Democratic (Party) Direction

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
A thread for discussing the Democrats' "message"/framing/etc.

This is the most important-seeming article I've read yet.

g@bbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:33 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Golden Globes follies 2006 (239 new answers)
Show Me the Love for SNL's "Live Duluth" sketch (105 new answers)
Democratic (Party) Direction (Unanswered)
Celebrity Big Brother 2006 - Thread Two - We all stand together? (165 new answers)
the mongrels don't want to play like that, they just want to talk to the sheepfuxors (254 new answers)
UK Watercooler Conversation 5: TOmorrow Sometimes Knows (322 new answers)

,,, Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:58 (twelve years ago) Permalink

That party is fucking dead and it's never coming back in a way that will change anything much.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:59 (twelve years ago) Permalink

maybe your beloved whig party will change something

,,, Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:02 (twelve years ago) Permalink

maybe your beloved dick will change something

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:07 (twelve years ago) Permalink

it's a long article. i got three phone calls while i was reading it!

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:23 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Pretty interesting stuff in that article -- I feel like I need to read it again to really digest all of it. The value shift it describes sort of reminds me of South Park -- the whole nihilistic individualistic thing -- is that what "South Park Conservatives" is about?

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:27 (twelve years ago) Permalink

and yeah, a lot of it is pretty otm, but i fear for what america will be like if BOTH parties are simultaneously doing the "moral yardstick" shtick. yes it's apparent that americans want to hear about christianity and family values, but if the dems start playing that card in earnest, hoo boy.

i'm also not convinced about some of those salary numbers -- how is he defining "household"? and is he giving salaries in cities like new york and san francisco equal weight to ones in poor rural regions? how does income tax figure in? it's kinda vague.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:32 (twelve years ago) Permalink

For a while I've had the idea that the Democratic Party could improve its future by putting more money and resources into local party organizations, campus recruiting, things that give people real human connections to the party. People are much more likely to listen to their neighbor than some internet ad.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:36 (twelve years ago) Permalink

xpost

Yeah, I'm not sure about the salary numbers either -- plenty of households still struggle on an income of $60,000 a year. The article gets it right that those people don't receive any government assistance, but that's just where the problem lies -- they end up too well off to get assistance but still unable to afford their debt and medical bills.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:37 (twelve years ago) Permalink

2ndxpost

or hollywood actor

josh w (jbweb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:37 (twelve years ago) Permalink

thanks for the link, reading now. glad to see there's a direction not chosen by Lakoff, I think he has no clue.

dar1a g (daria g), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:38 (twelve years ago) Permalink

The real problems with the Dems over-focus on economic policy are that 1) Policy is not very exciting to talk about and hard to understand, and 2) No one actually believes the Dems when they say they'll "create jobs."

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:38 (twelve years ago) Permalink

2x post back to Josh: OTM

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:39 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I'm not sure about the salary numbers either -- plenty of households still struggle on an income of $60,000 a year.

the article suggested that the dividing line between affluent and poor was $50K per household, but for a married couple where both spouses work that only comes out to $25K per person, which isn't much once you figure in the high cost of living in america. plus, the article doesn't say who in these salary ranges pay for their own insurance and retirement funds.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:43 (twelve years ago) Permalink

2) No one actually believes the Dems when they say they'll "create jobs."

read: "we won't send your existing jobs to india."

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:45 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Right, but won't they?

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:47 (twelve years ago) Permalink

it remains to be seen. let's get some dems in office and we'll find out.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:48 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Well, by not "send your existing jobs to India," I assume you mean "pass some kind of law to prevent companies from doing that." I'd be very surprised if that actually happened under Democrats.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:50 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I assume you mean "pass some kind of law to prevent companies from doing that."

it could happen, provided the elected politicians don't have any vested corporate interests. and monkeys might fly etc.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:52 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I wonder how much of this affluence tipping point is skewed due to debtwarp. Take away the credit cards and there are a lot less Republicans, maybe?

