Replies

I'm afraid Mr. Robinson doesn't discern the difference between productive bluntness and unproductive bluntness. I'm reminded of a conversation I had with Anoreth recently. She was surprised that another young person on a website she frequents had been offended by her criticism of a story he'd written.

"He asked me what I thought of it," she pointed out.
"What did you say?" I asked.
"I said I think it stinks."
"Well, I can't imagine why he'd take offense at that," I said, with a "Sarcasm!" icon flashing above my head. "What, specifically, caused you to reach that helpful judgment?"
"The spelling and grammar were so bad that I could barely read it. The characters were boring. The dialogue was silly. And that's just a start!"
"Next time someone asks your opinion, why don't you skip the generalization, e.g., 'It stinks,' and go straight to the specific reasons you didn't like it. The more detailed and objective you are, 'The spelling and grammar errors made it difficult to read,' or 'The characters didn't say or do anything that I found interesting,' or 'The dialogue didn't reveal character or forward the action,' the more helpful it is for the writer, and the less offensive it can be."

This example is supposed to illustrate the problems I sense with Vernon Robinson's campaigns. He generates a lot of sound and fury, as well as early approval, by expressing the way he and many voters feel about controversial issues. However, by continuing to use wording that emphasizes feelings or judgments, especially disapproval, rather than moving on to detail, unemotionally, the specifics of what can and should be changed, within the context of the particular office for which he's campaigning, he loses voters before the election.

Voters who start out with enthusiasm, because they strongly agree that Situation X is very bad indeed, end up doubting Mr. Robinson's potential effectiveness in office. He doesn't seem to inspire a sense of his capacity to construct and enact positive change.

(Just my out-of-district opinion, of course!)

And while I'm wearing my Campaign Consultant hat (big red silk rose, matches my dress ...), I'll add that, in the primary two years ago, my sense of the Robinson campaign was that they were more focussed on the other candidates than on the voters. I don't know whether this emphasis was Mr. Robinson's or if it originated with others around him, but there was much unnecessary controversy about personalities and campaign tactics, rather than issues.

One problem in 2004 was that the primary campaign went on *forever*; the primary was in mid-August, because of redistricting controversy at the state level.