can you explain this quote?

Democracy lives and dies on an informed voting populace. There's a certain article of faith here that if voters just have enough good information, maybe packaged or presented the right way, they'll see your argument and side with you if you made a good case.

But what if instead of making the case for your side by presenting real counter evidence and trying to be more knowledgeable and eloquent, you just tainted the whole well of knowledge so that nobody could make sense of the issue? Maybe you know the facts really aren't on your side. So, if you just argue in bad faith against someone trying to do the real work of making their case, you can turn the whole debate upside down and you know you'll have fooled at least a segment of the population and brought over them to your side, quite possibly more than you could have by engaging in good faith.

Meanwhile, you've chipped a little at democracy in a sense, by dumping a bunch of bad memes into people's heads at less cost to you than the people trying to argue in earnest, and those bad memes are going to be harder to get out of their heads the next time the issue comes up.