There's no designing activism around the hope that your opponent will behave honestly. It was well understood that the UCP would spin
any outcome. Protesters are 'radicals', they call democratic petitions they don't agree with 'frivolous stunts', and they will call a list of 6,519/16,006 needed signatures saying that they f-cking suck a 'strong mandate to govern'. 40% is not insignificant, especially when a good chunk of those are from people who voted UCP last time.
This was a long shot by design, and the important bit is using the recall campaigns to do the parts that actually matter long-term, because protests do not substitute for door-to-door persuasion in marginal ridings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
You don’t think there’s a value to having people see that the people protesting are like them and not “purple-haired greenpeace freaks”?
|
Sure, and that's why the recalls -- the way they're being done -- are a good thing. People see a crowd, a few loud signs, and maybe a handful of weird visuals, and their brain files it under "same old activists", even if the underlying issue is mainstream and legitimate. That's not fair, but it is real. Recalls create face-to-face contact and local legitimacy without needing the street theatre that most people file away as the usual weirdos shouting about the causes célèbre that they're already sick and tired of hearing about. You want people to see that people championing the issue are 'like them', it's hard to think of a better way than a face-to-face dialog from another person who they can have a conversation with, not an exchange of angry slogans on card stock.