Polysix Bad Battery (cprek), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:53 (twelve years ago) Permalink

provided the elected politicians don't have any vested corporate interests

hahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hohohohoHOHOHOHOHOHOOH
heheheheheHEHEHEHEEEHEHEEEHEEHAHAHAHAHAHASNORTSNORTSNORT!

sorry

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:54 (twelve years ago) Permalink

OK, this is really depressing! not re: Democrats, but the direction of the country as a whole.

dar1a g (daria g), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:54 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Yeah, it is. I already had this vague fear that Americans were becoming these kind of paranoid, fat, lonely, nihilistic internet addicts who didn't talk to their neighbors.

Er wait, am I talking about Americans, or ILXors?

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:57 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I wonder how much of this affluence tipping point is skewed due to debtwarp. Take away the credit cards and there are a lot less Republicans, maybe?

it is funny how many "affluent" "property owners" are up to their necks in mortgages and high-interest loans. it's like that commercial where the rich white suburban lawnmower dude says "i'm in debt up to my eyeballs!"

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:58 (twelve years ago) Permalink

The most important part of the article is where they reveal that by telling people that you're espousing Christian values because you're actually a Christian, they decide they agree with you, even if they they claim Christian faith as well but are only down with the first half of the Bible.

In the vast swaths of country between the megapolises there are people raising families of 5 on $57,000 a year and doing it relatively painlessly. And yeah, economic issues don't mean a goddamned thing to them.

TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:00 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Plenty of families of five with $57,000 a year would still like a better health insurance system, you just can't win an election on that alone.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:03 (twelve years ago) Permalink

hey, gabbneb, thanks for posting that article. it takes some time to think about....

patrick bateman (mickeygraft), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:04 (twelve years ago) Permalink

"the American Environics team argued that the way to move voters on progressive issues is to sometimes set aside policies in favor of values"

Wow, what an incredible insight. Very novel!

"Environics found social values moving away from the authority end of the scale, with its emphasis on responsibility, duty, and tradition, to a more atomized, rage-filled outlook that values consumption, sexual permissiveness, and xenophobia. The trend was toward values in the individuality quadrant."

I've long thought that if the Democratic party would focus their message on individualism (and the resulting freedom it implies) that they might get somewhere.

Today’s average American “worker” is, in short, very much on his or her own -- too prosperous to be eligible for most government assistance programs and, because of job laws that date back three quarters of a century, unable to unionize. Such isolation and atomization have not led to a new wave of social solidarity and economic populism, however. Instead, these changes have bred resentment toward those who do have outside aid, whether from government or from unions, and an escalating ethos of every man for himself. Against that ethos, voters have increasingly flocked to politicians who recognize that the combination of relative affluence and relative isolation has created an opening for cultural appeals.

"Every man for himself" has been an American credo for hundreds of years. It's the essence of competition, of capitalism, of industry. There's a bridge somewhere between individualism and community--is the Democratic party forcing people over a bridge or seeking one?

American voters have taken shelter under the various wings of conservative traditionalism because there has been no one on the Democratic side in recent years to defend traditional, sensible middle-class values against the onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows.

Maybe they're taking shelter because they don't think it's an economy that's pitting man against man, it's shelter from the resulting culture war. What are "traditional, sensible middle-class values" anyway? The only hint we get from this article is that candidates should talk about religion and that will mitigate their stance on the death penalty (in Virginia.)

I am happy to see the wasteland that is the Democratic Party looking inward. The Republicans wouldn't dare stare into their own dark abyss.

don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:35 (twelve years ago) Permalink

It's amazing to me that people still think that Republicans are better at creating jobs. We've had a Republican president and congress for the past 5 years, and what have we got? A "jobless recovery". The brilliant Republican plan for creating jobs is to give more money back to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts. They are still trying to sell the country on a supply-side economics platform. Look at Gov. Pataki's new budget in NY that came out this week. 24% of the tax cuts going to those who make over $200K per year. His rationale: it will create jobs and boost the economy. I think people need to start to question if that strategy really helps to create the kind of jobs this country needs. The one thing that we can be sure it does is make the rich even richer. I mean maybe if you're a BMW dealer or you sell Piaget watches, then these tax cuts are good for your business, but the average middle class type of jobs are probably not getting much of a boost.

