Democrats' Aggressive Messaging Could BackFire and Motivate Huge Republican Turnout Next Week (A Scientific Look at Campaign Messaging)

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  robert-in-ohio  •  2 years ago  •  115 comments

Democrats' Aggressive Messaging Could BackFire and Motivate Huge Republican Turnout Next Week (A Scientific Look at Campaign Messaging)
The hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning. Adlai E. Stevenson Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/adlai_e_stevenson_135724?src=t_political_campaign

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



I came across this article which seems to take an unbiased, practical view of how the mid-term election campaign messaging is going and what science says about what effects the aggressive messaging and rhetoric - some of those are not exactly what I or others expected.  In my view, the Democrats are poised to make gains in these elections - more seats in the House (possibly the majority), a status quo or small losses in the Senate and gains in statehouses around the country.

But the gains may be ameliorated in some areas, if these scientists are right.

My intent is to discuss "the science" presented and not whether readers hate Trump, love Trump or are indifferent to politics in general - those subjects are important and other article give us ample opportunity to discuss them.

This article is to discuss when does the value of aggressive rhetoric in campaigns recede into a significant disadvantage.

I will not be going done rabbit holes - so if I ignore or fail to respond to your comment, do not take it personal because like I said I want to discuss your thoughts on the science presented.

---------

In 2012 scientists at the University of Nebraska collected a group of volunteers and showed them a collage consisting of three pleasant — a bunny, for instance — and three disturbing pictures, including a spider crawling on a human face. You might think people would focus on the happy photos and avoid the disturbing ones. But no, most people gazed at the scary ones.

Biology quickly explains that: our brain includes an early warning system to identify and prioritize threat, so we can stay alive. But scientists saw something else not as easily explainable: conservatives focused on the threatening stimulus more than liberals. The reason may upend expectations in the midterm elections.

The brains of conservatives and liberals are far more alike than different, but one exception might matter a lot just now: liberals tend to have higher levels of dopamine than conservatives. Dopamine is the neurotransmitter (brain chemical) that equips us to think about the future. In general, our fascination with new things — our comfort with change — tracks with the level of dopamine. In fact, there appears to be a genetic link between a strong dopamine system and the appearance of liberal ideology, especially if we think of that ideology as the pursuit of change — progress, or progressivism.

It further follows that, being attracted to change, progressives would be more active politically than conservatives, who are generally more content with the way things are. History suggests this biological edge is real because, in the long run, through good times and bad, progressive ends usually emerge: government tends to grow, not shrink, and its influence tends to expand, not contract.

In politics, the neurochemical advantage belongs to the left, and that would be the end of the matter but for one thing: circumstances can fire up conservatives’ neurochemical motivation to match or exceed that of the progressives. As the experiment with happy versus disturbing photos demonstrated, conservatives are more reactive to threat than liberals are. In fact, threat does even more. It tends to make people of all ideologies more conservative, and you don’t need brain science to know that. You can look at history.

With occasional exceptions, polls typically find that Americans trust Democrats more when it comes to health care, but trust Republicans more on national security. Historically, terrorist attacks increase the number of people who say they plan to vote Republican.

And if you think you can explain away that phenomenon with ideology, think again. Researchers at Cornell asked college students to fill out a survey about their political beliefs. Half the participants took the survey in an empty hallway. The other half were seated near a seemingly innocuous item, a dispenser for hand sanitizer — a reminder of the risk of infection from dirty hands. Those who sat near the hand sanitizer reported higher levels of moral, social, and fiscal conservatism.

Just an anomaly? When a separate group of students was asked to use a germ-killing hand wipe before answering the questions, researchers saw the same result. Glenn D. Wilson, a psychologist who studies the influence of evolution on human behavior, joked that bathroom signs that say “Employees must wash hands before returning to work” are campaign billboards for the Republican Party.

It takes little to trigger the defensive reaction to threat, which brings us to the coalescing Democratic strategy articulated by former attorney general Eric Holder as “When they go low, we kick ‘em.” The “threat” of the left toward the right now includes confronting conservative leaders in restaurants and at their homes, using vulgarity in public to express opposition, exercising the “heckler’s veto,” and mounting campaigns to get high-profile employees fired from their jobs for expressing conservative opinions.

That these tactics are relatively rare or, to some activists, justified, misses the point. Threat rouses conservatives to action more than it rouses liberals and can push the general population further to the right.

An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found that in July there was a 10-point gap between the number of Democrats and Republicans saying the November elections were “very important.” Following the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, which conservative leaders characterized as the destruction of a reputation by accusation, the gap evaporated into a tie.

Striking fear in the hearts of one’s opponent can be satisfying, but it is not always productive. Under ordinary circumstances, 100 Democrats marching down the street is probably a protest, while 100 Republicans is probably a parade. But that can easily change.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Robert in Ohio
1  seeder  Robert in Ohio    2 years ago

Daniel Z. Lieberman, MD, is a psychiatrist and professor at George Washington University School of Medicine. Michael E. Long, a writer and playwright who trained as a physicist, is a lecturer at Georgetown University. Their new book is "The Molecule of More: How a Single Chemical in Your Brain Drives Love, Sex, and Creativity – and Will Determine the Fate of the Human Race."

From the article

Threats activate conservatives more than liberals

Aggressive Democrats will motivate GOP voters

Striking fear in the hearts of one’s opponent can be satisfying, but it is not always productive. Under ordinary circumstances, 100 Democrats marching down the street is probably a protest, while 100 Republicans is probably a parade. But that can easily change.

----

What do you think of the science?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
1.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  Robert in Ohio @1    2 years ago

I've known about the science for much longer than this. It was readily demonstrated in 2010 when the liberals had their own way and very hatefully exercised it. It was prevalent in every election cycle since, and especially prevalent in the last cycle when one of the candidates very publicly called out the hate mongering inciting the followers to even greater exhibitions of hate.

It's why I say that the "Mountain of Trash" is the gift that keeps on giving....

Something that has been known in political circles for generations.....

Good posting My friend...

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
1.1.1  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1    2 years ago

N M 

I think the parties are both on the "mountain of trash" shoveling from opposite sides in campaign messaging, but I thought this scientific look at the issue was very interesting.

