What gets more results in American Politics? Going high or low?

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

Michelle Obama said to go high when the opponent goes low, but it seems like unilateral disarmament for me. The GOP (because they went low) accomplished RTW in a majority of states, got various anti-abortion measures passed, deregulated banks along with flunkies within the Dems, unprotected free trade, and various tax cuts, while Dems passed Romneycare. Was Michelle Obama's statement debunked?

[DC Al Fine]

Michelle Obama said to go high when the opponent goes low, but it seems like unilateral disarmament for me. The GOP (because they went low) accomplished RTW in a majority of states, got various anti-abortion measures passed, deregulated banks along with flunkies within the Dems, unprotected free trade, and various tax cuts, while Dems passed Romneycare. Was Michelle Obama's statement debunked?

And how much of that was due to "low" tactics vs the tendency of the party holding the presidency to lose other elections and unpopular things the Obama administration did?

[Politician]

Michelle Obama said to go high when the opponent goes low, but it seems like unilateral disarmament for me. The GOP (because they went low) accomplished RTW in a majority of states, got various anti-abortion measures passed, deregulated banks along with flunkies within the Dems, unprotected free trade, and various tax cuts, while Dems passed Romneycare. Was Michelle Obama's statement debunked?

And how much of that was due to "low" tactics vs the tendency of the party holding the presidency to lose other elections and unpopular things the Obama administration did?

[MillennialModerate]

You’d like to think it’s going “High” but we have the “lowest” of the low holding the most prestigious and powerful office on earth so unfortunately you have your answer

[DC Al Fine]

You’d like to think it’s going “High” but we have the “lowest” of the low holding the most prestigious and powerful office on earth so unfortunately you have your answer

Again, this line of reasoning doesn't actually demonstrate that going low wins. There are lots of other factors to consider in the 2016 result.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Honestly, the party that has "gone low" more than the other has won every presidential election since 2000, except maybe 2004.

It makes elections suck for the candidates and voters, but it gets results.

[catographer]

Neither. The message matters, and having a negative but aggressive and appealing message just happens to work better than "high" messages because being positive is hard to make aggressive and appealing.

[TPIG]

Democrats' problem in 2016 wasn't that they went high; they simply ran on vague platitudes about America already being great and being "Stronger Together" while not offering a clear vision of how they wanted to shape the country. Clinton did not run an issue driven campaign, while Trump, for all of his bombast and absurd theatrics, ran on issues like jobs, trade, and immigration. Those were his clear issues, and I don't think that Clinton had any issues that were strongly her own.

I understand that there are other elections to look at when analyzing this question, but I don't think it's often the case that going low wins simply for the sake of going low.

[RFayette]

You’d like to think it’s going “High” but we have the “lowest” of the low holding the most prestigious and powerful office on earth so unfortunately you have your answer

Again, this line of reasoning doesn't actually demonstrate that going low wins. There are lots of other factors to consider in the 2016 result.

Also, I don't see how it's fair to categorize Clinton's overall campaign as "going high."  She ran far more negative ads than Trump. 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clintons-ads-more-negative-more-personal-than-trumps-study-finds

This isn't a normative judgment to say the ads weren't fair or deserved condemnations of Trump's character flaws, just to say that if "going high" means running a positive campaign, then Clinton most certainly did not 'go high.' 

[junior chįmp]

Going low.

LBJ was able to pass the Great Society because he spent a decade bribing people in Congress...not because he asked them nicely

[OSR stands with Israel]

Going low.

LBJ was able to pass the Great Society because he spent a decade bribing people in Congress...not because he asked them nicely

Reagan got his legislative agenda passed(Massive Tax Reform, Deregulation and Free Trade) by going high


and Bill Clinton went high rhetoric-wise and had lots of legislative successes too .

[junior chįmp]

Going low.

LBJ was able to pass the Great Society because he spent a decade bribing people in Congress...not because he asked them nicely

Reagan got his legislative agenda passed(Massive Tax Reform, Deregulation and Free Trade) by going high


and Bill Clinton went high rhetoric-wise and had lots of legislative successes too .

Reagan passed his tax cut because he got shot

Clinton on the other hand passed his lousy policies by sucking up to the GOP and passing everything they failed to pass during Reagan/Clinton yet they still voted to impeach him over bogus BJ charges

[Sir Mohamed]

Depends on the respective time. Up the 1960s, private lives of politicians were non of the public's business. That's why reporters never officially wrote about JFK's external affairs. Most campaigns from the 1930s to 1960s were relatively civilized, while in the 1820s, campaigns were extremely vicious. Today, we're sadly in a "low time". That may change in 2020 and voters want a well-spoken and civilized prez who can again be seen as a role model instead of a schoolyard bully.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Going low.

LBJ was able to pass the Great Society because he spent a decade bribing people in Congress...not because he asked them nicely

Reagan got his legislative agenda passed(Massive Tax Reform, Deregulation and Free Trade) by going high


and Bill Clinton went high rhetoric-wise and had lots of legislative successes too .

