Well, okay, that’s not a policy proposal, but I see you’ve got the beginnings of . . . . party. . policy? Maybe?
Can you be a little more - y’know, government policy proposal-y? What you’d want the candidate to advocate for?
Or were you just saying people weren’t allowed to crap on the DNC before the election and now that it’s lost people aren’t being allowed to crap on the DNC because instead of being insufferable assholes with nothing of value to add, actually, colonialist imperialist genocider corporate whores are preventing them from changing the world for good?
Bruh if you wanna argue with yourself, go ahead and build the straw man already
The argument I’m making in reply to your “stop complaining” post (and that you seem to deliberately be ignoring) is that the DNC and/or establishment Democrats routinely silence internal dissent at any and all times. And that right now they still aren’t listening internally, and have demonstrated a commitment to gaslight voters that inflation isn’t real, and that voters shouldn’t be trusted/allowed to pick who they get to vote for.
Voters have told us in exit poll after exit poll, that their primary issues are economic uncertainty and cost of living, loss of faith in governance, and then immigration.
32% of voters nationwide said the economy mattered most in deciding how to vote in the presidential election. 11% said immigration, 14% abortion, 34% the state of democracy, 4% foreign policy.
Okay, so let’s just take as a given that, yes, the Democratic candidates should have focused on the economy, immigration, abortion, and the state of democracy, with apparently 4% of foreign policy thrown in.
That is what you’re arguing they should have done, correct?
If so, what do you think they did NOT say about those issues. You can focus on Kamala if you prefer, or the entirety of all Democratic candidates if you want to assert that.
Economy/ Cost of living:
Beyond pithy “I feel your pain” statements and a late-election focus on price gouging and new homebuyer credits, there was not much for the working poor.
Nothing about corporate tax dodging or enforcing consumer’s rights - Lina Kahn at the FTC would have been an easy layup and she’s gotten results already
Very shy on pro-union messaging
Silent about healthcare costs (beyond in-home carers)
For someone pinched by inflation and/or predatory corporate pricing, being told “more of the last four year’s policy is coming, sorry we have no money - except for Israel” is a huge turnoff.
State of Democracy:
I think the DNC/establishment Dems massively misread this issue as purely J6/dictator Trump - because ignoring the massive democratic disengagement and apathy means they don’t have to address why voters are unenthusiastic about electoral participation at most levels, and instead “it’s all the MAGAs fault” without questioning why the MAGA movement exists beyond “they’re deplorable”.
Trump’s vote total basically flatlined from 2020, two different assassination attempts barely moved polling, he isn’t an unknown figure and voters at large do not like him. What he is however, is a break from “more of the same” no matter how damaging or foolish that may be for the world/country.
In no order, here’s what Dems should target/message on:
Actually running a primary
Not cheating in those primaries
Alternative voting like ranked choice
Not platforming billionaires
Evidence of the party coming down on the side of the worker, instead of corporate/moneyed interests during tough choices. The rail strike is a perfect example, but also the East Palestine spill
Evidence of the party listening to voters concerns, like not running Biden again or heeding the ‘uncommitted’ movement.
Not surrendering to the Republican narrative on the outrage of the day, and being the adults in the room that deliver results for voters instead of distractions. Clap back with “It’s weird to focus on that - we have an economy to solve.” instead of allowing them to controls the narrative
Well, I appreciate the studied reply, so thank you for that.
I just disagree. I thought she was policy-heavy including healthcare position papers and supporting FTC chair, and I disagree entirely that trump is a “change” for anything other than jumping face-first into the pit of hell, just like we did in 2017.
As for the bit about DNC being unfair by not running a primary; that’s not really done with a sitting President. Which was the case here when it was time to run primaries. We didn’t do that in 96, 2012, and if Dems ever get elected again, we probably won’t four years after that. That’s not dirty pool - in fact, if I’d spent my career in the BlahBlah party and been elected president, then for my re-election campaign they demanded I go through primaries again, I’d say fuck all the way off. That’s ridiculous.
I also think there’s a heavy element about perception of Harris’ campaign which had nothing to do with Harris or her campaign. I thought she was very centered on economics and made some good policy suggestions for those times the corporate news chose to repeat anything about policy. Corporate news was determined - again - to narrate a horse race, and the right-wing is entirely off on their own planet of propaganda shit now so they weren’t even going to try.