As for the "average American household" that makes $60K a year, it would have been more informative to see the median income, because the average is skewed upwards by those at the top of the scale - ie., less than 50% of Americans make the "average" income.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:37 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Campus recruiting is definitely needed. I went to Rutgers, nicknamed "Kremlin on the Raritan" by some for its supposedly left-leanings, yet the Dems had almost no visibility on campus. Granted I went to school during the Nader years, when being a Democrat seemed like the lamest possible option. But the Dems need to pull talent at that level -- that's where Republicans end up with people like Rove.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:44 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Hmm, maybe "almost no visibility" is an exaggeration.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:45 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Re: Lakoff, despite the writer's early dismissal of him, I don't think the article suggests anything significantly different that what he's been talking about for years.

Lakoff's extensively written about the need for Democratic candidates and progressives in general to start explicitly talking about values. Also, for campaigns to work at creating more of an overall narrative for a candidate than just a laundry list of policies. It's only his work on the framing aspect that's received attention lately, not so much his work on defining the values systems that right/left folks tend to hold(e.g. "maintaining authority" vs "care & responsibility").

He's offered up Schwarzneggar's campaign as an example of a guy who ran entirely on narrative & perceived identity, and expressively refused to offer up any policy suggestions. Most folks don't have the time/energy/inclination to get into policy specifics, but if they trust your guy, they're trust him to take care of the details.

As he says,

"The pollsters didn’t understand it because they thought that people voted on the issues and on self-interest. Well, sometimes they do. But mostly they vote on their identity -- on persons that they trust to be like them, or to be like people they admire"

which connects to that aspirational bit that the article mentions.

Jim Wallis has talked about several of these same issues over the last year as well, especially with on the whole "onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows" bit.

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:52 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Also, re: the poorer folks freaking out more about culture, I don't see the article acknowledging that it was a deliberate multi-year campaign on the part of conservertive politicos to get folks so het up about cultural issues that they didn't worry so much about the economics. It's a causal thing similar to Ethan's thread yesterday about outrage used for political gain.

Wallis has written about conversations his group has had with Frank Luntz and some other Repub pollsters who were quite open about their m.o. being to get voters so caught in such intense issues that they vote against their economic interest.

As other folks have pointed out, the Republicans have been better that bring the polls to them(gay marriage is the biggest thing you care about) vs the Democrats moving to where the polls now seem to be(well i guess we need to move rightward on gay marriage).

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:53 (twelve years ago) Permalink

interesting stuff. i don't really believe a lot of it, but i believe it's what people say, which still makes it significant. (i.e. a lot of people allegedly alarmed by the culture are also watching "desperate housewives" and "E!") it's not so much that the moral center is disgusted by the out-of-control culture, it's that a lot of people feel guilty about the very things in the culture that they participate in. massive moral cognitive dissonance, which the republicans exploit by convincing people that it's all someone else's fault (hollywood liberals, big-city elitists, gays gays gays). i'm not sure how the democrats can effectively tap into the same thing, and i sort of hate the idea that they need to, but maybe they don't have a choice.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:01 (twelve years ago) Permalink

It's amazing to me that people still think that Republicans are better at creating jobs.

That's the thing, innit? If you build up an entire apparatus to both promote & reinforce certain narratives, people will believe them even if they have no basis in fact. George W. Bush is steadfast & strong, Kerry's a weak-willed flip-flopper, Republicans are all about a smaller government, supply-side economics works, etc

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:06 (twelve years ago) Permalink

massive moral cognitive dissonance

oh fuck yeah this is a major bit of it, too. But since when did we start promoting self-reflection and critical thought?

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:07 (twelve years ago) Permalink

hard to promote self-reflection and critical thought when you're fighting hand to hand and desperate for power.

don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:39 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Well, is John Edwards' "Robert Kennedyization" for real? Making corporate / lobbyist theft vs. poverty / economic struggle a moral issur for Church People hasn't worked so far.

