Patterico's Pontifications

1/31/2016

Rubio Also Does “Shaming” Mailer in Iowa

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:48 pm

In my opinion Cruz’s (discussed by JVW here) was worse — as it named neighbors and arguably implied (to stupid voters) that there was some kind of “violation” involved in their failure to vote. That said, the Rubio mailer retains many of the objectionable tactics of Cruz’s.

“Ve KNOW vedder you hav been votink!” Check.

“Your NEIGHbors are votink! Vy aren’t YOU!” Check.

“You hav a votink SCORE und ve KNOW it!” Check.

It’s different when Rubio does it, though, on account of how he’s good-looking and everything.

So.

20 Responses to “Rubio Also Does “Shaming” Mailer in Iowa”

  1. It’s pretty clear they are all doing it (except Trump, who doesn’t have to spend money), probably because they have some evidence that it works.

    But it only works if it doesn’t become a scandal. Hillary can do it because the media will cover for her, like they did with Obama.

    Gabriel Hanna (3d8e32)

  2. Crud and amnesty. Its like when hitler attacked stalin you didn’t know who to boo for! Two slime balls threatening voters.

    trumpet (6db9e3)

  3. Gabriel:

    I’ll grant you that maybe it “works” — but I question the strategy of trying to motivate people who generally don’t vote. Given that such people typically are dolts who would naturally vote for an ignoramus like Trump if they voted at all.

    Low voter turnout: that’s my preference and always will be. I want MY people to turn out heavily, and everyone else can stay home.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  4. These politicians are sic, greedy and all slime.
    I never would have expected Cruz to shame voters, Rubio – of course.

    mg (31009b)

  5. It looks like the lessons that the GOP has taken from the Age of Obama is to utilize all of his campaign’s methods of dragging out the low information voter.

    JVW (d60453)

  6. Patterico,

    If you have knowledge that identifiable groups will vote for you, you want every last group member at the polls. Now it doesn’t come to play in Iowa, but come the Nevada caucuses, you better believe that Hillary will be getting out the black vote and have #blacklivesmatter on every bus bumper. Ther e is no such thing as an uninformed voter in bloc politics — none of them are voting for the crazy old white guy.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  7. I feel like I am trapped in a bad movie, something like “All the King’s Men” meets “No Exit.”

    Patricia (5fc097)

  8. I’ve been very much against voter turnout drives for a very long time, for the same reasons Patterico cites.

    As for this tactic, I find it disgusting and intrusive. I condemned Cruz, whom I support, for it, so I’m certainly going to condemn Rubio for it too.

    Arizona CJ (da673d)

  9. It’s a clear sign of desperation on Rubio’s part. He saw the near universal negative reaction to Cruz’s attempt to shame Iowa voters yet he went ahead with his own similar shaming effort.

    Rubio is convinced the tactic works – that it’ll result in more votes than turn-offs. It’s a cynical calculus and one that reveals the heart of a man who should never be allowed near the presidency.

    ropelight (bbc6ad)

  10. Yo soy un hombre sincero
    De donde crece la palma,
    Y antes de morirme quiero
    Recibe muchos votos en Iowa.

    One ton of mailers!
    Why he send one of mailers?
    One ton of mailers!
    Why he send one ton of mailers?

    nk (dbc370)

  11. Don’t mess with guantamera, nk just don’t.

    narciso (732bc0)

  12. And I think it should be “recibir” too?

    You do know the poem was by Marti, right? No hillbilly lady from Guantanamo in it? And that the Sandpipers … well, let’s just say that I don’t approve what they did with it. Pinche hippies!

    nk (dbc370)

  13. And don’t even get me started on y clef jean’s version.

    narciso (732bc0)

  14. I’ll grant you that maybe it “works” — but I question the strategy of trying to motivate people who generally don’t vote. Given that such people typically are dolts who would naturally vote for an ignoramus like Trump if they voted at all.

    That only applies if you’re targeting all people who generally don’t vote. But what if you could target only those people who weakly support you, but not enough to bother voting? Those people, if you can motivate them to vote, would be likely to support you, so it makes sense to do that. And that is what I assume is happening in Iowa. With the new data-driven methods for tracking individual voters, I assume each candidate is aiming this only at those it’s pretty sure will support him if only they can be motivated to get out of the house.

    I want MY people to turn out heavily, and everyone else can stay home.

    Here’s a secret: that’s what everybody wants, regardless of what they say in public. Politicians who say it’s important for everybody to vote don’t mean it, they just say it to get their people out, and hope it doesn’t get too many of the other side’s people out too. If they could target it better they would.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  15. Still stupid.

    And, apparently, it is hurting Cruz.

    So there.

    PS Low turnout is not a good thing. You want everybody with a stake in how things go, but it says something about Pat.

    formwiz (6b3a5a)

  16. You don’t want low voter turnout if it is just the teacher’s union, or some otehr union, or some other group, maybe aradical group (in student elections) turning out their voters.

    Sammy Finkelman (dbec95)

  17. You want everybody with a stake in how things go, but it says something about Pat.

    Hogwash. You act as if the very process of schlepping off to the polls to vote fills the voter with a Kennedy-esque “ask not what your country can do. . .” sense of esprit de corps. In reality, we’ve turned voting into the exercise of a selfish power play motivated by tribal affiliation. The fewer people who have to be cajoled to the polls with the promise of voting themselves great spoils from the common good, the better off we are.

    My town faced a really important ballot question about what we were going to do with a very valuable piece of property. The election was held in March, so only about 25% of the eligible voters came out and voted. But I’m willing to bet that most of those voters had carefully considered the question and had arrived at a decision which they though was best for our community, even if I disagreed with them. This issue was important enough that I was much happier having a 25% turnout of informed voters rather than a 50% turnout with half the voters just voting the way that their favorite interest group told them to.

    JVW (d60453)

  18. #9 ropelight,

    What are you talking about?
    Rubio had ALREADY SENT OUT his mailer.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  19. nk (dbc370) — 2/1/2016 @ 5:09 am

    That was great, nk!

    Don’t mess with guantameraTexas, nk just don’t.
    narciso (732bc0) — 2/1/2016 @ 6:22 am

    There, that’s better.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  20. You want everybody with a stake in how things go, but it says something about Pat.

    formwiz (6b3a5a)

    It says he’s honest in the face of political correctness. This also says something about you, drawing conclusions from emotions.

    People live and die from the results of our elections. Our elections balance interests of our future generations, indebted by our spending and controlled by each new law, versus those who want that money and that power.

    I like the idea that everyone who voted spent the time to learn the issues and cares about their country. And we all know not everyone is like that.

    Dustin (2a8be7)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2075 secs.