In the part of the state where I live, a large turnout (which is now expected) means big numbers for the republicans.  Even the local and state campaign rhetoric is full of hate, innuendo and inciteful language and it stirs people up.

Who is stirred up the most remains the question to be answered next week.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
1.1.2  Nowhere Man  replied to  Robert in Ohio @1.1.1    2 years ago

You can tell by the subsequent voting patterns how it usually plays out, the one perceived to have started the hate trash campaigning is usually the one that loses...

It is how magically T-rump keeps his popularity going..... (and bewildering to those that heap the trash, the media)

If they want to understand how he's like the energizer bunny of crass politics, they need to look at their approach...

Let me remind people of something...

"It's about the economy stupid" the anti trash campaign used during that election cost the most popular president since George Washington to decisively lose an election he shouldn't have lost.

I was fired for saying that to the candidate directly...

They have sank so far from reality I don't know if they can ever rise again...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.2    2 years ago

It's funny to watch these "moderate" conservatives try to spin a happy outcome for the TrumpGOP.

It is how magically T-rump keeps his popularity going.

His "popularity" stems from his ability to inspire hate and disparagement among his deplorables towards the "others."   If the US were not permanently changing demographically Trump would have had to hold his rallies in grocery store parking lots.  

His "popularity" has never come seriously close to 50% , let alone higher.  I can only laugh at anyone who claims that Trump is popular with "the American people". 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
1.1.4  Nowhere Man  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.3    2 years ago

You've been saying this for years John, it's become your mantra....

And you haven't been right with your predictions based upon your mantra for years...

Answer me one question? Please....

What is different today?

Although both side spew various levels of hate, in general, the hate is viewed as flowing in one specific direction.... and has been for far longer than T-rump has even been on the scene....

what's different this time?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
1.1.5  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.3    2 years ago

none are more hateful than you Trump haters who hate not just Trump but everyone who supports him.

Trump's popularity is far greater than the polls which consistently underestimate his popularity. [deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  livefreeordie @1.1.5    2 years ago

I don't mind an acknowledgement that he won the electoral college. And thus he was elected president. 

What is bs is that he has "the American people" behind him. The phrase "the American people " implies a majority, and he has never had a majority of Americans with him, and he never will. 

 
 
 
user image
1.1.7    replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.6    2 years ago
The phrase "the American people "

E.A   I am Apolitical Normally I would NOT respond to  this hype but here is a question::

What percentile of the US of A Citizens VOTE?

 
 
 
user image
1.1.8    replied to  @1.1.7    2 years ago
What percentile of the US of A Citizens VOTE?

E.A  JR must have " evacuated the Building " :-)

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
1.1.9  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.2    2 years ago

N M

Interesting

What caught my interest in the article was the conclusion that when the two sides stir up the hate machine against each other that conservatives tend to be more motivated to vote.

I guess we will see on Tues

Thanks for the perspective

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
1.1.10  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.3    2 years ago

John

We are fully aware that you are not voting for Trump or any that are associated with, but this article is not about that.  The scientists are presenting their perspective that negative campaigning is likely to motivate conservative voters more than it does liberal voters.

You read the article correct?

What say you to the science?

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
1.1.11  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.4    2 years ago

N M 

Let us stay focused on the science and the conclusions in the article and not chase John down a rabbit hole

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
1.1.12  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  livefreeordie @1.1.5    2 years ago

Livefreeordie

Let us stay focused on the scientific conclusion of the article please

The topic is not who is popular or not popular but rather which side is more motivated when the campaign messages are hateful and degrading

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
1.1.13  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.6    2 years ago

John

I know it is difficult but let us stay on topic

You remember the topic right?

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
1.1.14  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  @1.1.7    2 years ago

E A

What percentile of the US of A Citizens VOTE?

Estimates show more than 58 percent of eligible voters went to the polls during the 2016 election, nearly breaking even with the turnout rate set during the last presidential election in 2012, even as the final tallies in states lihttps://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/voter-turnout-2016-electionske California continue to be calculated, according to statistics collected by the U.S. Elections Project.

 
 
 
user image
1.1.15    replied to  Robert in Ohio @1.1.14    2 years ago
Estimates show more than 58 percent

E.A OK thank you for responding,:

so then lets say that it was a close election, what would be the Highest that any ONE Party would have? 49/51%??

Now go and see how " The Chosen " one is so chosen IN their respective Parties, so over ALL what would be the % Of US of A Citizens Choosing THAT Member for President?

Lets us know what You Find, many thanks!

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
1.1.16  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  @1.1.15    2 years ago

E A

If you are interested in doing that kind of math have it, I think we will have a much higher than usual mid term voter turnout - how much larger I am not sure not a statistician or psychic

The interesting part will be in the right vs left division of those unexpected voters 

 
 
 
user image
1.1.17    replied to  Robert in Ohio @1.1.16    2 years ago
If you are interested in doing that kind of math have it,

E.A   No need to DO any math, the Numbers are out there the POINT I was making to JR, is that at NO time does any party NOMINEE have more then about 13% of " The Peoples Vote " get it now?

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.18  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.3    2 years ago
His "popularity" stem

The "Dems" popularity Tries to stem from their ability to "Hate" everything....NOT TRUMP !

So far, since Trump, things are going great !

What are the "Dems" offering us "Citizens" of the U.S.A. again ?

 
 
 
Skrekk
1.1.19  Skrekk  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1    2 years ago
It was readily demonstrated in 2010 when the liberals had their own way and very hatefully exercised it.

Care to cite any examples to support that?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Robert in Ohio @1    2 years ago
What do you think of the science?

"liberals tend to have higher levels of dopamine than conservatives."

So liberals have higher levels of dopamine while conservatives have higher levels of mean dopes.

"Threat rouses conservatives to action more than it rouses liberals and can push the general population further to the right."

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
1.2.1  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2    2 years ago

D P

"Threat rouses conservatives to action more than it rouses liberals and can push the general population further to the right."

The scientists in the article present this as the conclusion that all of the negative campaigning may actually motivate more republicans than democrats to vote.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Robert in Ohio @1.2.1    2 years ago
The scientists in the article present this as the conclusion that all of the negative campaigning may actually motivate more republicans than democrats to vote.

And they'll be as wrong Nov 6th as they are today. A study from 2012 does not in any way represent the political climate of today. 