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:47 (twelve years ago) Permalink

very true. and I think that the number of folks who have to struggle is increasing.

xpost

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:49 (twelve years ago) Permalink

The Democrats are fucked - a weak, demoralized, decentralized party with no unifying political will, no narrative, and no reliable bases of power. The only thing keeping them around is the fact that the two-party system is so heavily institutionalized and entrenched. They're coasting on past glories and slowly squandering away all of their political resources so that they can become the eternally emasculated "opposition" party.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:54 (twelve years ago) Permalink

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

Please God, take Hilary quietly so she won't fuck up the party with a presidential campaign. WORST POSSIBLE CANDIDATE EVER.

elmo, patron saint of nausea (allocryptic), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:54 (twelve years ago) Permalink

i think something that's still missing from a lot of this is an understanding that the current republican base was built from the ground up. it wasn't just a matter of coming up with the right code words or whatever, it was a long and systematic takeover of the party by various interest groups with overlapping or at least complementary agendas. the democrats at the moment seem disconnected from whatever constitutes their base, and even suspicious of it. it seems very top-down.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:55 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Well, is John Edwards' "Robert Kennedyization" for real? Making corporate / lobbyist theft vs. poverty / economic struggle a moral issur for Church People hasn't worked so far.

Huh? He's only been going this stuff in the press for about two years. Second, there are plenty of other folks who have made the connection, but have gotten shit for coverage(not fitting in with "religious = rightwing conservative" media narrative?), even when they got arrested for it on the Capitol steps.


For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

DLC-candidate-in-centrist-message shocker

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:56 (twelve years ago) Permalink

i think something that's still missing from a lot of this is an understanding that the current republican base was built from the ground up. it wasn't just a matter of coming up with the right code words or whatever, it was a long and systematic takeover of the party by various interest groups with overlapping or at least complementary agendas.

very much otm. The change will come from the outside.

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:58 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I think values do matter to a lot of voters, and I agree that Democrats are going to keep losing national elections until they figure out how to participate in the values conversation. This doesn't necessarily mean they have to move to the right on cultural issues - I think it does mean they need to convince voters that they are people with integrity and mainstream values. Monica-gate did a lot of damage. People like to savor the voyeuristic souffles cooked up in Hollywood, but they won't buy Hollywood people preaching to them about values. I think the Dems need to take an antagonistic stance towards some of the amoral trends in our society. Evincing a sense of decency and morality is not the same thing as being conservative - but as long as the voters think it is, the Dems are going to have a hard time winning elections.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:00 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Clinton is the worst. I'd stay home before I'd vote for her. Jonathan Tasini, who is pretty great on a lot of issues, and is a pretty good speaker as well, is running against her in the primaries. I really hope he has an impact.

Re the direction of the party, past actions indicate the party will be quicker to line up behind someone with Clinton's politics as opposed to Tasini's. I'm not too hopeful when it comes to the future of the Dems.

TRG (TRG), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:02 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I think values do matter to a lot of voters, and I agree that Democrats are going to keep losing national elections until they figure out how to participate in the values conversation. This doesn't necessarily mean they have to move to the right on cultural issues - I think it does mean they need to convince voters that they are people with integrity and mainstream values. Monica-gate did a lot of damage. People like to savor the voyeuristic souffles cooked up in Hollywood, but they won't buy Hollywood people preaching to them about values. I think the Dems need to take an antagonistic stance towards some of the amoral trends in our society. Evincing a sense of decency and morality is not the same thing as being conservative - but as long as the voters think it is, the Dems are going to have a hard time winning elections

do you think it's necessary for dems to use the religious right's language ("morals" and "values")? would a less-loaded word like "ethics" skew too liberal?

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:03 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I think values do matter to a lot of voters

my question is, when do they not? unless a voter has completely descended into some cynical nihilism, of course.

i mean, yeah, "values" has come to signify a very specific set of values, which just goes to further show that democratic types do need to start talking about theirs.

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:05 (twelve years ago) Permalink

haha "what's the difference between morals, and ethics..."

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:06 (twelve years ago) Permalink

pretty booming thread here

We need to talk about the future of the Democratic Party.

We are at a crisis point in our country.

If we continue to vote for the same leadership & tactics that lost us 1,000 seats, the House, the Senate, AND the Presidency, we will continue to be a nation in decline.

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Ocasio2018) June 22, 2018

frogbs, Friday, 22 June 2018 17:45 (two days ago) Permalink

Gonna keep my fingers crossed for her all damn day tomorrow.