So TL;DR: disagree she had nothing about the economy for the poor or working class, but it wasn’t way out front either so I’d agree that it should have been. I also disagree that “state of Democracy” wasn’t a big focus, or that how she got to be the candidate was the result of trickery of some sort - that’s just the way it fell and I don’t think anyon could have planned it to look and run exactly like that.
Perception is (unfortunately) reality. While the campaign website and position papers were solid - especially contrasted with Trump’s “concept of a plan” nonsense, if you don’t effectively communicate how those plans are going to impact voters positively, it isn’t going to help you.
Biden did in fact win the primary in 2024 before he dropped out - as the incumbent he massively benefited from recognition and campaign staffing, but he still had to run. Had he kept to his “one term president” statement, there would have been an open primary instead of Harris’s ascension.
Corporate news and engagement driven profit motive has poisoned democracy for a long time, yellow journalism dates to the 1800s. A mad dash to make a network of “liberal Joe Rogan podcasts” will be effective for direct messaging. But if your messaging is still a defense neoliberalism and globalization, you are going to keep losing. To someone for whom having an extra $50 in their pocket is a big deal, the centrist-Dem message is not worth considering. Paid maternity leave, free healthcare, childcare credits, food stamps, stable employment, worker protections, etc are way more important to working poor voters.
A mad dash to make a network of “liberal Joe Rogan podcasts” will be effective for direct messaging.
Do you remember Air America? It was back when radio was a thing, but still. No, it doesn’t work. Because good liberal communication is be default boring - it’s full of facts and nuance and it lacks exclamation points and breaking news chyrons and the rest of modern right-wing propaganda. When it uses them - it doesn’t work.
But if your messaging is still a defense neoliberalism and globalization, you are going to keep losing.
I don’t even know what those things are. So . . . good news there, I guess.
To someone for whom having an extra $50 in their pocket is a big deal, the centrist-Dem message is not worth considering.
That’s not true in several ways. We can review economics, we can review the platform policies, we can see how a Democratic position is the much more beneficial one to our $50 peeps, but if they don’t get jazzed by it and instead vote (or allow) the racist rapist to win - that’s totally on them. There is no further discussion at that point. “Know who you’re voting for and why” is ultimately not the DNC’s responsibility. They made all the information as available and widespread as it was possible to do.
Paid maternity leave, free healthcare, childcare credits, food stamps, stable employment, worker protections, etc are way more important to working poor voters.
All of which came from the Democrats. Not Jill Stein, not “nobody”, and sure as hell not the republiQan party. All of it is the party they should vote for. Working poor voters just shot themselves in the crotch because of outrageous ignorance and love of violent rhetoric. Hooray. Much messaging very win.
Well, okay, that’s not a policy proposal, but I see you’ve got the beginnings of . . . . party. . policy? Maybe?
Can you be a little more - y’know, government policy proposal-y? What you’d want the candidate to advocate for?
Or were you just saying people weren’t allowed to crap on the DNC before the election and now that it’s lost people aren’t being allowed to crap on the DNC because instead of being insufferable assholes with nothing of value to add, actually, colonialist imperialist genocider corporate whores are preventing them from changing the world for good?
Bruh if you wanna argue with yourself, go ahead and build the straw man already
The argument I’m making in reply to your “stop complaining” post (and that you seem to deliberately be ignoring) is that the DNC and/or establishment Democrats routinely silence internal dissent at any and all times. And that right now they still aren’t listening internally, and have demonstrated a commitment to gaslight voters that inflation isn’t real, and that voters shouldn’t be trusted/allowed to pick who they get to vote for.
Voters have told us in exit poll after exit poll, that their primary issues are economic uncertainty and cost of living, loss of faith in governance, and then immigration.
Okay, so let’s just take as a given that, yes, the Democratic candidates should have focused on the economy, immigration, abortion, and the state of democracy, with apparently 4% of foreign policy thrown in.
That is what you’re arguing they should have done, correct?
If so, what do you think they did NOT say about those issues. You can focus on Kamala if you prefer, or the entirety of all Democratic candidates if you want to assert that.
Correct, that’s my argument.