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
1.2.3  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.2    2 years ago

D P 

Because you say so, I get it

Thanks for the perspective

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.2    2 years ago

Gee, I wonder if they will be as wrong as the pundits were in 2016?

 
 
 
lib50
2  lib50    2 years ago

I don't think many of the old 'norms' are valid anymore.  I guess we will find out next week.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
2.1  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  lib50 @2    2 years ago

lib50

Good point on the changing trends, but some "truisms" especially the tried and true seem to come back year after year in other aspects of society and I do not think politics are immune to that.

For instance, I live in rural eastern Ohio area that is historically republican (at least in national politics) and seldom makes much noise in mid term elections, but this year a huge turnout is expected an while there are local and state matters to be decided, most local news and newspapers pundits attribute that to the furor over national politics.

The national messaging gives folks the feeling that they have to get out and vote to avoid being drowned by a "blue wave".  Is that realistic - probably not but it is how some folks are feeling.

 
 
 
lib50
2.1.1  lib50  replied to  Robert in Ohio @2.1    2 years ago

I'm in a district that's been red for decades here in California and I think we are about to flip.  But I don't trust anything anymore.  I won't be watching the election that day unless someone gives me the all clear.  I may be looking at a cottage in Ireland soon.

 
 
 
JBB
3  JBB    2 years ago

The gop already has this one in the bag. No need for republicans to even vote.

"I do not belong to an organized political party. I am a Democrat" - Will Rogers...

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
3.1  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  JBB @3    2 years ago
The gop already has it in the bag. No need for the gop to even vote...

And, if they do want to vote they can always go and, do it on November 8th.

 
 
 
JBB
3.1.1  JBB  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @3.1    2 years ago

Democrats vote Tuesday November 6th. The gop votes Thursday the 8th...

Remember, vote early, vote often and especially, Vote Democratic. Tuesday!

The damn gop wants their voters to bescared. Democrats are ANGRY.

Maybe the sides are even this midterm. Don't take one vote for granted. 

If it is like last time the damn gop will be cheating their asses off, again...

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
3.1.2  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  JBB @3.1.1    2 years ago

Yep. Of course I did vote early, hate to stand in line there's never any chairs.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
3.1.3  livefreeordie  replied to  JBB @3.1.1    2 years ago

You don't know angry until you experience the anger we conservatives have for the marxist statist left trying to destroy our country.  But you will see on November 6th

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  livefreeordie @3.1.3    2 years ago
trying to destroy our country

Oh, it's yours now? I vote for what I believe to be the best interest of America, I believe we are better when we embrace equality for all regardless of race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, faith or lack thereof. Some reject that kind of equality and believe America should primarily be for straight white protestant Christians and try and claim America as "theirs", but they have no more right to claim America and try to make it in their image than I do. You can say "ours" if you mean EVERY American citizen, but if you're using that to mean just those who believe the way you do then you obviously don't understand what our great diverse nation really stands for.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
3.1.5  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @3.1    2 years ago

 
 
 
JBB
3.1.6  JBB  replied to  livefreeordie @3.1.3    2 years ago

The same olde folk's home age far reichtwing throwbacks who all voted for the damn gop two and four years ago will probablyy also vote this time, minus the twenty or thirty percent of them who mercifly died off naturally over time butt the big difference next Tuesday will be the millions and millions of new Democratic voters who either did not vote last time or were just too young the last go rounds. All the reputable polls indicate the damn gop is due for an epic historic whooping Tuesday. Pendulams swing both ways and that sucker went far as she goes to the right in 2016. So, things look really bleak for the damn gop. As they say, "C'est La Vie". Better get used to the idea already. Why even bother to vote when all is lost already for lame olde goppers? I'd stay home safe if I were you. There will be scary liberal hoards at the polls and you wouldn't want to break a hip at your age...

 
 
 
livefreeordie
3.1.7  livefreeordie  replied to  JBB @3.1.6    2 years ago

I have voted via absentee ballot for more than 20 years

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
4  seeder  Robert in Ohio    2 years ago

I see that few are capable of discussing the issue presented in the article.

Sad, but not surprising

I read somewhere that people joke about that which they do not understand

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
4.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Robert in Ohio @4    2 years ago

I became disgusted with both Republican and Democratic parties years ago. I now vote as a registered Independent. In many ways, there is not very much difference between the extreme left and the extreme right other than the party name. Both are obnoxious and hateful to those that do not share their views and will do anything to screw the other side over. As far as the midterms, I think the Dems have have pushed too hard and too far and done more to hurt themselves and their parties chances than the Republicans have, but I guess we will see next week either way.

 
 
 
bbl-1
4.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.1    2 years ago

Registered independent?  And that would be...……………..what?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
4.1.2  Nowhere Man  replied to  bbl-1 @4.1.1    2 years ago

Some states require you to register your political affiliation to vote, even if you aren't affiliated...

Part of the registration process

 
 
 
Jasper2529
4.1.3  Jasper2529  replied to  bbl-1 @4.1.1    2 years ago
Registered independent?  And that would be...……………..what?

Exactly what is stated.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
4.1.4  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.1    2 years ago

Ed-NavDoc

Many millions of Americans agree with you and how all of then negativity motivates them to vote will likely be the real turning point of the election next week

 
 
 
JaneDoe
4.1.5  JaneDoe  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.1    2 years ago
I now vote as a registered Independent. In many ways, there is not very much difference between the extreme left and the extreme right other than the party name.

I have always been registered as an Independent, referred to by some as a "fence sitter". I agree with you. there is not much difference between the extreme left or right. That is why I would rather pick splinters out of my ass from riding the fence and choosing whoever I may find to be the best person for the job than associate myself with either side by voting because of a D or R.

I  vote in every election right down to local school board members, so I have always been motivated to vote.The article is a good read and it will be interesting to see the outcome. I only wish that more people would get out and vote without having to be pissed off to do it.

 
 
 
Kathleen
4.1.6  Kathleen  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.1    2 years ago

I know what you mean,  I just wonder how its going to turn out after the voting. We will see who was more angry. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
4.1.7  Kathleen  replied to  JaneDoe @4.1.5    2 years ago

LOl, yeah, I have had the splinters comment to me as well. Even though I lean more right, I also sit on the fence on some things.

