It’s a question of execution, and as we all agree, Republicans execute beautifully. Dems, as I said above, have a harder target audience to work with, and they also have a harder time finding consensus and direction, because of their diversity of views. Republicans only have to hit a few points: abortion, gay marriage, god, guns. Nationalists, evangelicals, ethnocentrists of all stripes are conformist and “conventional” by their very nature, giving them a very powerful block vote and making them very easy to market to, so long as you’re willing to share their (relatively unified) values.

mT, situations like these involve balancing the morality of the act or “thing-in-itself,” and the morality of the practical outcome. In some philosophical circles, they’re referred to as deontology vs. consequentialism: what’s more important to you, not playing dirty and potentially losing as a result, or playing dirty so you can make the world less dirty when you win? (And there are also degrees of dirty.) These sorts of balancing acts can be found in positions on abortion, legalization of drugs and prostitution, death penalty, and a ton of “wedge” issues. And they generally can’t be reasoned through, because it’s a value judgment: if a bad act can lead to a good result, how bad is the act? And if a good act leads to a bad result, how good is it really? Your position on that spectrum determines what you’ll think is good/bad in a given non-ideal win-lose situation.

It’s also one thing to say that the retardicans are “geniuses” but quite another to understand the genius of their marketing practices.

Gambling is a good analogy. Casino house games give the edge - a very slight edge on average - to the house. Take roulette. It’s a 1:1 payout on black/red, or odd/even. Is that an even bet? Of course not. Why? Because of the green 0 and 00. It’s a slight edge, but it’s there, and it pays.

Same with courting the religious right.

And, like good marketers, once they have determined their audience, they formulate a strategy for messaging. Sticking with the religious right, it can be boiled down to one word: “outrage.” retardicans are “outraged” over higher taxes, welfare moms, gay marriage, and affirmative action (the so-called “reverse racism”). Then they label/demonize it “liberal.”

Besides being evil, they are nothing of not clever. Mix in their aggressive mentality plus their understanding of marketing dynamics and mechanics and they really have it down.

The Democrats are dealing with liberal pluralists, who are by their very nature a diverse, fractured, contentious, and cynical bunch.

At any rate, the more I think about the choice of Palin as VP, the more I appreciate Republican genius.

Sorry but I thought his article was rather dull, dredging up things (essentially, “fighting back”) that I as well as all of my political-junkie friends have been saying for eons.

democrap incompetence/impotence/limp wrists aside, what the retardicans *TRULY* get is…. marketing.

On that last point, everyone now knows who Rove is, and I suppose he deserves credit in the religious right targeting. Or at least his role in it. But there’s another dude that people should be aware of.

Frank Luntz.

Look him up. As a marketer and insofar as what he addresses (marketing-wise), the dude knows what he’s talking about.

All this is to say that as far as marketing goes, the retardicans are playing at another level that the democraps just don’t seem to get. And in the battle for election that is amerkian politics, that’s where a major portion of the fight is. The retardicans figured that out. Quite a while ago.