Thanks Barbara . . . What I mean by rigorous social science is using randomized-controlled experiments to find out what works and what doesn't. The concept is the same as the method used in clinical drug trials, but the "treatment" is a message or a mode of contact (door-knocking, phone calls, TV ads, etc) and the outcome isn't "low blood pressure," etc, but vote preferences, policy support, and higher voter turnout (or lower if we're talking Dems).

Agreed . . . but the Tea Party network needs to get better organized, funded, and more efficient and effective. They need to feed the political pipeline with good politicians, starting with state-level Reps and Senators.

Yep . . . as much as we can expect from this messy, complex world we live in. It's not perfect, but nothing is.

As far as talking to people, that's what polls and focus groups do, and look where that has gotten us. Experiments are the only way to build some actual knowledge about causation. I'm not talking about traditional polls here.

Gus . . . how are you going to recruit, raise funds for, and elect these principled politicians? How are you going to beat them at their game? 

Saying "we should have better politicians" isn't a plan for getting them elected.

BrentB67

Brent . . . you are exactly right; you need to have a core product/brand to sell. 

Look, what I'm talking about can be applied to any ideas or brands. The Left does it. This is a way of finding out what works best . . . if someone wants to decide what they believe based on that because they have no core principles, well, they can do that.

Personally, I have strong convictions and principles. I want this to be used to better explain those principles and help communicate what it is we stand for.

Your central point is spot-on, though . . . you can't sell something if it's so changeable or vague that the public can't understand what it is you're selling.

What would you do for an overhaul?

I think we have plenty of free-market ideas that will work, and a whole lot of activists that could make a difference in the Tea Party. What we need is to sell the ideas and effectively turn out voters.

This is a process . . . the Left didn't do any of this overnight . . . it took over a decade. But we need to start somewhere . . .

All the more reason to use social science to discover how best to communicate what are the correct but more difficult ideas to communicate.

And if it's easier to destroy, then why not test what best destroys the Left and their delusions?

Yes! 

Why do we expect everyone to understand everything in the same way or as quickly as we do? Why do we expect one explanation will work with everyone? Why do we demand that it should? 

It's self-defeating narcissism to expect everyone to not only agree with our policy prescriptions, but to do so for the same reasons, based on the same logic and rationale.

The answer isn't to pander, but to communicate effectively with your audience.

You're right . . . but how do you know what "candidates and positions that inherently appeal to the public?" Do you inuit them? A genius political guru is delivered them in a flash of insight?

No, you test. You run experiments. Relentlessly, incessantly, always. You look for the seams in voter psych, what people think, why, and how to better communicate what we know is correct and right. You ask questions, find answers, and then ask yet more questions.

I agree, the candidate is the main ingredient. But conservative messages aren't getting through to enough people. 

I agree our messaging needs updating and different angles for different folks. But using the experimental method is how we will get to better, more effective messages. The experiment method is a tool, and can be used for improving agricultural yields, medicine, messaging, and campaign activities. And I do think that using that tool will be crucial to winning in the future . . .

Could you expand on this? What do you mean it's a mistake to blend data mining and polling?

Hang On . . . Agreed that persuading citizens to not vote for the other guy is an important and under-investigated topic. Certainly it seems this was a major problem for Romney. I think Republicans could do a lot of good, short and long-term, by reaching out to people who won't vote Republican that election, but might be convinced that the Democrat isn't worth their vote either.

I think one problem is our collective fetish about voting; voting is considered inherently good, and the more voters the better. Anything that reduces turnout is considered inherently bad. Just look at Rove crying "vote suppression!" because Obama did a good job convincing a lot of white voters in Ohio that Romney is a cold-hearted Vulture Capitalist.

Vote suppression means using tricks, fraud, and unfair barriers to prevent people from voting, not attacking another candidate. It's just as repulsive to hear Rove make such a claim as it is for Dems to cry suppression because of voter ID.

I think not voting is a perfectly reasonable and respectable choice. And it seems likely that not voting will be one step on the way to the other side for many voters.

Drugs aren't inherent evils, murder is. Drugs don't kill people, people who consume too many/the wrong drugs kill themselves and others.

Your points about changing the social context of drug use is a good one and important . . . effective constraints on drug use, including alcohol and nicotine, are primarily social and cultural, not legal. 

As bad as binge drinking may be now among certain age groups, our drinking problems are nothing compared to what they were in the early 1800's . . . gave us the Dry movement and Prohibition. The Dry movement won the cultural fight and the legal fight, But their legal win was a disaster. 

So . . . you want to execute someone for selling marijuana? How much would you have to sell? A ton, a kilo, an eighth? Or maybe for multiple offenses? Or maybe just for things like heroin? Or maybe LSD, even though it kills almost no-one even indirectly?

Personally, I don't see how it makes sense morally or in any other way to execute someone for selling drugs.

And beyond that, we're lucky if we can go through with an execution of brutal, confessed, clearly and indisputably guilty murders of men, women and children. Does anyone seriously believe that this country would ever institute the death penalty for drug trafficking?

Yes, many consultants and vendors get paid by volume. Ads, for instance, which ensures of course that you get far more TV ads aired than needed. 

And you're right, why waste resources on a sure vote? They shouldn't . . . that's bad targeting.

As far as the consultants on our side concluding anything about effectiveness, they go on little more than their gut, because we, unlike the Left, do not integrate experimental testing protocols into our activities.