I do too, I make sure I vote for everything in my town.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5  Dismayed Patriot    2 years ago

"Democrats' Aggressive Messaging Could BackFire and Motivate Hug Republican Turnout Next Week"

Well, I guess most Republicans could use a hug...

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
5.1  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5    2 years ago

Well, I guess most Republicans could use a hug...

D P

You obviously missed the point of the article

The conclusion of the scientists was that Democrats are more likely to get mad and protest and the conservatives are likely to get even madder and vote in greater numbers than they otherwise would have

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Robert in Ohio @5.1    2 years ago
and the conservatives are likely to get even madder and vote in greater numbers than they otherwise would have

Like I said, they need a hug.

You obviously missed the giant misspelling that completely changes the meaning of your headline. I was initially just trying to point that out.

But to the claim made in the article, it's totally irrelevant. A study done in 2012 cannot in any way effectively reflect the current political climate.

In the immortal words of GW Bush, “There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”

The American people aren't stupid enough to get fooled by the ignorant mange-ridden orangutan Donald Trump a second time. They will vote against the GOP and Trumpism.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
5.1.2  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.1    2 years ago

D P 

I did miss that and if you were actually interested in a discussion perhaps you could have just pointed out that I am a poor typist, I would have corrected it earlier and we could have discussed the scientists findings.

You obviously think you know more than they do so I guess all there is to do is wait until Tuesday

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
5.1.3  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Robert in Ohio @5.1    2 years ago
The conclusion of the scientists was that Democrats are more likely to get mad and protest and the conservatives are likely to get even madder and vote in greater numbers than they otherwise would have

So, what you're saying is that Republicans have Trumpertantrums.

384

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.1    2 years ago

We democrats, and the moderates, and a lot of independents, possibly some republicans, will be voting blue this time.  Because of Kavanaugh, because of all the gop's filthy tricks including this transparent 'mobs of roaming hordes headed for our borders, full of Middle Easterners, criminals, ISIS' all funded by George Soros.  

 
 
 
livefreeordie
5.1.5  livefreeordie  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.4    2 years ago

you're drinking some funny kool-aid

 
 
 
cms5
5.1.6  cms5  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @5.1.3    2 years ago
So, what you're saying is that Republicans have Trumpertantrums.

While you might find that 'funny'...it is actually the liberals who use the part of the brain dealing with emotions - the left insula.

Conservatives don't throw tantrums - they take action. So, basically, you are motivating the conservatives to the voting booths.

 
 
 
arkpdx
5.1.7  arkpdx  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @5.1.3    2 years ago

It wasn't  the conservatives or Republicans that ran and hid is safe rooms at the mere mention of their opponents name. It wasn't conservatives or Republicans  that whined and cried when Trump won the election. It wasn't conservatives or Republicans that rioted in our city streets because they didn't get their way. It wasn't conservatives or Republicans that called for people to violate the law and their oaths of office to vote contrary to the election results in the Electoral College. It wasn't conservatives or Republicans that had a scream-in to protest the election.

Guess who did do all those things.

It was liberals,  progressives and democrats  that did. 

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
5.1.8  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.7    2 years ago
It wasn't  the conservatives or Republicans that ran and hid is safe rooms at the mere mention of their opponents name. It wasn't conservatives or Republicans  that whined and cried when Trump won the election. It wasn't conservatives or Republicans that rioted in our city streets because they didn't get their way. It wasn't conservatives or Republicans that called for people to violate the law and their oaths of office to vote contrary to the election results in the Electoral College. It wasn't conservatives or Republicans that had a scream-in to protest the election.

Sure,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell-say-he-wanted-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president/2012/09/24/79fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html?utm_term=.89e48f7237ae

Yep, Republicans never have protested because of losing an election or, shutdown the government or, promised to make a president a one term president before he was even in office officially. jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
5.1.9  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  cms5 @5.1.6    2 years ago
Conservatives don't throw tantrums - they take action. So, basically, you are motivating the conservatives to the voting booths.

Please look at comment 5.1.8 for my reply.

 
 
 
arkpdx
5.1.10  arkpdx  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @5.1.8    2 years ago

Tell me of one tea party protest that became a riot like the left wing riot after trump.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @5.1.8    2 years ago

What exactly is the left's seemingly endless fascination with an opposing political party attempting to make an someone a one-termer?

Isn't that, in fact, what EVERY political party attempts to do?

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
5.1.12  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.10    2 years ago
Tell me of one tea party protest that became a riot like the left wing riot after trump.

Riots? I don't remember any riots, I remember protests, just like the Tea Party did after Obama was elected and, all the way through the 2010 elections and, then the protesters meeting with Congressmen from the Right and, those same Congressmen encouraging them to shout the N word to some of their fellow Congressmen when they entered the Capital.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
5.1.13  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.11    2 years ago
What exactly is the left's seemingly endless fascination with an opposing political party attempting to make an someone a one-termer? Isn't that, in fact, what EVERY political party attempts to do?

Not to the point of actually shutting down the government at the expense of the American people, that is putting party over country.

 
 
 
JBB
5.1.14  JBB  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.10    2 years ago

Riots? Hyperbolic bullshit like yours and Trump's causes violence.

 
 
 
arkpdx
5.1.15  arkpdx  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @5.1.12    2 years ago

Then you have a very selective memory. There were at least two in Portland alone and at least one in DC . 

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
5.1.16  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.15    2 years ago
Then you have a very selective memory. There were at least two in Portland alone and at least one in DC .

What buildings were burned, what damage was done in those places? Was the Capital damaged during the "riots", how about the White House, was it damaged? Please provide actual links to these supposed riots.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @5.1.13    2 years ago

Government has been shut down before, and in all likelihood, will be again.

it has never been a disaster that some try to make it out to be.

 
 
 
bbl-1
6  bbl-1    2 years ago

Yep.  Tax cuts for the wealthy.  Anti Choice.  Private for profit insurance controlling healthcare.  Kids in cages.  Tiki torch parades.  Shooters in houses of worship and grocery stores.  Troops on the border.  Be afraid--be very afraid.  Need more tax cuts.   So this is the winning ticket for the GOP?

Oh yeah, the Kavanagh thing.  Manna from heaven for the GOP?  Gorsuch too?  Nah.  I just see 'the corporate raiders' high fiving themselves. 

