Fartacus wrote: View Post
The narrative should have been really simple. It should have been basically these things:
(1) No one should go broke or die just because they got sick.
(2) You're gonna get healthcare.
(3) The GOP doesn't care if poor people die so long as their buddies get rich
(4) Why would you trust your healthcare to a corporation that would rather see you die than receive expensive care?
(5) We're a country that stands together, and we need to look out for each other, and care for the less fortunate.
But especially number 1.
This is sweet and all. But you tried it, and still got killed over it. Plus people don't really agree with that. If you want to win, the other guy has to lose. Treat this like a mugging, get in their and hit them as hard as you possibly can, even on their strength. And then kick while they are down. You need to hurt them.
Here is what should have been done.
Obama get's on TV and says he's been praying and looking for answers to our economy. As a result, he's introducing the "strengthen America for future" initiative, so we can be even more kick ass than we are. Mention he was praying again, and have a fucking neon lapel pin, be playing some patriotic junk in the background as well.
As part of that plan hit on healthcare. As making business strong, helping us compete, and that extra cash can go into your paycheck since the company isn't taking it. Mention that this is pretty much a tax cut for business. Then drop that some people have been working to make this country weak so they can ship jobs overseas, claim this is stopping those people. Then quote a shit ton of bible crap about helping the week, and also say this is something he must do because of Jesus, and this is a Jesus guided decision. Then mention the "life, liberty, freedom" junk from the declaration of independence, but claim it's in the constitution, nobody will know the difference. So say due to life this is a constitutional requirement as well.
Then, when anybody dares mention crap about it. Say they haven't really read the bible and don't love Jesus, claim they don't think the consitution is perfect so they aren't a good American, and when they retort keep asking them why they want to make America weaker, and go on some random tirade about how great this place is and how "strengthening America" act is going to make us even more kick ass.
And if a journalist quotes what someone else said that is a legit counter, lead in with "well, as a good christian and true believer in the wisdom of the founding fathers" and then go on to say why this bill is needed for that.
Don't appeal to the nicer sides of people. The goal shouldn't be passing healthcare, the goal should be using the bill to attack the other side at each given chance. If it passes, bonus!
I think quite a lot of people are bothered by someone saying that a wife must submit to her husband. Not mad necessarily, but unsettled a bit.
Absolutely, and it's great that Grayson is appealing to those people, but it's hard to ignore that this appeal comes at the cost of attacking the views of those who believe that to be a divine mandate. Taliban Dan, sadly, ain't the only one.
I'm having trouble seeing how it's so terribly unfair to quote a guy saying "she should submit to me" when he clearly believes that. So fucking what if it was in the context of describing what someone shouldn't put in a prayer journal; clearly he does believe it, as it's enshrined in his holy text and he makes reference to the wife praying to that particular segment, he just didn't think it was appropriate for the husband to select that particular quote for a prayer journal.
The whole "Taliban Dan" thing strikes me as pretty insane though. I mean, like it or not America is a predominantly-Christian nation and that just seems like a pretty transparent attack against Christianity as much as this particular politician. That seems like the last thing that the party getting creamed by "God and Guns" voters should be doing.
How is it an attack on Christianity? He's linking this guys way of thinking to the Taliban (who, fyi, aren't Christian).
And, regardless of the edits or the like, Grayson is right. His opponent supports oppressive social conditions for women.
...
......
I am... aware that the Taliban aren't Christian. But the passage regarding women submitting to their husbands is right out of the KJV. It's easy to miss if you've grown up around in-name-only Christians who take pains to ignore the fact, but Christianity is a patriarchal religion. That's why the "Taliban Dan" attack works, because Dan is unabashedly pro-patriarchy. The problem with it is that I suspect that a pretty significant quotient of the voting population is also unabashedly pro-patriarchy. Yes, even the ones who might conceivably vote democrat.
To the point of thinking that the line of think that goes "A wife should submit to her husband" is a-ok?
It's in the Bible. Do you think fundamentalist Protestants are universally Republican voters? I mean, it's close, but the numbers are more like 80-90% IIRC.
