Comments on: Bliss Institute’s John C. Green gives perspective on Clinton Supporters Count Too http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com/2008/05/20/bliss-institutes-john-c-green-gives-perspective-on-clinton-supporters-count-too/ "She is very powerful, so be nice to her." Former Chancellor, Ohio Board of Regents, Eric Fingerhut Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:51:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: jason http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com/2008/05/20/bliss-institutes-john-c-green-gives-perspective-on-clinton-supporters-count-too/comment-page-1/#comment-74499 jason Tue, 20 May 2008 17:16:20 +0000 http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com/2008/05/20/bliss-institutes-john-c-green-gives-perspective-on-clinton-supporters-count-too/#comment-74499 Perhaps we are saying the same thing, perhaps not. I think we can agree that people can say one of three things: 1a) I will vote for Obama 2a) I will vote for McCain 3a) I will not vote/ I will vote for a candidate who has no chance of winning. Then, in November, they will do one of three things: 1b) Vote for Obama 2b) Vote for McCain 3b) Not vote/3rd party What you discussed with Green was how will a protest campaign translate into influencing how many Hillary supporters who are now in group 2a will eventually be in group 2b. He replied, basically, not very many. They are much more likely to move from 2a into 1b or 3b. So then the questions become: Does promoting 2a lead to a higher ratio of 3b to 1b? That's an actual effect that is possible. Another question is does such a campaign reduce the rate at which people move from 2a or 3a into 1b? That's another actual effect, and an actual possibility. Ignoring this campaign because it is unlikely to result in McCain votes from Hillary supporters could easily result in a net loss of votes for Obama. The 'psychology' is merely a description of the mechanism by which the net loss occurs. The framing is not really strategy per se, it simply reflects the fact that if people begin by weighing two options, they are likely to pick one of those two options. If they start off by evaluating McCain against no vote, data suggests they will pick no vote. No vote is still bad. If they are threatening to not vote, and weigh not voting against voting for Obama, many might still not vote. But some will vote, for Obama. In the absence of a vocal CSCT movement, I think more women would be in the second situation. Perhaps we are saying the same thing, perhaps not. I think we can agree that people can say one of three things:
1a) I will vote for Obama
2a) I will vote for McCain
3a) I will not vote/ I will vote for a candidate who has no chance of winning.

Then, in November, they will do one of three things:
1b) Vote for Obama
2b) Vote for McCain
3b) Not vote/3rd party

What you discussed with Green was how will a protest campaign translate into influencing how many Hillary supporters who are now in group 2a will eventually be in group 2b. He replied, basically, not very many. They are much more likely to move from 2a into 1b or 3b. So then the questions become: Does promoting 2a lead to a higher ratio of 3b to 1b? That’s an actual effect that is possible. Another question is does such a campaign reduce the rate at which people move from 2a or 3a into 1b? That’s another actual effect, and an actual possibility.

Ignoring this campaign because it is unlikely to result in McCain votes from Hillary supporters could easily result in a net loss of votes for Obama. The ‘psychology’ is merely a description of the mechanism by which the net loss occurs. The framing is not really strategy per se, it simply reflects the fact that if people begin by weighing two options, they are likely to pick one of those two options. If they start off by evaluating McCain against no vote, data suggests they will pick no vote. No vote is still bad. If they are threatening to not vote, and weigh not voting against voting for Obama, many might still not vote. But some will vote, for Obama. In the absence of a vocal CSCT movement, I think more women would be in the second situation.

]]> By: Jill Miller Zimon http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com/2008/05/20/bliss-institutes-john-c-green-gives-perspective-on-clinton-supporters-count-too/comment-page-1/#comment-74490 Jill Miller Zimon Tue, 20 May 2008 16:49:08 +0000 http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com/2008/05/20/bliss-institutes-john-c-green-gives-perspective-on-clinton-supporters-count-too/#comment-74490 I understand the psychology related to the impact of how these options are phrased. However, imo, the focus must be on the actual possible impact, not just what you are showing yourself to be saying or thinking. This is, after all, the choice of a new president, after an incumbent leaves. Strategy is eclipsed by reality at a certain point, yes? I understand the psychology related to the impact of how these options are phrased. However, imo, the focus must be on the actual possible impact, not just what you are showing yourself to be saying or thinking. This is, after all, the choice of a new president, after an incumbent leaves.

Strategy is eclipsed by reality at a certain point, yes?

]]> By: jason http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com/2008/05/20/bliss-institutes-john-c-green-gives-perspective-on-clinton-supporters-count-too/comment-page-1/#comment-74487 jason Tue, 20 May 2008 16:34:24 +0000 http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com/2008/05/20/bliss-institutes-john-c-green-gives-perspective-on-clinton-supporters-count-too/#comment-74487 What you'd want to be able to analyze is not just the actual crossover vote from Hillary Supporters, it's the increase in the number of Dems who stay home rather than vote after they've threatened a protest compared to the number who just threaten to stay home and don't change their mind and vote. In other words, does threatening to vote for McCain make simply refusing to vote for Obama a more palatable option? If the debate gets framed as "Is it better for angry Clinton Supporters to vote for McCain or to sit the election out," then Obama loses either way. Additionally, among undecided and/or soft-McCain support women, does this make it harder for Obama to pull them over between now and November? What you’d want to be able to analyze is not just the actual crossover vote from Hillary Supporters, it’s the increase in the number of Dems who stay home rather than vote after they’ve threatened a protest compared to the number who just threaten to stay home and don’t change their mind and vote. In other words, does threatening to vote for McCain make simply refusing to vote for Obama a more palatable option?
If the debate gets framed as “Is it better for angry Clinton Supporters to vote for McCain or to sit the election out,” then Obama loses either way.
Additionally, among undecided and/or soft-McCain support women, does this make it harder for Obama to pull them over between now and November?

]]>