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
6.1  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  bbl-1 @6    2 years ago

Not even close to the topic, but thanks for your perspective

To reiterate the conclusion of the scientists is that the negative campaigning from all directions will likely have more effect motivating conservatives (republicans) to vote than democrats (liberals).

Any comment on the actual topic

 
 
 
bbl-1
6.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Robert in Ohio @6.1    2 years ago

So you assume the 'talking points' I stated for the GOP are not real?

And the scientists say?  Negative campaigning.  Invasion of hordes coming to the US?  The press is the enemy of the people?  VS The GOP voted 50 times to take away pre-existing conditions protections? 

These are the topics.  These are what the election will decide.  One way or the other.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Robert in Ohio @6.1    2 years ago
To reiterate the conclusion of the scientists is that the negative campaigning from all directions will likely have more effect motivating conservatives (republicans) to vote than democrats (liberals).

Is that why the right wing publishes so many attack ads? They adhere to the science of this study you cited?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
7  The Magic Eight Ball    2 years ago
trust Republicans more on national security. Historically, terrorist attacks increase the number of people who say they plan to vote Republican.

the illegals caravan was seriously bad timing for the left.

the resulting red wall built by the right will contain any blue puddles that develop from support for this invasion of illegals.

That these tactics are relatively rare or, to some activists, justified, misses the point. Threat rouses conservatives to action more than it rouses liberals and can push the general population further to the right.

bingo :)

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
7.1  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @7    2 years ago

T M E B

So you agree with the scientists in the article

Thanks for the perspective

 
 
 
mocowgirl
8  mocowgirl    2 years ago

I enjoy reading articles that explain brain wiring to better understand why some people are Hellbent on returning to cave life and living by archaic rules in hopes of an afterlife while others want to explore all existence and enjoy what this life has to offer.

It helps explain why the most controlling people turn out to vote in hopes of eliminating any system or law that threatens their control of other people's lives.  Conservatives fear change and don't seem to understand the basic concept of freedom and equality.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
8.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  mocowgirl @8    2 years ago

Right now, Democrats, (the Left wing Hillary supporting group) are hardwired to hate and have been ever since the Deplorables comment of hers during the election, the fact that just a few days ago she doubled down on that makes the hardwiring even more welded into place... (notwithstanding the many many others in democrat leadership positions that have been fostering hate)

Conservatives do not fear change per se, we fear rapid radical change without a demonstrably good reason. Emotional rhetoric does not count as good reason or reasoning. T-rumps basic strategy in dealing with the Democrats is to reveal them for exactly what they are. Just poke them a little bit and get overwhelming hate in return......

He did it throughout his campaign, and hes been doing it throughout his presidency.

And guess what?

It is effective.... Scummy, but effective.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
8.1.1  mocowgirl  replied to  Nowhere Man @8.1    2 years ago
the Left wing Hillary supporting group)

Hillary is right of Nixon.

Hillary is a conservative.  She is a fiscal conservative and a social conservative - not a liberal and certainly not a liberal leader.

Conservatives not only fear change, they hate change.  They spend a great deal of time talking about how wonderful life was back in the 50s when racism, sexism and inequality was the norm.

How many conservatives have had a lifetime to accept that racism, sexism and inequality will not be tolerated?  They still can't accept it and never will.  Their brain is hardwired to have an iron set of rules where everyone has an assigned role in life and no deviation will be tolerated.  Group think makes them comfortable.  

None of this is a choice.  I have spent most of my life surrounded by conservatives in the Bible Belt.  They really believe that this is the epitome of a functioning society.  They do not grasp how abusive and controlling that they are to anyone who does not live their life by archaic rules....nor do they seem to have the compassion or empathy to care.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
8.1.2  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  mocowgirl @8.1.1    2 years ago

no where near the topic - please stay focused on the science in the article and the conclusions reached

This is not about any specific people but rather the tactics employed

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
8.1.3  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Nowhere Man @8.1    2 years ago

N M 

Straying off topic

You point to things that have happened that led to the hate campaign tactics that the scientists re talking about - stay focused on that aspect

 
 
 
mocowgirl
8.1.4  mocowgirl  replied to  Robert in Ohio @8.1.3    2 years ago
the hate campaign tactics

When hasn't this country's politicians used "hate campaign tactics"?

I was born in 1956 and I don't remember a time when fear-mongering and hatred of the "other" was not the norm in US politics.

Social change has happened despite massive turn out of conservative voters since 1968.  Why?  Could it be that the majority of "conservatives" have become more centrist in their thinking?  If this is the case, will fear mongering and hatred lose their grip on driving US elections and career politicians will have to learn new tactics?  

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
8.1.5  Nowhere Man  replied to  Robert in Ohio @8.1.3    2 years ago
N M  Straying off topic

My apologies Robert, but in my view the psychology is tied to the tactics. If we can't discuss the tactics then the psychology makes no sense....

I was trained in analyzing exactly this kind of political hackery

If discussing examples that illustrate the tactics derived from the psychology is off limits there is no point to discuss.

As you wish,

I won't derail your article anymore...

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
8.1.6  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Nowhere Man @8.1.5    2 years ago

N M 

You did not derail and I understood your point - it was just straying 

I was trying to stay focused on whether people agreed or disagreed with the conclusion of the scientists that the hate heavy campaigning would motivate conservative voters more than liberal voters.

I enjoy hearing your perspective

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
8.2  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  mocowgirl @8    2 years ago

mocowgirl

Not sure how you come to your conclusions but appreciate your perspective which follows 9(somewhat) the point the scientists are trying make in the article - that being that the hate campaigns that each side think will motivate their voters may in fact motivate conservatives more than they do liberals.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
8.2.1  mocowgirl  replied to  Robert in Ohio @8.2    2 years ago
voters may in fact motivate conservatives more than they do liberals.

Liberals are more individualist and more of a "do your own thing" mindset or "live and let live" so are not as concerned about controlling the lives of others through government.

