bollinger bands of such time-series, a person could reasonably argue her numbers haven't moved outside the limits of err since Sept 16 2015.

The campaign can try to message -to- the interests of others, or simply go with projection of what they think has worked for the support they have. Consistent with your argument, campaign and supporter strategy seems to be set on projection of their own beliefs.

[Skinner]

119. Salesmen also fail when they waste their time trying to sell to someone who isn't persuadable.

This election provides us with an extremely stark choice -- one that is clearly apparent to anyone who wants to admit it. These holdouts are not uniformed. They are not waiting for the right message from me or from Hillary Clinton. They know what is at stake here, they know the choice we face. They will not be persuaded by the right messaging because they already know all of it.

I consider it a sign of respect for me to acknowledge that these people are not clueless, they are not uninformed. They are very intelligent and they are well-informed. No amount of persuasion from me is going to get them to change their minds. To do so would be like a Trump supporter trying to convince me to support Trump -- no amount of messaging is going to change my mind.

There will be plenty of progressive holdouts who come around and vote for Hillary Clinton in the end. But that choice is going to come from within their own hearts. It's not going to come from better messaging.

[HereSince1628]

122. Maybe your message doesn't belong in this thread but over in that FEAR-suasion thread

where you could argue that people like its author are wasting time and effort.

[Skinner]

128. I tend to think that my post fits in either thread.

I think you and I agree that telling progressive holdouts "Trump is bad" is not going to persuade them. Where we disagree is that I don't think telling them "Hillary Clinton is good" is going to persuade them either.

[Scuba]

110. Exhibit A suggests a whole lot of DU members disagree ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028034414

[BobbyDrake]

117. You've ignored and dismissed every prior effort to be positive, though.

We present Clinton's positives and you folks just shit all over them.

Why should we try to placate the willfully ignorant? This seems more like you want attention than a goodwill call for positivity, and frankly, we don't have time to waste making you feel special.

If you don't already have a positive reason to vote for Clinton, it's because you won't accept one when it's offered to you.

[HereSince1628]

121. No one is asking you to placate anyone. Certainly not the people you are committed to demean.

Your response ignores the purpose of this post.

Which is to communicate with those DUers who make appeals to Sanders supporters that consideration of their audience rather than self-projection is important.

Personally I think supporting the Democratic party is very important to the success of Sanders initiative to engage many more people in political process. Indeed, NOT shitting all over other democrats is fundamental to the success of that effort.

Based on many of responses above, I'm fairly sure -that- sentiment is universally shared as a two-way circuit of communication and reconciliation.

[BobbyDrake]

123. The purpose of your post is that you want attention, and I've wasted enough here already.

You're not actually open to the persuasion you're demanding, and your antics are obvious.

[HereSince1628]

124. Interesting, you're a mind reader, too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

120. Is Trump -REALLY- more scary than the horrible, murderous, militant defenders of racist apartheid ?

Yes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

125. If the Germans of the1930s

If the Germans of the 1930s were a lil more fearful of Hitler perhaps 6,000,000 of my co-religionists wouldn't have been terminated and four continents would not have been thrown into war.

Having read several books about the era I can't escape the conclusion that while a lot of the world didn't share Hitler's aniumus for his initial targets they weren't enamored of them either. I see parallels to our current situation but thankfully Trump's targets can vote.


I consider myself a tough guy and Trumpism scares the shit out of me.

[rjsquirrel]

126. To people who address passive aggressive open letters

to their perceived opponents on DU

PLEASE F'ing STOP!

[pampango]

130. Is expressing fear of a fear-mongering politician fear-mongering itself?

Is intolerance directed at intolerant politicians intolerance itself?

Most of us oppose fear-mongering and intolerance but should we b careful not to express that opposition too bluntly in order not to become what we oppose?

[whatthehey]

131. Couch it however you like. No need fo fear or kumbayas either

But there is a stark fact that any adult should be able to face rationally. Either Clinton or Trump will be the next President. Help whichever one you choose to. That's not fear or enthusiasm, merely reality.

[alarimer]

132. People are reacting to the speech last night.

It was truly eye-opening. Buchanan sounded a lot like him, only he was a third-party candidate with no chance. Now, those beliefs are mainstream. It's fucking scary to know how hateful half the country really is.

I ultimately don't think fear will be the tactic used by the Clinton campaign. I do agree it would be a mistake and backfire. I think optimism will be the tack they take.

I certainly hope Warren will continue to pour on the ridicule. I think that will help too. Clinton can't do that herself, but her surrogates can.

I don't know if Trump is truly capable of awful things, like Franco or Mussolini. But think of the recent Bush administration. It would be more of the same.

[laureloak]

133. Is there a litmus test for Dems vs Progressive???

I've always considered myself to be a liberal progressive Democrat and thought we were all the same.

[BlueMTexpat]

139. Anyone who starts off an OP

by making a distinction between Dems and "Progressives" turns me off right away.

You don't want to vote for Hillary? Fine, don't! But then don't tell me you are a Progressive! I mean that constructively.