US Politics: Be Careful Out There

[DMC]

I think it's pretty silly to argue Republican messaging is so much better than Democratic messaging when the former has lost the popular vote in all but one presidential election over the last 30 years.  And they had to start two wars to win that one.

Edited May 8, 2023 by DMC
30, not 40, years

[Kalbear]

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think it's pretty silly to argue Republican messaging is so much better than Democratic messaging when the former has lost the popular vote in all but one presidential election over the last 30 years.  And they had to start two wars to win that one.

But WHAT ABOUT THE LIVED EXPERIENCE MAN

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

44 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

No, it really isn't. We haven't lost it; it never was true. 

We're all just numbers on a spreadsheet.

Quote

But it's not a simple message which is what you said. You're all over the place on this. 

How? It's just beating people over the head with a few simple messages.

Quote

And to be clear, Reagan was significantly better for the economy than Carter was and that made a big difference. And while Carter might have been smarter than Reagan Carter's team (and inability to not micromanage) was decidedly far stupider than Reagan's was. 

Was he? The data doesn't entirely agree. The economy wasn't good for the first few years under Reagan, GDP actually was lower at one point than Carter ever experienced, and a lot of that had to do with the same problems Carter also inherited. But one is always described as being terrible for the economy while the other was a hero, despite reality. The economy was all over the place under Reagan and he's primarily responsible for the wealth gap today, but hey, Fake Reagan sells really well.

Quote

But again, the problem is not that the message is not simple enough. If you want to say that Biden is a shitty messenger, that's fine! Say that! If you want to say that MSNBC isn't as good as Fox is for sending out propaganda that's fine too! But don't say that the message needs to be simpler. 

It needs to be simpler because more people, who btw are not college educated, often say they're confused by what Democrats are selling them. That means you need a better, and yes, easier thing to pitch them.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

28 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It needs to be simpler because more people, who btw are not college educated, often say they're confused by what Democrats are selling them. That means you need a better, and yes, easier thing to pitch them.

Agree on reaching non-college educated people. Not sure if that's a simpler thing or just a relatable framing thing, but it's generally a problem for Democrats (and a nuclear disaster for Tumblr-incubated activist gobbledigook, but that's a separate issue).

[Week]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

What a country, where everyone hates their two choices and then still allows them to be the two choices. We're so fucked in the long run.

Other than Clinton's first run and both of Obama's -- the choices typically are a douchebag or a turd sandwich.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Agree on reaching non-college educated people. Not sure if that's a simpler thing or just a relatable framing thing, but it's generally a problem for Democrats (and a nuclear disaster for Tumblr-incubated activist gobbledigook, but that's a separate issue).

I think it's mostly because their efforts have been halfhearted. In my experience  when canvassing very red areas as a Democrat most of the people that will talk with you say they've never really spoken to a liberal activist before. 

18 minutes ago, Week said:

Other than Clinton's first run and both of Obama's -- the choices typically are a douchebag or a turd sandwich.

With the benefit of hindsight you can kick Clinton off that list. 

[Week]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

With the benefit of hindsight you can kick Clinton off that list. 

That's why I only included his first run. His second caused my mom, a life-long >99% democrat, to vote for Dole. An unfortunate though understandable choice.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, Week said:

That's why I only included his first run. His second caused my mom, a life-long >99% democrat, to vote for Dole. An unfortunate though understandable choice.

You lack the understanding of the power of Bob Dole:

 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think it's mostly because their efforts have been halfhearted. 

That makes sense.

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

In my experience  

I'm open to both quantitative and qualitative takes on whatever's happening, including personal anecdotes. Both types of information can aid distortion when misused, but they can counterbalance one another to some extent. I think we need all the approaches possible to understand the problems before us in order to tackle them effectively.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Whoa, some of you have actually met voters who don't have a college degree?!?!

[Phylum of Alexandria]

44 minutes ago, Week said:

Other than Clinton's first run and both of Obama's -- the choices typically are a douchebag or a turd sandwich.

The choice for 2020 was a shit-covered stick of dynamite vs a turd sandwich. Not exactly appealing, but a clear difference in options.

[Week]

6 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

The choice for 2020 was a shit-covered stick of dynamite vs a turd sandwich. Not exactly appealing, but a clear difference in options.