Economy/ Cost of living: Beyond pithy “I feel your pain” statements and a late-election focus on price gouging and new homebuyer credits, there was not much for the working poor.
For someone pinched by inflation and/or predatory corporate pricing, being told “more of the last four year’s policy is coming, sorry we have no money - except for Israel” is a huge turnoff.
State of Democracy: I think the DNC/establishment Dems massively misread this issue as purely J6/dictator Trump - because ignoring the massive democratic disengagement and apathy means they don’t have to address why voters are unenthusiastic about electoral participation at most levels, and instead “it’s all the MAGAs fault” without questioning why the MAGA movement exists beyond “they’re deplorable”. Trump’s vote total basically flatlined from 2020, two different assassination attempts barely moved polling, he isn’t an unknown figure and voters at large do not like him. What he is however, is a break from “more of the same” no matter how damaging or foolish that may be for the world/country. In no order, here’s what Dems should target/message on:
Well, I appreciate the studied reply, so thank you for that.
I just disagree. I thought she was policy-heavy including healthcare position papers and supporting FTC chair, and I disagree entirely that trump is a “change” for anything other than jumping face-first into the pit of hell, just like we did in 2017.
As for the bit about DNC being unfair by not running a primary; that’s not really done with a sitting President. Which was the case here when it was time to run primaries. We didn’t do that in 96, 2012, and if Dems ever get elected again, we probably won’t four years after that. That’s not dirty pool - in fact, if I’d spent my career in the BlahBlah party and been elected president, then for my re-election campaign they demanded I go through primaries again, I’d say fuck all the way off. That’s ridiculous.
I also think there’s a heavy element about perception of Harris’ campaign which had nothing to do with Harris or her campaign. I thought she was very centered on economics and made some good policy suggestions for those times the corporate news chose to repeat anything about policy. Corporate news was determined - again - to narrate a horse race, and the right-wing is entirely off on their own planet of propaganda shit now so they weren’t even going to try.
So TL;DR: disagree she had nothing about the economy for the poor or working class, but it wasn’t way out front either so I’d agree that it should have been. I also disagree that “state of Democracy” wasn’t a big focus, or that how she got to be the candidate was the result of trickery of some sort - that’s just the way it fell and I don’t think anyon could have planned it to look and run exactly like that.
Perception is (unfortunately) reality. While the campaign website and position papers were solid - especially contrasted with Trump’s “concept of a plan” nonsense, if you don’t effectively communicate how those plans are going to impact voters positively, it isn’t going to help you.
Biden did in fact win the primary in 2024 before he dropped out - as the incumbent he massively benefited from recognition and campaign staffing, but he still had to run. Had he kept to his “one term president” statement, there would have been an open primary instead of Harris’s ascension.
Corporate news and engagement driven profit motive has poisoned democracy for a long time, yellow journalism dates to the 1800s. A mad dash to make a network of “liberal Joe Rogan podcasts” will be effective for direct messaging. But if your messaging is still a defense neoliberalism and globalization, you are going to keep losing. To someone for whom having an extra $50 in their pocket is a big deal, the centrist-Dem message is not worth considering. Paid maternity leave, free healthcare, childcare credits, food stamps, stable employment, worker protections, etc are way more important to working poor voters.
Agreed on the Perception and Primary points.
Do you remember Air America? It was back when radio was a thing, but still. No, it doesn’t work. Because good liberal communication is be default boring - it’s full of facts and nuance and it lacks exclamation points and breaking news chyrons and the rest of modern right-wing propaganda. When it uses them - it doesn’t work.
I don’t even know what those things are. So . . . good news there, I guess.
That’s not true in several ways. We can review economics, we can review the platform policies, we can see how a Democratic position is the much more beneficial one to our $50 peeps, but if they don’t get jazzed by it and instead vote (or allow) the racist rapist to win - that’s totally on them. There is no further discussion at that point. “Know who you’re voting for and why” is ultimately not the DNC’s responsibility. They made all the information as available and widespread as it was possible to do.
All of which came from the Democrats. Not Jill Stein, not “nobody”, and sure as hell not the republiQan party. All of it is the party they should vote for. Working poor voters just shot themselves in the crotch because of outrageous ignorance and love of violent rhetoric. Hooray. Much messaging very win.