I am not an expert on how our brains are hardwired, but I have read more than this one article on the subject in an attempt to make sense of how controlling and abusive people were born to be controlling and abusive people.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
8.2.2  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  mocowgirl @8.2.1    2 years ago

mocowgirl

Totally the opposite as regards to the point here - democrats are more likely to get made and organize a sit-in, or a boycott, or protest march than to take definitive action is the point the scientists are making

 
 
 
mocowgirl
8.2.3  mocowgirl  replied to  Robert in Ohio @8.2.2    2 years ago
democrats are more likely to get made and organize a sit-in, or a boycott, or protest march than to take definitive action is the point the scientists are making

Is this using force via government or trying to enact social change through discussion and social acceptance?

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
8.2.4  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  mocowgirl @8.2.3    2 years ago

I have no idea what you mean, if you do please restate your question

 
 
 
mocowgirl
8.2.5  mocowgirl  replied to  Robert in Ohio @8.2.4    2 years ago
I have no idea what you mean,

Conservatives are more likely to try to use government via law making to force people to conform and live by their ideology.  Hence, why fearmongering that they are losing control of others is an effective tool to make them vote.

Liberals want to discuss why social changes should be made and want to achieve a consensus that is fair to everyone.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
8.2.6  Greg Jones  replied to  mocowgirl @8.2.5    2 years ago

Conservatives are more likely to try to use government via law making to force people to conform and live by their ideology.  Hence, why fearmongering that they are losing control of others is an effective tool to make them vote.

Nonsense....that's never been true, and it isn't true now. I doubt if you can even give credible examples of it.

Liberals want to discuss why social changes should be made and want to achieve a consensus that is fair to everyone.  

More than anything, liberals want power, and they want to force their ideology on everyone. Compromise is not in their vocabulary.  Rather than being for the common good, they support certain identity groups and agendas. You can't discuss or debate anything with them. If you disagree with them at all, that you makes a hater, bigot, racist, homophobe, climate denier, et al. Just look at a lot of the loony comments on these pages.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
8.2.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  Greg Jones @8.2.6    2 years ago

Ok....then explain why Arkansas public schools must display "In God We Trust" posters in all classrooms? Do you think liberals passed that law in the state legislature?

 
 
 
JBB
8.2.8  JBB  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.2.7    2 years ago

Assisting dying undocumented children is a crime in Oklahoma...

It is the gop passed the law which limits my freedom to be human.

When a state tells citizens it is a crime to show humanity ENOUGH!

You wanna talk about messaging? Well, voters have messages, too.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
8.2.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  mocowgirl @8.2.5    2 years ago
Liberals want to discuss why social changes should be made and want to achieve a consensus that is fair to everyone.  

Which is why they use tactics like sit-ins and protests. Conservatives would rather force a law down everyone's throats to enact their wants.

I totally get what you're saying, Mo

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @8.2.8    2 years ago

Please cite the law and provide the link.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
8.2.11  mocowgirl  replied to  Greg Jones @8.2.6    2 years ago
I doubt if you can even give credible examples of it.

Really?  It was not liberals who passed blasphemy laws, laws against birth control and information about birth control, as well as the Defense of Marriage act.  It is not liberals who are posting religious rules/ideology in government spaces.  

I'll begin with blasphemy laws as an example of how fearmongering will drive the conservatives to the polls with zeal in order to elect reps who will represent their religious sect.

Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania have laws that make reference to blasphemy. [1]  Some US states still have blasphemy laws on the books from the founding days.

The history of Maryland's blasphemy statutes suggests that even into the 1930s, the   First Amendment   was not recognized as preventing states from passing such laws. An 1879 codification of Maryland statutes prohibited blasphemy:

Art. 72, sec. 189 . If any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Saviour, Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the persons thereof, he shall, on conviction, be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid, at the discretion of the court.

According to the marginalia, this statute was adopted in 1819, and a similar law dates back to 1723. In 1904, the statute was still on the books at   Art. 27, sec. 20 , unaltered in text. As late as 1939, this statute was still   the law of Maryland . But in 1972, in   Maryland v. Irving K. West , the   Maryland Court of Appeals   (the state's highest court) declared the blasphemy law unconstitutional. [2]   This law was still on the books however at least as late as 2003. [3]

Pennsylvania enacted a law against blasphemy in 1977. In the fall of 2007, George Kalman sent the completed forms for incorporating a company to the Pennsylvania Department of State. Kalman wanted to incorporate a movie-production company which he called   I Choose Hell Productions, LLC . A week later, Kalman received a notice from the Pennsylvania Department of State which informed him that his forms could not be accepted because a business name “may not contain words that constitute blasphemy, profane cursing or swearing or that profane the Lord’s name.” In February 2009, Kalman filed suit to have the provision against blasphemy struck down as unconstitutional. [1]   On June 30, 2010, U.S. District Judge Michael M. Bayslon of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a 68-page Opinion, ruled in favor of Kalman, finding that the Pennsylvania's blasphemy statute violated both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. [4]

Prosecutions for blasphemy [ edit ]

The last person to be jailed in the United States for blasphemy was   Abner Kneeland   in 1838 (a Massachusetts case:   Commonwealth v. Kneeland ). [6]   The Kneeland case preceded the ratification (1868) of the   14th Amendment , which   incorporated   the Bill of Rights and made it apply to the states and not just to the federal government. From 1925, the Supreme Court applied the Bill of Rights to all states. [7]

In 1921 Lithuanian-American   Michael X. Mockus   was convicted in Maine. He appealed to the   Supreme Judicial Court of Maine   on March 25, 1921 in   State v. Mockus   and lost the appeal. [8]

In February 1926 Lithuanian-American Communist   Anthony Bimba   was charged in   Brockton, Massachusetts   with blasphemy under a law passed during the time of the   Salem Witch Trials   more than two centuries earlier, as well as   sedition . [9]   A widely publicized week-long trial followed, during which Bimba's attorney likened atheism to religious belief and maintained that individuals had a right under the United States constitution to believe or disbelieve in the existence of a God. [10]   Bimba was ultimately found not guilty of blasphemy but convicted of sedition, for which he was fined $100. [11]

The last U.S.   conviction   for blasphemy was of atheist activist   Charles Lee Smith . In 1928 he rented a storefront in   Little Rock, Arkansas , and gave out free atheist literature there. The sign in the window read: "Evolution Is True. The Bible's a Lie. God's a Ghost." For this he was charged with violating the city ordinance against blasphemy. Because he was an atheist and therefore could not swear the court's religious oath to tell the truth, he was not permitted to testify in his own defense. The judge then dismissed the original charge, replacing it with one of distributing obscene, slanderous, or scurrilous literature. Smith was convicted, fined $25, and served most of a twenty-six-day jail sentence. His high-profile   fast   while behind bars drew national media attention. Upon his release, he immediately resumed his atheist activities, was again charged with blasphemy, and this time the charge held. In his trial he was again denied the right to testify and was sentenced to ninety days in jail and a fine of $100. Released on $1,000 bail, Smith appealed the verdict. The case then dragged on for several years until it was finally dismissed. [12]

Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson [ edit ]

The U.S. Supreme Court in   Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson , 343 U.S. 495 (1952) held that the New York State blasphemy law was an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech. The court stated that "It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches or motion pictures."
 