Simon H., Friday, 22 June 2018 17:46 (two days ago) Permalink

the problem with discussing democratic party direction is that every democrat in the country, me included, thinks "my politics are something tons of people would enthusiastically get behind if only the party structure could see it"

Guayaquil (eephus!), Friday, 22 June 2018 18:05 (two days ago) Permalink

if only there were some sort of scientific way to find out what people's opinions on policy actually are. But that just sounds too futuristic.

Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Friday, 22 June 2018 18:07 (two days ago) Permalink

Oh I guess the Ocasio/Crowley race isn't till Tuesday, I forgot that y'all always do this on Tuesdays lol

Simon H., Friday, 22 June 2018 18:16 (two days ago) Permalink

afaics, the dependability of opinion polling has been dropping for about a decade. I know I've been refusing to answer any sort of polling for longer than that, because it is generally impossible to know who is behind the poll or what use the information will be put to. if it were structured more as a full-scale plebiscite, with foreseeable consequences, I'd be more amenable, but for all I know, I'd just be helping the Kochs figure out how to sell the public the idea that climate change is caused by volcanoes, not people, so I hang up 100% of the time.

A is for (Aimless), Friday, 22 June 2018 18:18 (two days ago) Permalink

Oh I guess the Ocasio/Crowley race isn't till Tuesday, I forgot that y'all always do this on Tuesdays lol

― Simon H., Friday, June 22, 2018 6:16 PM (thirty-three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

as if our dumb asses would have an election on the weekend

officer sonny bonds, lytton pd (mayor jingleberries), Friday, 22 June 2018 18:52 (two days ago) Permalink

if only there were some sort of scientific way to find out what people's opinions on policy actually are.

I mean I get this but I look at those polls and if I'm honest with myself I don't think I know what makes a Dem candidate more or less likely to win. I have lots of intuitions but none of them really have any basis.

Guayaquil (eephus!), Friday, 22 June 2018 21:14 (two days ago) Permalink

Medicare for all and l3gal w33d and $15/hour are winners I think there’s a lot of evidence of this building up.

valorous wokelord (silby), Friday, 22 June 2018 21:15 (two days ago) Permalink

re that Ocasio twitter thread, it's depressing how often you see people making the argument "We can't afford this infighting now! Trump is president!" It's one of the safest blue districts in the country. FWIW I've even seen that argument in primaries where the GOP isn't fielding a candidate in the general.

Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Friday, 22 June 2018 21:17 (two days ago) Permalink

x-post: Where is that evidence? Centrists have done quite well the last year and a half.

Also, yeah, Ocasio-Cortez is exactly right about targeting that kind of districts.

Frederik B, Friday, 22 June 2018 21:21 (two days ago) Permalink

Data for Progress has offered plenty of evidence. I'm not sure the success of moderate/centrist candidates is necessarily a sign that those policies aren't popular - plenty of left candidates have done well, too. Basically it seems to be a good time to not be a republican, for some mysterious reason.

Simon H., Friday, 22 June 2018 22:53 (two days ago) Permalink

centrists have done well because the anti-trump sentiment is so strong. the question is whether this is a good time to push further. the usual suspects will take their usual positions, we will have the same arguments we have had since forever, and we will do all this again in 10 years. politics is dumb

k3vin k., Friday, 22 June 2018 23:22 (two days ago) Permalink

x-post: A lot of that evidence seems cherry picked, though. At least 65% of California voters support Medicare 4 All, yet Dianne Feinstein is opposed and still seems to be cruising through primaries.

Frederik B, Friday, 22 June 2018 23:26 (two days ago) Permalink

That is not in itself sufficient evidence that people prefer centrist policies. Californians could elucidate more but it seems to me like Feinstein simply has too firm a grip/is twoo well-connected to be dislodged. (Possibly the same deal as Cuomo.)

Simon H., Friday, 22 June 2018 23:35 (two days ago) Permalink

Machine bosses like Feinstein and Cuomo are not going to be the first to go, no.

valorous wokelord (silby), Friday, 22 June 2018 23:37 (two days ago) Permalink

I'm not arguing it's unpopular - it should not be, it's great - I just can't see any evidence that it's 'a winner'. So far it doesn't seem to have won anything.