EDIT: for that matter, fundies are hardly the only people who take that line seriously. There are plenty of "moderate" Christians whose moderation goes far enough to maybe accept that gays are people and abortion isn't murder (but still wrong) but who still have the patriarchal values going.
EDIT: Seriously, aside from the fact that your post was full of shit, the point related to the thread is that the tactic you employed is common on the right and that hearing people bitch about Grayson's ad is bullshit when you take that into account.
Whether I agree with you on this is immaterial. Assume you are right, and Republican party is masterful at spreading lies and doing all these bad, horrible, no-good things.
That doesn't change the fact that the Democrats are horribly incompetent at framing their arguments in a way that are even remotely appealing to a large amount of people outside their base. The fervor that erupts around here about fundies, Beck, taxation, EEO, you name it, is your problem. This thread is its own example of the piss-poor framing of arguments. Rail on about how the right does the same, that's beside the point, irrespective of whether you are correct in your assertion.
Well yeah, we know that our side has shitty message creators. Honestly, if AA is your best example of poor framing, I think you're doing it wrong. It's an issue that we'll always fight uphill on because people like you refuse to accept reality because doing so reveals ugly truths about your life and American society in general. I mean, since you seem to think you know good messaging from bad messaging, please enlighten us as to how we ought to be better framing AA (in the AA thread, of course). Aside from AA, what else have we been saying in here that indicates that we suck at framing the message?
Fartacus wrote: View Post
The narrative should have been really simple. It should have been basically these things:
(1) No one should go broke or die just because they got sick.
(2) You're gonna get healthcare.
(3) The GOP doesn't care if poor people die so long as their buddies get rich
(4) Why would you trust your healthcare to a corporation that would rather see you die than receive expensive care?
(5) We're a country that stands together, and we need to look out for each other, and care for the less fortunate.
But especially number 1.
This is sweet and all. But you tried it, and still got killed over it. Plus people don't really agree with that. If you want to win, the other guy has to lose. Treat this like a mugging, get in their and hit them as hard as you possibly can, even on their strength. And then kick while they are down. You need to hurt them.
Here is what should have been done.
Obama get's on TV and says he's been praying and looking for answers to our economy. As a result, he's introducing the "strengthen America for future" initiative, so we can be even more kick ass than we are. Mention he was praying again, and have a fucking neon lapel pin, be playing some patriotic junk in the background as well.
As part of that plan hit on healthcare. As making business strong, helping us compete, and that extra cash can go into your paycheck since the company isn't taking it. Mention that this is pretty much a tax cut for business. Then drop that some people have been working to make this country weak so they can ship jobs overseas, claim this is stopping those people. Then quote a shit ton of bible crap about helping the week, and also say this is something he must do because of Jesus, and this is a Jesus guided decision. Then mention the "life, liberty, freedom" junk from the declaration of independence, but claim it's in the constitution, nobody will know the difference. So say due to life this is a constitutional requirement as well.
Then, when anybody dares mention crap about it. Say they haven't really read the bible and don't love Jesus, claim they don't think the consitution is perfect so they aren't a good American, and when they retort keep asking them why they want to make America weaker, and go on some random tirade about how great this place is and how "strengthening America" act is going to make us even more kick ass.
And if a journalist quotes what someone else said that is a legit counter, lead in with "well, as a good christian and true believer in the wisdom of the founding fathers" and then go on to say why this bill is needed for that.
Don't appeal to the nicer sides of people. The goal shouldn't be passing healthcare, the goal should be using the bill to attack the other side at each given chance. If it passes, bonus!
At least, that's what I'd do.
Aside from the fact that the overt Christianity pandering wouldn't work because no one would really believe it coming from Obama, the rest of what you suggest is pretty on point.
It's in the Bible. Do you think fundamentalist Protestants are universally Republican voters? I mean, it's close, but the numbers are more like 80-90% IIRC.
If you want to limit your sample size to "fundamentalist protestants", well, uh sure I guess?