Reagan passed his tax cut because he got shot

Clinton on the other hand passed his lousy policies by sucking up to the GOP and passing everything they failed to pass during Reagan/Clinton yet they still voted to impeach him over bogus BJ charges

1986 was the big one not 1981

[junior chįmp]

Going low.

LBJ was able to pass the Great Society because he spent a decade bribing people in Congress...not because he asked them nicely

Reagan got his legislative agenda passed(Massive Tax Reform, Deregulation and Free Trade) by going high


and Bill Clinton went high rhetoric-wise and had lots of legislative successes too .

Reagan passed his tax cut because he got shot

Clinton on the other hand passed his lousy policies by sucking up to the GOP and passing everything they failed to pass during Reagan/Clinton yet they still voted to impeach him over bogus BJ charges

1986 was the big one not 1981

The 1986 tax reform was the product of corruption. Reagan ran one of the most corrupt administrations in history. For example:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nobody gets anything done in DC without majorities and corruption

[courts]

If you're asking this question, you're taking convention rhetoric too seriously.

With that said, hearing this sound-bite from Michelle Obama in 2016 was extremely amusing for those of us who remembered Clinton's 2008 primary campaign, or, quite honestly, anything else about her political history. HRC has her virtues as a politician, but "going high" is not among them. (Of course the same applies to the national party and most state affiliates.)

Even if we set that reality aside, there's an air of undeserved self-congratulations to this line. You could hardly find a better approximation of how the Democratic Party continues to come across. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Whether or not going high is a sound political strategy, making it your primary appeal to voters is not.

oh absolutely.not that i really want to pile on clinton.i find all that pretty tiring

[Del Tachi]

Michelle Obama said to go high when the opponent goes low, but it seems like unilateral disarmament for me. The GOP (because they went low) accomplished RTW in a majority of states, got various anti-abortion measures passed, deregulated banks along with flunkies within the Dems, unprotected free trade, and various tax cuts, while Dems passed Romneycare. Was Michelle Obama's statement debunked?

Wait, so using your elected legislative majorities and governorships to pass your agenda is "going low"?

Democrat logic folks

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

Michelle Obama said to go high when the opponent goes low, but it seems like unilateral disarmament for me. The GOP (because they went low) accomplished RTW in a majority of states, got various anti-abortion measures passed, deregulated banks along with flunkies within the Dems, unprotected free trade, and various tax cuts, while Dems passed Romneycare. Was Michelle Obama's statement debunked?

Wait, so using your elected legislative majorities and governorships to pass your agenda is "going low"?

Democrat logic folks

You might want to take a level in reading comprehension. All the "agenda-passing" were a result of going low, not the act.

[136or142]

Democrats' problem in 2016 wasn't that they went high; they simply ran on vague platitudes about America already being great and being "Stronger Together" while not offering a clear vision of how they wanted to shape the country. Clinton did not run an issue driven campaign, while Trump, for all of his bombast and absurd theatrics, ran on issues like jobs, trade, and immigration. Those were his clear issues, and I don't think that Clinton had any issues that were strongly her own.

I understand that there are other elections to look at when analyzing this question, but I don't think it's often the case that going low wins simply for the sake of going low.

Trump went low because on trade he offered a false bill of goods.  He made promises that won't result in what he claimed.

I completely disagree with the rest. He was all over the map on immigration (most of the time he pandered to racism, but not all of the time) and completely incoherent on jobs.

As for Hillary Clinton, she essentially ran as Barack Obama's third term.

[Mr. Smith]

Democrats: Just remember 1988...then look at 1992, then look at 1988 again...who won by 6 from nothing, and who lost by 8 with everything again?

GOP: See Nixon '60, now look at Nixon '68.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Depends on the candidates, really. Trump would've looked like a sleepy pumpkin if he tried "going high", while Rubio looked ridiculous and doomed himself when he tried to "go low".

[Calthrina950]

Democrats' problem in 2016 wasn't that they went high; they simply ran on vague platitudes about America already being great and being "Stronger Together" while not offering a clear vision of how they wanted to shape the country. Clinton did not run an issue driven campaign, while Trump, for all of his bombast and absurd theatrics, ran on issues like jobs, trade, and immigration. Those were his clear issues, and I don't think that Clinton had any issues that were strongly her own.

I understand that there are other elections to look at when analyzing this question, but I don't think it's often the case that going low wins simply for the sake of going low.

I agree with this. For many voters in 2016 (including my father), Trump seemed like a candidate who would "shake things up", while Clinton represented the continuation of the status quo, in policy terms more or less, as it had been under Obama. Moreover, Clinton came off to me as insincere, and she generally tended to focus on hitting against Trump, rather than articulating why she would be better than Trump.

[Blair]

As Averreos says, it was just a campaigning soundbite. You can’t say the Democrats went high when they were running millions of dollars in ads about Trump being too crazy to have his finger on the nuclear button.

Besides every campaign can claim to have an uplifting message, whilst equally pounding your opponenent into the ground