 
 
mocowgirl
8.2.12  mocowgirl  replied to  mocowgirl @8.2.11    2 years ago

Comstock law brought about by having legislation enacted due to religious zealotry.  This is the same conservative mindset that is driving legislation to deny women access to birth control today.  It is being accomplished via the ballot box again as conservative mindset votes to force what they consider to be morality on every woman in the US.

Fear of godless women having rights to birth control access has been an effective fearmongering tool to drive the conservatives to the polls in the past through present day.

As late as 1960, the American legal system was not hospitable to the idea of birth control. Thirty states had statutes on the books prohibiting or restricting the sale and advertisement of contraception. These laws stretched back almost a century, reflecting an underlying American belief that contraception was lewd, immoral and promoted promiscuity.

Comstock's Crusade
The driving force behind the original anti-birth control statutes was a New Yorker named Anthony Comstock. Born in rural Connecticut in 1844, Comstock served in the infantry during the Civil War, then moved to New York City and found work as a salesman. A devout Christian, he was appalled by what he saw in the city's streets. It seemed to him that the town was teeming with prostitutes and pornography. In the late 1860s, Comstock began supplying the police with information for raids on sex trade merchants and came to prominence with his anti-obscenity crusade. Also offended by explicit advertisements for birth control devices, he soon identified the contraceptive industry as one of his targets. Comstock was certain that the availability of contraceptives alone promoted lust and lewdness.

Making Birth Control a Federal Crime
In 1872 Comstock set off for Washington with an anti-obscenity bill, including a ban on contraceptives, that he had drafted himself. On March 3, 1873, Congress passed the new law, later known as the Comstock Act. The statute defined contraceptives as obscene and illicit, making it a federal offense to disseminate birth control through the mail or across state lines.

Public Support for Comstock Laws
This statute was the first of its kind in the Western world, but at the time, the American public did not pay much attention to the new law. Anthony Comstock was jubilant over his legislative victory. Soon after the federal law was on the books, twenty-four states enacted their own versions of Comstock laws to restrict the contraceptive trade on a state level.

The Most Restrictive States
New England residents lived under the most restrictive laws in the country. In Massachusetts, anyone disseminating contraceptives -- or information about contraceptives -- faced stiff fines and imprisonment. But by far the most restrictive state of all was Connecticut, where the act of using birth control was even prohibited by law. Married couples could be arrested for using birth control in the privacy of their own bedrooms, and subjected to a one-year prison sentence. In actuality, law enforcement agents often looked the other way when it came to anti-birth control laws, but the statutes remained on the books.

Sanger's Crusade
These laws remained unchallenged until birth-control advocate Margaret Sanger made it her mission to challenge the Comstock Act. The first successful change in the laws came from Sanger's 1916 arrest for opening the first birth control clinic in America. The case that grew out of her arrest resulted in the 1918 Crane decision, which allowed women to use birth control for therapeutic purposes.

Changing Laws for Changing Times
The next amendment of the Comstock Laws came with the 1936 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision,  United States v. One Package . The decision made it possible for doctors to distribute contraceptives across state lines. This time Margaret sanger had been instrumental in maneuvering behind the scenes to bring the matter before the court. While this decision did not eliminate the problem of the restrictive "chastity laws" on the state level, it was a crucial ruling. Physicians could now legally mail birth control devices and information throughout the country, paving the way for the legitimization of birth control by the medical industry and the general public.
 
 
 
mocowgirl
8.2.13  mocowgirl  replied to  Greg Jones @8.2.6    2 years ago
they want to force their ideology on everyone.

Not at all.  Conservatives can continue to discriminate against others in their personal lives.

 
 
 
Sunshine
9  Sunshine    2 years ago
practical view of how the mid-term election campaign messaging is going

This is how it's going -

384

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
9.1  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Sunshine @9    2 years ago

Sunshine

Nowhere remotely tangential to the subject

This is not about individual people it is about the effect of negative messaging on people in general based on their political leanings

Please contribute on that topic

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
10  Dean Moriarty    2 years ago

It's probably because the liberals are all stoned and dope increases the dopamine in the brain. 

 
 
 
lennylynx
10.1  lennylynx  replied to  Dean Moriarty @10    2 years ago

The whatamine??

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
10.2  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Dean Moriarty @10    2 years ago

Dean

Come on, you can discuss the topic I know you can

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
10.2.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Robert in Ohio @10.2    2 years ago

It is the topic Bob. Did you read the article?

“The brains of conservatives and liberals are far more alike than different, but one exception might matter a lot just now: liberals tend to have higher levels of dopamine than conservatives. Dopamine is the neurotransmitter (brain chemical) that equips us to think about the future. In general, our fascination with new things — our comfort with change — tracks with the level of dopamine. In fact, there appears to be a genetic link between a strong dopamine system and the appearance of liberal ideology, especially if we think of that ideology as the pursuit of change — progress, or progressivism.”

 
 
 
Skrekk
10.2.2  Skrekk  replied to  Dean Moriarty @10.2.1    2 years ago
liberals tend to have higher levels of dopamine than conservatives. Dopamine is the neurotransmitter (brain chemical) that equips us to think about the future.

That would help explain why liberals understand the threat posed by climate change and why conservatives not only are climate change deniers but prefer to believe they live in the "good old days."

It also would explain why conservative administrations usually result in economic disasters for the country, because the conservative brain is incapable of thinking about the future.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
11  seeder  Robert in Ohio    2 years ago

Dean

An underlying point (the why if you will)

The actual topic is whether that factor and other associated factors will motivated the conservatives or the liberals more in turning out to vote next Tuesday.