What I'm asking then is what are you basing your assumption that "fundamentalist christians who believe a wife should submit to her hersband make up a non-negligible portion of the country" on exactly?
I think quite a lot of people are bothered by someone saying that a wife must submit to her husband. Not mad necessarily, but unsettled a bit.
Absolutely, and it's great that Grayson is appealing to those people, but it's hard to ignore that this appeal comes at the cost of attacking the views of those who believe that to be a divine mandate. Taliban Dan, sadly, ain't the only one.
Alienating people who are already going to vote against you overwhelmingly to gain more moderate votes is a very good campaign strategy.
Ed: this was @happylilelf, before Carrot posted
Fundamentalists are pretty much 100% behind Taliban Dan here, and you're right to call them "negligible" especially as far as Democratic messaging is concerned. They aren't and shouldn't be a serious consideration in the formation of messages like the ad we're discussing.
But their nutty extremity that would say "a wife should submit to her husband" outright is supported by the religion that 80% of the country does at least pay lip-service to. I'm not talking about some obscure passage out of Leviticus when I say that Christianity is a patriarchal religion. I'm talking about referring to God as "Him" for fuck's sake.
I really hope so. Probably even it is a valid strategy in the limited sense of Grayson v. Taliban Dan. I'm just worried that it contributes to the Tea Party-esque message that Democrats are the "party of the godless." I mean, as a godless person I'd love to have my own party but I recognize that in this country that does more injury to my party than it does benefit to me.
Just because something is in the Bible doesn't mean that people calling themselves Christians believe it or even know about it. Like the entirety of Leviticus but 18:22.
Ed: this was @happylilelf, before Carrot posted
Fundamentalists are pretty much 100% behind Taliban Dan here, and you're right to call them "negligible" especially as far as Democratic messaging is concerned. They aren't and shouldn't be a serious consideration in the formation of messages like the ad we're discussing.
But their nutty extremity that would say "a wife should submit to her husband" outright is supported by the religion that 80% of the country does at least pay lip-service to. I'm not talking about some obscure passage out of Leviticus when I say that Christianity is a patriarchal religion. I'm talking about referring to God as "Him" for fuck's sake.
Oh so are you assuming that everyone or even a sizeable percentage of people who identify as Christian's believe everything said in the Bible? Because that's not really the case at all.
I am not the D&D straw-atheist who believes all Christians cling to the literal truth of every single Bible passage, just to nip that in the bud.
I don't know the numbers, and I speak purely from anecdotal experience. I really, really hope that I'm completely wrong. But I think there's a strong correlation between Christian observance and support for (or at least apathy regarding) patriarchy. I do not think that the majority of Americans are as outraged by the "submit to their husbands" line as we D&D posters would be.
And I'm afraid that some of them would be deeply offended by comparison of aspects of their own earnestly-felt beliefs to the Taliban.
Fartacus wrote: View Post
The narrative should have been really simple. It should have been basically these things:
(1) No one should go broke or die just because they got sick.
(2) You're gonna get healthcare.
(3) The GOP doesn't care if poor people die so long as their buddies get rich
(4) Why would you trust your healthcare to a corporation that would rather see you die than receive expensive care?
(5) We're a country that stands together, and we need to look out for each other, and care for the less fortunate.
But especially number 1.
This is sweet and all. But you tried it, and still got killed over it. Plus people don't really agree with that. If you want to win, the other guy has to lose. Treat this like a mugging, get in their and hit them as hard as you possibly can, even on their strength. And then kick while they are down. You need to hurt them.
Here is what should have been done.
Obama get's on TV and says he's been praying and looking for answers to our economy. As a result, he's introducing the "strengthen America for future" initiative, so we can be even more kick ass than we are. Mention he was praying again, and have a fucking neon lapel pin, be playing some patriotic junk in the background as well.
As part of that plan hit on healthcare. As making business strong, helping us compete, and that extra cash can go into your paycheck since the company isn't taking it. Mention that this is pretty much a tax cut for business. Then drop that some people have been working to make this country weak so they can ship jobs overseas, claim this is stopping those people. Then quote a shit ton of bible crap about helping the week, and also say this is something he must do because of Jesus, and this is a Jesus guided decision. Then mention the "life, liberty, freedom" junk from the declaration of independence, but claim it's in the constitution, nobody will know the difference. So say due to life this is a constitutional requirement as well.
