I see this very same conversation every day on other blogs. There have been several discussions about anti-intellectualism on DKos in the past few days for example. I wish that all of the intellectual power expended there and here could be devoted to designing a brand new Constitutional System. One that keeps the same goals and powers while protecting the same rights. All that brainpower would produce a new system in no time at all. You guys all know what needs to be done. Instead of plotting tit for tat talking points why not fix the overall problem?

I know, why haven’t I done it already if I am so smart? Well, I am working on it.

I’m sorry for the tone, but some of us cranky, old jaspers get that way from time to time.

Along these lines, who’s the audience for a riposte about sex and kids? Again, the Dem base is already solid on sex education so there’s nothing to gain there. The social conservatives are going to do a ping that pushes them toward the Reps any time the topic comes up. “Undecideds” are really decided, they’re just waiting to see if they get emotionally stimulated enough to bring their prejudices to active consciousness. Apparently this issue is not a threshold for them or they’d already be on one side or the other. Getting combative about this or any other issue will turn them off for all the reasons they’re too chickenshit to know their own minds. Which means they’re mostly liberals. So the Reps get combative in part to turn ‘undecideds’ away from coming to grips with themselves and voting.

Again, the conclusion is to stay on message and not get drawn into a pissing match with champion pissers.

So yes. The advice, like with the little brother, is to ignore it. They’re not talking to us anyway, except insofar as they’re seeing if they can get a rise that confirms their power to themselves. We also need to talk only to ourselves, about the things that interest us, and about them only with dismissive disdain.

But the exchange underscores the difficulty of explaining or calibrating the effects of rhetoric on elections. In our descriptions, we tend to oscillate along a continuum in which we assign greater or lesser importance to rhetoric relative to facts, lived experience, or policy truths. However, on closer inspection, describing the precise ways in which rhetoric operates on the electorate can be tricky.

The conventional wisdom –as mentioned in this thread–is that Democratics have gotten hammered by not recognizing the effectiveness of rhetoric, visual and well as verbal, and as well as the relative unimportance of policy. Implicit in this argument is that facts don’t matter, rhetoric does. But at the same time, when pundits point out that a candiate’s or campaign’s rhetoric or slogan has “fallen flat” or not “resonnated with voters,” the criticism suggests an empirical disconnect between what a candidate says, and what people believe or experience. This suggests that there are some statements that are assessed in terms of their truth claims. So rhetoric is all powerful in politics, except on occasion when the facts get in the way, but predicting when this occurs can be difficult and does not lend itself to a very systematic or helpful way of analyzing polical discourse. Add to this the self-reinforcing echo-chamber of the media and pundry, and you have a very complex feedback system.

As far as “talk of government spending hurts Republicans even more”, can I just say that pretty much disqualifies you in my eyes as a political strategist who knows just how to talk the talk that wins or loses elections. That’s pretty much the single major rhetorical arc that has carried the Republicans since 1964. Other classic Republican hooks wax and wane depending on circumstances, but “the government is a big spender and the Democrats are the ones who spend” is a consistent Republican winner in both solidly Republican and swing districts. If you mean that right now, for the first time in four decades, it might hurt Republicans even more, I suppose that’s possible, but it’s hardly “boxed in”. I’d like you to point me to some specific Congressional districts from 2004 or 2006 where you think a Republican who talked about government spending lost largely because of that.

I think you think this is a line that hurts Republicans because it’s a line that hurts them with you personally. The whole point of putting your ear to the ground and figure out what’s going to play in Peoria is listening to what kind of talk has consequences or gets people talking themselves, people who are not yourself. You aren’t most or even many Republicans or independents.

If this line doesn’t really hurt Republicans, it’s partly because genuine small government types who make that the single major issue that determines their vote are actually rare. Most “small government” Republicans, both politicians and supporters, are happy to sup on piles of pork as long as it is their district, their interests. If “small government” Republicans were a genuinely major constituency within the party, committed to that at all costs, Ron Paul would now be the nominee. Or Bob Barr would now be a serious electoral threat. Or Congressional Republicans would have been compelled to reign in spending because of a serious prospect of losing a major portion of the party’s base.

Avoid talking about sex and kids because anything you say will keep the discussion on sex and kids and that’s not where you want to be if you are a Democrat trying to get elected.

Instead, talk about subjects that have Republicans similarly boxed. There’s a long list to choose from.

My favorite is government spending since it splits small government types from Republicans. Democrats are as bad and worse, but any talk about government spending hurts Republicans even more. It doesn’t matter much what is said since it’s a sore point. It’s like the sex and kids thing for Democrats in that regard. Any talk is harmful.

We’re talking politics here. Nothing more. Politics is like street fighting. You don’t man up and try to punch a fellow with long arms in the face just because he did it to you. Kick his knees from the side, punch his kidneys from behind. Attack his weakness rather than his strength. Even when he punches your face again. It’s not your game.

This isn’t ignoring attack. It’s making an intelligent response. I said I didn’t like pistols, I didn’t say I couldn’t shoot.