Frederik B, Friday, 22 June 2018 23:46 (two days ago) Permalink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi6v4CYNSIQ

Fake "Gimme Shelter" score aside, this is a fantastic political ad that could work particularly well in a red state like Texas.

Johnny Fever, Saturday, 23 June 2018 14:22 (yesterday) Permalink

it's good. i saw that cook report has this district as "likely r" so itll be a longshot, but the important thing is a lot of vets from iraq and afghanistan are running as dems bc they know the gop is bad

21st savagery fox (m bison), Saturday, 23 June 2018 14:26 (yesterday) Permalink

Very slick, but even after 3.5 minutes of ad I have no idea what she stands for beyond women guards

Simon H., Saturday, 23 June 2018 18:08 (yesterday) Permalink

Well “I got involved because women couldn’t get hired in my field and I found out first have that my tea party incumbent will literally only meet with his personal donors” probably shouldn’t be hand waived away by that meme you like but also her website should maybe include a policy position or two.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Saturday, 23 June 2018 20:02 (yesterday) Permalink

*first hand

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Saturday, 23 June 2018 20:03 (yesterday) Permalink

Protect Families
Families come in all shapes and sizes, with people of all walks of life making wonderful, loving parents. Quality, affordable health care should be a basic right for every family, as should stronger parental leave for both moms and dads. A living minimum wage, job training opportunities, wage equity and supporting our educational system can be achieved without sacrificing small businesses.

I mean it's seems pretty clear at this point.

Van Horn Street, Saturday, 23 June 2018 21:07 (yesterday) Permalink

I'm not trying to hand-wave anything, just that it's a long ad that puts biography above all else. Which, maybe that'll work!

Simon H., Saturday, 23 June 2018 22:08 (yesterday) Permalink

That said, "affordable" health care isn't at all a clear or bold position

Simon H., Saturday, 23 June 2018 22:09 (yesterday) Permalink

Agreed it isn’t clear, but does it need to be bold ?

Van Horn Street, Saturday, 23 June 2018 22:58 (yesterday) Permalink

Personally I like it if you go to the candidate’s website and there is a distinct page/area for the policy positions
and not hidden/interspersed within the home page body.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Saturday, 23 June 2018 23:44 (yesterday) Permalink

does it need to be bold?

For me, the Democrats have played to the mushy middle so long and with such mushy results that reaching for "bold" seems like a smart gamble to me atm. It must be carefully framed, but most of all it must be simple, direct, and unmistakable.

"Medicare for all" seems like the simplest, most direct and least radical-sounding frame for the issue. It soothes current Medicare recipients by not threatening their care, references a popular current program most people already know about and accept as worthwhile, and seems like a relatively simple step to take to expand it. The explanation of how to pay for it should be equally simple, direct and popular. A financial transaction tax of a couple of cents per transaction seems best to me and most likely to gain popular momentum.

The party needs to agree to hammer this message home in every national race. Then no one candidate will be out on a limb alone and the chances are better that people would take it seriously as something they get to vote on and then make happen.

A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 24 June 2018 00:17 (eight hours ago) Permalink

I hadn't realized two things: 1. how bold something as simple as 'medicare for all' is in the us political landscape, and 2. how different the ideas of 'affordable health care' and 'medicare for all'. So I thought she meant medicare for all and I thought it was pretty run of the mill. So yeah agreed 100% Aimless.

Van Horn Street, Sunday, 24 June 2018 00:26 (eight hours ago) Permalink

yeah - "affordable" is mushy enough that it can basically be the Republican promise too - "increased competition for drug prices will make health care affordable" or whatever. see also "affordable housing" which can mean quite a range of approaches, outcomes, and beneficiaries.

noel gallaghah's high flying burbbhrbhbbhbburbbb (Doctor Casino), Sunday, 24 June 2018 01:27 (seven hours ago) Permalink

the other fave mushy term is "access"

Simon H., Sunday, 24 June 2018 01:48 (seven hours ago) Permalink

In light of the trend of female veteran democratic candidates I have a slogan--

Democrats 2018: Empowered to Kill

Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Sunday, 24 June 2018 01:58 (six hours ago) Permalink

It’d be really nice if we had the think tanks creating policy recommendations that candidates could cite. There are some, but they’re too few and not strong enough yet.

