Hate is the strongest emotion. People are angry right now. To get them voting, tap into that. Show them how they are being screwed and give them an option to screw the people who are screwing them. Trump tapped into that, but he activated much more on the other side. A good ole class war, and the people taking back their government? I think the country is ready. That's why you can't trot out a centrist, "reasonable" candidate and expect to win.
You know something, maybe I do need to reassess what you guys are saying about the excitement factor and worry about the obstruction later. Enthusiasm is a huge component to winning. But, like I said in my above post to Blu, I’ve just got this bad feeling in my gut that if we try to push too radical of an agenda, we’ll go into ‘20 with a supercharged base but may end up alienating just enough people in the swing states to let Trump hold onto a slim EC victory while still losing the PV by 5+ million. And the consequences of that will haunt the progressive movement for a decade.
People looking for a reason to vote R will find it. D’s put up a centrist candidate and it didn’t work
I don't think they're reticent at all. Hell, most polls indicate the opposite. Republicans want people to think that they're reticent or put off because it's a hell of a lot easier to win with an idea (even if it's a shitty idea) if you can convince your opponent to have no ideas. And it's not just about "swing" voters -- it's about maximizing the voters you have on your side. A lot of the "hold your nose and vote Republican" types do that because they know what to expect. They have no idea what to expect from Democrats because Democrats are more concerned about tip-toeing around trying not to offend people that they don't make a positive impression. I liken it to picking up women at the bar. Democrats typically try so hard to be "respectful" and "polite" that they don't create any sort of attraction and are left in the friend zone. Republicans grab ass and make it clear that they want to get it in. While that might put off some, they'll get more people with their unapologetic pursuit of pussy than the "nice" guy gets by dancing around the subject. Either way, I completely disagree with your approach on this because you are playing their game by their rules out of fear instead of being confident enough in your position and your approach to just sell it. Voters notice that. Democrats have been trying to play the Republican game for decades and usually find themselves on the losing end. You're not going to out-Republican a Republican. AOC seems to get that. I'm guessing you don't like many of her policies, but you have to admit that her messaging has been very effective and that Republicans haven't been able to figure out how to deal with her. And that's not because she's young, attractive, whatever -- it's because she's rewriting the rules of the game instead of trying to fit into a communication method that's rigged against her. Doing things (or not doing things) out of fear is a great way to sabotage your end goal. Star Wars hit that shit on the head. Spoiler And I crossed out stuff in your quoted post that came off as you "talking down." You don't have to ask if I've noticed something as if I couldn't figure it out and don't get flowery in your descriptions to try to show off.
You can't get obstructed if you don't win. And it's hard to win if you don't give people a reason to give you victory. Either way, worrying about obstruction later is putting the cart way, way before the horse.
In 2018, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania all voted in a manner that says they've already seen the error of their ways. It might make sense to keep tapping into that to get the vote out in Flint and Milwaukee and the PA cities. In some congressional districts pragmatism might be the play, but in statewide, winner take all votes, enthusiasm is key to getting Dem voters to fight through the bullshit and vote. A moderate D who is just seen as more of the same doesn't stoke the fires. My two cents.
I probably messed up by not giving you guys a little of my background, which will hopefully help explain how my political cautiousness formed in the first place. In 06, I was fundraising on street corners in west LA in my royal blue DNC tshirt calling out to passerby’s, “Help Democrats take back Congress!” Even then I was amazed at how little politically active LA was relative to what was going on: corruption (Halliburton/Abramaoff), state-sporsored torture, wars, Patriot Act, etc. By a stroke of luck, I met one of Villaraigosa’s deputy mayors and he ended up taking me under his wing, which gave me an inside look at city hall. It was an amazing experience from the affair with the Telemundo reporter to the fight for the 600m RFK high school (at the site of the old Ambassador hotel) and so much in between. During my time I primarily acted as a liaison between his office and the local DNC fundraising office located in Century City, which was run by a tough as nails, 50-something woman who smoked a pack of Marlboros Reds a day. I was more idealistic then and for the most part believed that all we had to do was push progressive policies and we’d win every election. One day, when I was outside with her while she was on a smoking break, she said something that threw me back on me heels. “Yeah, those liberal policy ideas are great, Rothko. Just remember something, if we don’t do our job well those fuckers will lose and those ideas will remain just that; ideas, not law.” That kinda encapsulates where I’m coming from. I’m with you guys in spirit, but it’s just been drilled into my head that elections are won with money and personality more so than policy, which few voters take the time to research and understand. Again, I’d enthusiastically welcome a change to this.
That's an interesting perspective and I appreciate you taking the time. I'd say that personalities play a smaller role than they used to, unless you have a transcendent personality like Obama or Bill, or can deliver the lines like you do like Reagan. For most of them now, it's getting out the vote for the party. There are simply less voters in the middle who can be swayed by personality, so elections are more often about getting people psyched to vote for the party who will help them.
