Skip navigation

Category Archives: 2016 Republican Nomination

Ted Cruz’s gambit to link defunding Planned Parenthood to the federal budget extension failed. This is a good thing if you are a Republican. It is also good that the Senate has learned to leash Cruz. Logic follows along with a thumbnail sketch of Planned Parenthood. Read More »

Advertisements

Ever wonder what is going on when politicians say something completely over the top?  Take for example what Hillary said on Friday, “On women’s health, Clinton compares Republicans to terrorist groups.” (CNN)

Increasingly, journalists who cover the White House are concluding that the smears are part of a conscious strategy to distract voters from Obamacare, the sluggish economy, and foreign-policy reverses; the attacks are intended, the thinking goes, to drive up resentment and hence turnout among the Democratic base.

Major Garrett, the CBS White House correspondent, has talked with White House aides who confirm that the administration is working from the theory of “stray voltage,” as developed by former White House senior adviser David Plouffe.

“The theory goes like this,” Garrett wrote. “Controversy sparks attention, attention provokes conversation, and conversation embeds previously unknown or marginalized ideas in the public consciousness,” Deliberately misstating information about key issues in order to keep certain issues before the public is often a premeditated strategy.

“The tactic represents one more step in the embrace of cynicism that has characterized President Obama’s journey in office,” John Dickerson wrote at Slate. “Facts, schmacts. As long as people are talking about an issue where my party has an advantage with voters, it’s good.” Frank James of NPR is another mainstream journalist who has concluded that the use of incendiary rhetoric is part of an electoral strategy.

Sourced from, “Stray Voltage Theory,” by John Fund April 20, 2014 7:00 PM @JohnFund

It is quite something to watch as Trump wipes out the relevance of the other Republican candidates.  While effective usage of the media is considered a critical success factor in campaigning by any candidate, the rest of the field seems unable to compete with Trump at this level.

Having gone through the list of reasons generally cited by pundits, the most credible one seems to be Trump’s tapping into the public’s and particularly Republican anger with the establishment.  I am sure that is a key reason, but I believe there is something more fundamental at work.

I agree with Jonathan Haidt (author of, The Righteous Mind) that we are 90% intuitive and 10% rational in forming our opinions, and that after forming an opinion our rational mind rationalizes our position.  Haidt refers to these as the “(intuitive) elephant” and the “(rational) rider”. 

This aspect of psychology is key to many things, but its political effect is profound: campaign messaging, expression of policy, marketing tactics, voter turnout, voter involvement and advocacy, etc, etc.

What I have noticed over the years, is how rational and homogenized campaign consultants have made candidate dialogue (and candidate selection by the donor class).  And how as that has increased, the focus on celebrity, appearance and gaffs has increased. 

Omitting the aspect of rationalism in academia for the sake of brevity, my first point is that rational arguments in campaigning which target the broader public, inevitably meet the intuitive elephant (who has the lead in decision-making) and the elephant often hears little or nothing when this happens.

The second, is that cognitive dissonance among Republicans has been building since at least the 2008 campaign as they watched celebrity and elephant talk elect Obama twice while their candidates (and their rational arguments) were ineffectual.

Trump has popped this balloon of tension by going straight to the elephant (as does Hillary).  He has stolen the march and competing candidates and their consultants, along with their traditional models of campaigning, are sputtering and confused.  When attacking they now come across as ineffectual.  A fatal situation for many of them.

Rational argumentation meets the decided intuitive elephant and fails.