It’s a bigger deal for state legislature races, but saying “here is what I propose and the bill looks like this” with a link to the bullet points of a bill, including what policies it’d affect/modify seems like it’d be bold! Especially if the goal is to introduce a bill or push the party to introduce a bill your first day in office.

This seems too cut and dried, but there’s a stack of legislation that’s nearly identical across many states that has been pushed by Koch-funded groups and their cut-outs get this shit rammed through

mh, Sunday, 24 June 2018 02:02 (six hours ago) Permalink

Hegar's ad is decent. I feel like anyone saying it's "great" is probably assuming that the military appeal has the potential to win over a lot of republican-leaning voters. That assumption is incorrect and has been proven incorrect over and over for decades, but democratic consultants will not give up on it.

Her platform sounds very Clinton-esque, but she seems like a nice, likeable and down-to-earth person and that always helps. Based on turnout in the GOP vs Dem primary I'd say she's a longshot, as would be any dem even in this wave year.

Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Sunday, 24 June 2018 02:07 (six hours ago) Permalink

Like really the swiftboating of John Kerry while he was running against a draft dodger should have been the nail in the coffin, but they just doubled down on it. Remember when everyone thought Trump was finally DONE because he "insulted a gold star family?" Sorry guys, "respect the troops" doesn't actually mean what it says, it means "we don't like insubordinate black people and queer freaks."

Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Sunday, 24 June 2018 02:27 (six hours ago) Permalink

Yup. Repubs own the troop respecter vote, regardless of who you run.

Simon H., Sunday, 24 June 2018 02:45 (six hours ago) Permalink

It's not a perfect analogy but it reminds me of Republicans who think they can peel off lots of latino votes by running a Cuban candidate from an exiled resort millionaire family.

Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Sunday, 24 June 2018 02:49 (six hours ago) Permalink

I still want Tammy Duckworth tho

valorous wokelord (silby), Sunday, 24 June 2018 02:57 (five hours ago) Permalink

Pretty much, man alive.

Who among you is willing to see the glorious blinding sun against the backdrop of a blood-drenched sky?

Heart pounding. Adrenaline taken beyond the max limits.

What I see is something else. Do you guys really not follow everything closely, and remember it? Even as it disappears within hours... I can't blame you if you don't catch it fast enough.

We were all born in interesting times. Way beyond this shit. Guess that's fun, right? There's strange fucking shit going on, no different than the history we love to study.

Who said history stopped? They were idiots!

funzone76, Sunday, 24 June 2018 03:08 (five hours ago) Permalink

what

noel gallaghah's high flying burbbhrbhbbhbburbbb (Doctor Casino), Sunday, 24 June 2018 03:12 (five hours ago) Permalink

What, you think we were spared the "interesting times" of history? Make the most of it, man.

funzone76, Sunday, 24 June 2018 03:18 (five hours ago) Permalink

Who said history stopped? They were idiots!

It was some prof in his mid-thirties who instantly became the darling of the Republicans during the first Bush administration. His name mercifully escapes me.

A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 24 June 2018 03:22 (five hours ago) Permalink

I'm just having a little fun here. But really, things feel fucking weird as shit right now, way beyond this stuff...

funzone76, Sunday, 24 June 2018 03:37 (five hours ago) Permalink

be more coherent please

A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 24 June 2018 03:39 (five hours ago) Permalink

The answer is, too much beer, and too much time on Twitter. I just like throwing joy and adventure to the air, the world's miserable enough, friend.

funzone76, Sunday, 24 June 2018 03:47 (five hours ago) Permalink

People take shit way too seriously.

funzone76, Sunday, 24 June 2018 03:48 (five hours ago) Permalink

there's a whole world out there just begging for you to impose some fun on it. why us?

A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 24 June 2018 04:00 (four hours ago) Permalink

No idea. That's the fun of the world, eh? Dunno what the fuck's going on, that's why I'm peacin' out of politics!

funzone76, Sunday, 24 June 2018 04:16 (four hours ago) Permalink

Too muuch Twitter is the answer here. Yeesh! Curiosity killed the cat.

funzone76, Sunday, 24 June 2018 04:28 (four hours ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.