Big Swifty
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2021
- Messages
- 146
- Likes
- 137
Dirty politicians gonna dirty politician. But I think anyone who's in the game is a politician whether they brand themselves "outsider" for a marketing advantage or not. As an example, in the 2020 US election Trump interrupted Biden so many times in an attempt to throw him off-balance that they had to change the rules so he wouldn't do it in the next debate. But his running as the incumbent could be seen as him no longer being the outsider and instead being just another dirty politician looking to get re-elected. However, in the 2016 debates when he was as much of an outsider as Milei, he tried to throw dirty politician Clinton off-balance by stalking her around the debate stage. But it worked for him.For the vast majority of voters it won't change their intentions.
According to the TN poll (which had a few million participants) 85% still said Milei "won" this debate despite his objectively terrible performance versus Massa on screen. For the majority of voters politics is like footbal, pick a team and stick with them even if when it is clear they are loosing a match.
What I thought was an interesting tactic of Massa is that in previous debates he had been much more "read from the script" and "passive" in his participation, this time he surprised Milei and threw him off-balance by opening on the attack. More cringe-worthy tactics included little coughs while Milei was speaking and personal jibes to send him off on a tangent and use up his talking-time also clearly show a career politician who knows how to fight dirty. It was also crystal clear Massa was using fear-tactics trying to repeat and generate disinformation and lies such as Milei not offering public education or healthcare and more stupid things such as Milei being somehow "apatriotic" for his admiration of Margaret Thatcher who Massa labled as an "enemy" of Argentina to this day (and who went to war against a dictatorship - the perversity of ultra-nationalism as a political tool of manipulation at its finest, as ridiculous as if Merkel had called Churchill or Roosevelt an enemy of the German people for fighting against Hitler's German state...).
Candidates for office act aggressive because a lot of voters respond positively to aggression. 'I like him/her because they're a fighter. They're tough, and what we need right now is a tough fighter. Someone who will fight for me.' The candidate who's passive or reacts negatively to the aggressor's tactics comes off as weak. Voters don't like weak. All's fair in love, war, and politics (though I guess politics and war can often be the same thing). Use of fear tactics, disinformation, lies, things taken out of context or twisted, etc. are also aggressive tactics used by those who want to win because they know a certain percentage of voters and likely the overwhelming majority of their supporters will respond positively to their aggression. Sure, some use lies and especially fear more than others because that's all they can offer (Trump and Massa come to mind), but it's not like their opponents don't to some degree as well. Supporters are predisposed to overlook the dirty tactics of candidates with similar ideologies while demonizing the similar tactics of those with ideologies they're against. It's not a surprise that a lot of people are fed up and think 'they're all the same,' because in many ways they are.