Elephant-Donkey

LiveforReason won the Face Off.

Accidental Democrat vs LiveforReason

Face Offs: 9
Wins: 6
Losses: 3
Ties: 0
No City, XX
All Face Offs

Votes

Face Offs: 4
Wins: 3
Losses: 0
Ties: 1
Lewes, DE
All Face Offs

Votes

Supporters of Presidential candidates should cease to use the phrase "___ '08!", with the preferred candidate's name in the blank.

Accidental Democrat said 02/24, 01:36 PM
People should stop using phrases such as "Obama '08!" or "McCain '08!". A problem with using such phrases is that it provides absolutely no value to the educational quality of a statement. Using an example:
"Adams sucks! Jefferson '00!" Cannot possibly sway anyone to vote for Jefferson, while it could probably make people vote for Adams because of the crudeness of the support/attack.

Furthermore, using the above statement encourages mindless statements in the place of so much more useful and thought out ones:
"Lincoln '60!" would be a sad and ignored statement on a list of comments on Youtube, where "Lincoln would uphold the Constitution by freeing slaves, and he has proven to be strongly dedicated in preserving the Union. For these reasons, I support Lincoln," is significantly more informative and could potentially sway people to vote for Lincoln. Even if it backfires and causes people to vote for Douglas, at least the people voting make a more informed decision. Sentences similar to that last one in particular should be promoted, because they requires as a prerequisite thought-out support. Stop cliche, pointless statements and make way for brain-usage.

LiveforReason said 02/24, 02:15 PM
The use of the brain by voters is always a good thing in Presidential campaigns, no argument there. However, the appropriate use of phrases such as Edwards 08 or otherwise do not take away from the substance of political elections.

Candidates and their supperters use this phrase largely on their lawn posters or handheld signs. The overall purpose of these are to capture the voters attention, to alert them of the candidacy of a particular person. While these signs in no way convince the voters whom they will elect, they encourage the voter to find out more about that particular candidate. Typically, the voter will then be looking for the candidates name in the news to see what his or her views on the issues are.

In no way should this phrase be used in a debate, and hopefully the candidates and their supporters have realized this. Instead, it should be used in a "spread the word strategy," so the voters are aware of the candidates running for a particular office. If it is used properly, the phrase does not stifle or hinder meaningful debate on the issues.

Accidental Democrat said 02/24, 05:28 PM
One has to wonder what the "appropriate use" of a two word "argument" is.

One can certainly catch people's attention with these signs, but there are signs that can better show support AND provide for at least some kind of reasoning while still being concise, such as "Hillary for the Best Health Care." Such a sign is better at trumpeting a (supposed) strong point of a candidate. Having "Hillary '08" on your lawn, however, tells you nothing, and at least personally, if I saw the two signs, the first would make me more interested in finding out more about specifics in policy. Having reasoning behind a statement always makes people more inclined to look further into the reasoning.

More thorough statements are better at alerting people to candidacies. For example, I've seen "Gravel '08" once or twice, but until someone personally told me, I didn't know about his policies at all. In fact, off the top of my head, I STILL don't know what his main policy is called, because no one has ever provided support for it, circumventing the need with the two word "argument." If you really want to "spread the word" about a candidate (such as Gravel), you should say why, instead of "Gravel '08!"

LiveforReason said 02/24, 10:33 PM
Everyone agrees that "Hillary 08" or other, is a horrible argument, but the phrase can be used at times when it serves a different, yet appropriate purpose.

The proposition that candidates reduce their complex policies to a simple catch phrase to fit on a lawn sign would hamper the substance of politics more than "McCain 08" ever could. Health care plans, for instance, are extremely complex proposals. Sometimes candidates do not have enough time to outline their plans on televised debates. Simply shirking it down to a sentence gives the candidates the opportunity to sway voters without going into the details. A sign with the candidates name allows the voter to investigate the candidate by themselves, without being swayed to any side.

Name signs serve another purpose: to encourage the local population who are learning to a particular candidate. Voters want to make cure that their vote counts. They may be leaning towards a particular candidate, but won't vote for them if they feel their vote will be thrown away. Signs with this phrase show these voters that others feel the same way they do, encouraging them to vote for their candidate.

Accidental Democrat said 02/24, 11:44 PM
I have to disagree with you when it comes to the power of lawn signs . Seeing "Romney 08" doesn't make you more inclined to find out about a candidate, it simply makes one more jaded towards an already-jading political system, and thus actually less inclined to vote. It will appear as "politics as usual," as Obama so often says.

It is PRECISELY this aforementioned complexity that keeps people from voting off of lawn signs. No one votes ONLY from a lawn sign, and you can't persuade anyone otherwise. Let's say there's a man who normally doesn't pay attention to politics. However, he can't pay his healthcare, and so healthcare's important to him. if he sees a lawn sign that says Huck's got the best health care, he's going to look into it to see if it's bull or not because the issue's important to him. Otherwise, he won't want to waste his time on a "Huck 08!" sign because he finds politics pointless (and we know this is all too common).

Electability is not determined by signs. The media always displays any viable candidates, which are determined by public opinion polls and practically bombard the public. People KNOW who is electable just by turning on a TV.

I tip my hat to you.

LiveforReason said 02/25, 09:53 AM
One would find it hard to locate any data that indicates that 08 signs discourage voters and consequentially lower voter turnout as was suggested. If this were true, candidates would have undoubtedly refrained from covering neighborhoods with 08 signs

Name in 08 signs have their purpose in political campaigns. The serve as a sign of identification and support in areas and situations where debate or policy discussion is too complex, not possible, or redundant (i.e. campaign rallies, lawn signs, bumper stickers, etc). No one is contending that this phrase convinces voters in any way, shape, or form. It merely acts as a method of exposure for candidates, which is a significant part of elections. In no way to they detract from the substance of campaigns.

Granted, this phrase should not be substituted in situations where debate or policy is needed. However, there has been insignificant evidence presented to say this is happening. This phrase offers leaning voters encouragement, alerts voters of candidates, and offers candidates a simple method of exposure.

Comments

Add Your Comment

You never thought you'd see the day that people would debate over the power of lawn signs, did you?

Accidental Democrat | 02/24/08

Report Offensive Comment

Unfortunately, we live in a 5-second soundbyte world. Debating policies are great, but 50,000 "'08" signs have a lot bigger impact on the general public.

Austhus | 02/25/08

Report Offensive Comment