That does not substantially differ from Reagan v Mondale, HW v Dukakis, Clinton v Dole, Bush v Gore, Trump v Hillary*, Trump v Biden. 

*Thank to misogynists and an out of touch candidate!

[Phylum of Alexandria]

Just now, Week said:

That does not substantially differ from Reagan v Mondale, HW v Dukakis, Clinton v Dole, Bush v Gore, Trump v Hillary*, Trump v Biden. 

*Thank to misogynists and an out of touch candidate!

Well, my point of clarification was with the "douchebag" part. A douchebag just seems like a shitty person, not a danger to the republic. 

I would argue that Trump was and is uniquely dangerous, but also concur with the notion of a historical ramping up of authoritarian craziness across Republican candidates.

[DMC]

In my experience^TM, the incessant hand-wringing about Dems' "messaging" predominately involves frustration concerning the institutional advantages the GOP enjoys and/or whining that if the Dems only listened to me they'd be a whole lot better off.  The first is decidedly irrelevant to "messaging," and the second is not very persuasive and almost always just ego.

I'd also hasten to add that just this past November the GOP vastly underperformed in a cycle wherein they had a number of huge environmental advantages.  There's a lot of reasons for that, but a significant part of that is precisely because of Dems' successful "messaging" on abortion rights and/or Trumpism.

The current issue seems to be the electorate is blaming Biden for what they think is a bad economy.  Well...that's just how it goes.  When the economy is bad - or the electorate thinks the economy is bad - they blame the sitting president.  There's not much of a more durable and bipartisan empirical finding in modern American political behavior than that.  Political science is hardly rocket science, and there is no secret code to crack.  

[Phylum of Alexandria]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

In my experience^TM, the incessant hand-wringing about Dems' "messaging" predominately involves frustration concerning the institutional advantages the GOP enjoys and/or whining that if the Dems only listened to me they'd be a whole lot better off.  The first is decidedly irrelevant to "messaging," and the second is not very persuasive and almost always just ego.

I'd also hasten to add that just this past November the GOP vastly underperformed in a cycle wherein they had a number of huge environmental advantages.  There's a lot of reasons for that, but a significant part of that is precisely because of Dems' successful "messaging" on abortion rights and/or Trumpism.

The current issue seems to be the electorate is blaming Biden for what they think is a bad economy.  Well...that's just how it goes.  When the economy is bad - or the electorate thinks the economy is bad - they blame the sitting president.  There's not much of a more durable and bipartisan empirical finding in modern American political behavior than that.  Political science is hardly rocket science, and there is no secret code to crack.

I agree with this. My critiques on messaging were more general. I do think Biden could be a lot more proactive in terms of setting expectations and framing issues, but even if he did so there are limits to the effects it would have, particularly if people are unhappy about the economy in their day-to-day lives.

Things did seem to shift recently, with Republicans really losing touch with the rest of the country, and people on the left staying reasonable and relatable. Hopefully that change is enduring. MAGA would probably become more dangerous on other fronts, but at least they would destroy their electability. 

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

 

Has anyone asked what it is exactly that they are thinking when offering these thoughts? And what exactly are they praying for? Clearly they don't seem to be thinking of practical ways to reduce the incidence of mass shootings, and whatever it is they are praying for is also not helping to reduce the incidence mass shootings. But they believe in the power of prayer, so they must believe that what they are praying for is being manifest in the world. I feel like they must be praying for higher gun sales or something.

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Whoa, some of you have actually met voters who don't have a college degree?!?!

I am surrounded by voters without college degrees. Many of them with Trump flags.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

I am surrounded by voters without college degrees. Many of them with Trump flags.

I, too, am surrounded by voters without college degrees.  The overwhelming majority of them wouldn't piss on Trump if he was on fire.  In other words, it's important to distinguish white voters without college degrees.  Or, frankly, for the most part just uneducated white angry men.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I, too, am surrounded by voters without college degrees.  The overwhelming majority of them wouldn't piss on Trump if he was on fire.  In other words, it's important to distinguish white voters without college degrees.  Or, frankly, for the most part just uneducated white angry men.

Florida man, you can't count the zombies. They're seeking brains after all though they too might seem a bit angry. 

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Florida man, you can't count the zombies. They're seeking brains after all though they too might seem a bit angry. 

.......Huh?