I appreciate your perspective 

 
 
 
user image
11.1    replied to  Robert in Ohio @11    2 years ago
associated factors will motivated the conservatives or the liberals more in turning out to vote next Tuesday.

E.A  With all due respect::

 I thought Deans comment covered that " Forward Looking "   " not afraid of change " etc:

 
 
 
cms5
12  cms5    2 years ago

Yes, conservatives are more likely to get out and vote.

Aggressive attack ads motivate conservatives into taking action - voting. That might explain why Ms. Clinton's use of the term 'deplorables' motivated conservatives to the voting booths, while liberals viewed the latest poll results and felt they were safe because every indicator showed Trump will lose.

Is it simply a matter of dopamine levels...or can this motivation be attributed to using differing parts of the brain ?

The Democrats showed significantly greater activity in the left insula, a region associated with emotional processing as well as social and self-awareness, while the Republicans showed significantly greater activity in the right amygdala, a region that plays a role in the body’s fight-or-flight system.

We aren't hardwired though...

“If we believe that we’re hardwired for our political views, then it’s really easy for me to discount in you in a conversation. ‘Oh, you’re just a conservative because you have a red brain,’ or ‘Oh, you’re a liberal because you have a blue brain,’” Schreiber explains. “But that’s just not the case. The brain changes. The brain is dynamic.”
Knowing we are not 'hardwired' could indicate why the number of independents seems to be growing.
 
 
 
Trout Giggles
12.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  cms5 @12    2 years ago

And I've seen more aggressive attack ads coming from conservatives this election season than I have from liberals or Democrats.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
13  Greg Jones    2 years ago

After decades of observing the actions and antics of the left, I really can't say anything good or positive about them. And that view is not hardwired into me. I suspect that the left's recent actions of starting with the Mueller ghost chasing investigation, the never ending negative stories about Trump and his supporters, their intent to impeach Trump to the exclusion of all else if they take the House, their pathetic behavior during the Kavanaugh hearings, and now their cheap political stunt of organizing and funding the "caravans" will surely not go well for them in the midterms.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
13.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Greg Jones @13    2 years ago
After decades of observing the actions and antics of the left

After decades of observing the actions and antics of the "ends justify the means", "no compromise", "nothing wrong with coordinating with Russia" Republicans determined to inject their conservative white nationalist Christian ideology into our secular civil society while trying to disenfranchise eligible voters who don't share their skin color or faith, I really can't say anything good or positive about them.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
13.1.1  tomwcraig  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @13.1    2 years ago

Republicans determined to inject their conservative white nationalist Christian ideology into our secular civil society while trying to disenfranchise eligible voters who don't share their skin color or faith, I really can't say anything good or positive about them.

Where is your evidence of this?  There is far more evidence that Democrats are anti-Christian, anti-America, and anti-minority throughout history than Republicans.  The Democrats were also the party that historically tried to prevent minorities from voting by creating Poll taxes, Jim Crow laws, etc.  And, they have historically used hate in their messages to everyone out there and still do today.  Just look at how the media, which is about 90% registered Democrat, portrayed Brett Kavanaugh and SUPPRESSED any sort of story or evidence that Kavanaugh's accusers were lying through their teeth.  Heck, part of the reason Avenatti and Swetnick were referred for a Criminal Investigation by Sen. Grassley is because NBC suppressed the evidence that Swetnick lied for 3 weeks despite their knowledge that she lied on October 3rd at the latest, 3 days before Kavanaugh's vote was passed through to the Supreme Court.  That right there isn't reporting, that is pure HATE.  And, it is part of the reason that Conservatives are fired up right now.  The Democrats keep going back to the well of hatred that they carry and Conservatives really do not like hatred.  Criticism they can handle and accept, but hatred, just to damage someone for no other reason than they can, Conservatives get extremely frustrated by.

 
 
 
Skrekk
13.1.2  Skrekk  replied to  tomwcraig @13.1.1    2 years ago
There is far more evidence that Democrats are anti-Christian, anti-America, and anti-minority throughout history than Republicans.  The Democrats were also the party that historically tried to prevent minorities from voting by creating Poll taxes, Jim Crow laws, etc.

Sounds like the only thing that's changed about white southern conservatives in the past 160 years is their party affiliation.

 
 
 
Texan1211
13.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Skrekk @13.1.2    2 years ago

Still projecting and promoting that myth to excuse the actions of Democrats. eh?

 
 
 
Skrekk
13.1.4  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @13.1.3    2 years ago

It's no wonder the GOP is the party of xenophobia today given where the ideology of racist white conservatives came from.

 
 
 
Texan1211
13.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Skrekk @13.1.4    2 years ago

It's no wonder Democrats are the party of delusions.

 
 
 
Ender
13.2  Ender  replied to  Greg Jones @13    2 years ago

There is so much wrong with that paragraph. Not one factual statement.

 
 
 
Ender
14  Ender    2 years ago

First of all,

I will not be going done rabbit holes

Down? HA, sorry, hate to be that guy as I make mistakes all the time.

Second, I don't believe studies like this. Sorry but hand sanitizer is not going to change the way I feel. I have relatives that use the wipes to wipe off shopping carts at the grocery store. It does not make me more conservative as I shop.

How would they know how it would change people unless they asked the same people the same things in different circumstances. Even then I would question it. I would be more uncomfortable in the empty hallway.

I just don't get it. How could they correlate the findings unless they knew political leanings beforehand, then are just rehashing the same questions. I have also seen some tests like this and they can be very vague.

For example, how worried are you about terrorism. Extremely high, High, Low, Extremely low. People could answer High one time then extremely high the next. They could take that as a major change when it is minuscule.

I will say that I think conservatives are more likely to be moved by fear. Also I tend to think that conservatives are generally an older demographic and they tend to vote more regularly.

 
 
 
Skrekk
14.1  Skrekk  replied to  Ender @14    2 years ago
I will say that I think conservatives are more likely to be moved by fear.

That's repeatedly been proven and the reason for it is the size of the amygdala.   It's why they're conservative, precisely because they're motivated by fear.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Tacos!
Kavika


62 visitors