Personality is definitely important, but personality + ideas = bingo IMO. Not sure why it has to be one or the other. I would also argue that the norms of politics have shifted quite a bit in the decade plus since you were doing this work. My views on how to approach things aren't based on idealism -- I'm not idealistic in the least. It's based more on human psychology. You have to give people a reason to give a shit or they won't give a shit.
The party of business should be interested in a new era/revolution. First was the Industrial Revolution, followed by the Tech Revolution, and now the Eco Revolution. Soon there will be newly minted millionaires to lobby for tax breaks and oppressing wages. You would think Republicans would be lining up to cash in and exploit the next generation of workers, rather than trying to stave it off.
Here's another thing to consider. The people that help win elections by volunteering for you and will knock on doors phone bank etc. need to be inspired by you and your policies for them to do that for you. That type of energy only comes from the base. The ones that are undecided and are like "ehh I guess I'll vote for this person" are not going to do that. That's what building a movement is about. Look at the activists that went to Feinstein's office. People that have no opinion on the GND for example are not going to be hounding politicians like that.
even if you think its all money and personality i'm confused at the remarks about needing to be a moderate candidate or "scaring off voters with policy"
At some point leftists get tired of hearing "I agree with your policy proposals but now isn't the time"
At some point, real leftists get tired of the wealthy’s heads remaining attached to their shoulders. Wealth/income inequality is approaching the point where history suggests that could happen.
Did this get posted yet? Concern trolls are saying the Feinstein video is out of context and the entire video shows hey being a lot more reasonable. Then this gets released.
It’s a lot easier to convince the same stupid people things that they want to believe. When your mindset is keep things the same and protect my interests, it is very easy to create villains out of everyone who looks and acts different than you.
Tay, this kinda goes back to my 40/40/20 post about how only 20% of the electorate is ever really up for grabs. Even in landslides Reagan, FDR hit a 60% ceiling. I agree things have become more polarized so it’s a smaller portion of swing voters. But I still think personality weighs heavily on those people because they have to make a choice based on 30-sec ads and sound bites. Very few will take the time to research a policy, IMO. Blu, I’m not saying it has to be one or the other. I’m saying I’m worried what will happen if the Dem nominee emerges wounded from a tough primary where she/he has had to throw support behind every progressive idea that’s been floating around DC for the last few years. Then as they pivot to the general they’ll have to be a salesman for those ideas on the trail and in the debates. But like I said, I’m going to hold off judgement and give them a chance to articulate it in the upcoming debates. But, if it turns into a shitshow where moderators are clearly making the candidates look like morons because the policies are considered untenable, then I’m going to continue to believe a more moderate platform (No GND, M4A) would be a better strategy for this cycle.
I don’t think issues matter as much as personality when you are fighting Trump. Trump isn’t really a policy guy. The most authentic personality who can appeal to certain identity blocks and who can fight will win. In general, I think the moderate versus progressive debate in the party is not as big of a deal as people are making it out to be. The policy will sort itself out once we get someone elected. I think many of the moderates believe in progressive policy but they have concerns that they can’t pass the policy so they don’t want to appear irrational or extreme. I think we all want similar things. It’s just a matter of getting elected first, and then figuring out what can be done to move the bar in the right direction.
I don't know, I'm not watching this whole video. I'm comfortable in saying that I've opposed Feinstein well before this happened today, so I'm not about to feel sorry for her.
Put simply, I think a lot of the rural white-working class voters who will determine the winner will abandon Trump as long as they feel the Dem nominee has gone too far off the deep end, a perception that will be based not on informed opinions but by the “narratives” that take hold in the closing months. And yeah, I know you will say there’s not a shred of evidence to believe that’s the case.
Well and the larger point is every Dem candidate in the closing months will get buried with insane propaganda from the right wing media arm so neutering yourself to defend against that is doubly bad. Not to mention what won Trump '16 was most specifically the white exurban middle class and up groups that used to split evenly but I digress.
You keep saying neutering yourself, but all I’m talking about is not pledging to support a strict 10-year ban on gas powered cars/planes, or say you’re going to blow up insurance of 150m Americans (which most say they’re by and large okay with), or support the newest contentious issue gaining steam in the AA/ADOS community: reparations. We didn’t run on any of that in ‘18. Instead it was mostly a referendum on Trump and preserving the ACA, and we won with a broad coalition of moderates and progressives. Why is it so controversial to want to replicate that for ‘20?
Here's Bernie talking to kids about climate change 32 years ago dude's been on message supporting these policies for 4 decades
Can we just say those people are stupid as fuck and we ought to tell them whatever they want to hear so they'll turn out? We're talking about the type of people who thought Barack Obama was some kind of communist
White working-class voters? Oh no, that's Talking Head's music. That's a trope that I just don't think holds water anymore (and I'm not sure it ever did). Getting suburban voters (who are more practical than emotional as a whole) and increasing the multicultural urban vote more than dwarfs the rural white vote.