Then, when anybody dares mention crap about it. Say they haven't really read the bible and don't love Jesus, claim they don't think the consitution is perfect so they aren't a good American, and when they retort keep asking them why they want to make America weaker, and go on some random tirade about how great this place is and how "strengthening America" act is going to make us even more kick ass.
And if a journalist quotes what someone else said that is a legit counter, lead in with "well, as a good christian and true believer in the wisdom of the founding fathers" and then go on to say why this bill is needed for that.
Don't appeal to the nicer sides of people. The goal shouldn't be passing healthcare, the goal should be using the bill to attack the other side at each given chance. If it passes, bonus!
At least, that's what I'd do.
Aside from the fact that the overt Christianity pandering wouldn't work because no one would really believe it coming from Obama, the rest of what you suggest is pretty on point.
Then drag out some Dems who can do it.
I'm really shocked the Dems don't do this more. Republicans don't pander to populism, the flag, religion because they actually believe it, they do it because it works.
Hell trot out some people like Clark, Webb, and drone on and on about national security, and have them start waving fucking flags. And when anybody says shit claim they are disrespecting our veterans and go on a rant about how they didn't fight vietnam to have some crook that hates America steal from hardworking people only to invest the money in Dubai where those damn Muslims live. Keep talking about that, even though the actual bill is about Wall Street reform.
I am not the D&D straw-atheist who believes all Christians cling to the literal truth of every single Bible passage, just to nip that in the bud.
I don't know the numbers, and I speak purely from anecdotal experience. I really, really hope that I'm completely wrong. But I think there's a strong correlation between Christian observance and support for (or at least apathy regarding) patriarchy. I do not think that the majority of Americans are as outraged by the "submit to their husbands" line as we D&D posters would be.
And I'm afraid that some of them would be deeply offended by comparison of aspects of their own earnestly-felt beliefs to the Taliban.
Ah, assuming that you're talking a bilblical patriarchy (and I think that's a safe assumption?) then this is where we disagree. I've never seen any evidence to support this idea.
Fartacus wrote: View Post
The narrative should have been really simple. It should have been basically these things:
(1) No one should go broke or die just because they got sick.
(2) You're gonna get healthcare.
(3) The GOP doesn't care if poor people die so long as their buddies get rich
(4) Why would you trust your healthcare to a corporation that would rather see you die than receive expensive care?
(5) We're a country that stands together, and we need to look out for each other, and care for the less fortunate.
But especially number 1.
This is sweet and all. But you tried it, and still got killed over it. Plus people don't really agree with that. If you want to win, the other guy has to lose. Treat this like a mugging, get in their and hit them as hard as you possibly can, even on their strength. And then kick while they are down. You need to hurt them.
Here is what should have been done.
Obama get's on TV and says he's been praying and looking for answers to our economy. As a result, he's introducing the "strengthen America for future" initiative, so we can be even more kick ass than we are. Mention he was praying again, and have a fucking neon lapel pin, be playing some patriotic junk in the background as well.
As part of that plan hit on healthcare. As making business strong, helping us compete, and that extra cash can go into your paycheck since the company isn't taking it. Mention that this is pretty much a tax cut for business. Then drop that some people have been working to make this country weak so they can ship jobs overseas, claim this is stopping those people. Then quote a shit ton of bible crap about helping the week, and also say this is something he must do because of Jesus, and this is a Jesus guided decision. Then mention the "life, liberty, freedom" junk from the declaration of independence, but claim it's in the constitution, nobody will know the difference. So say due to life this is a constitutional requirement as well.
Then, when anybody dares mention crap about it. Say they haven't really read the bible and don't love Jesus, claim they don't think the consitution is perfect so they aren't a good American, and when they retort keep asking them why they want to make America weaker, and go on some random tirade about how great this place is and how "strengthening America" act is going to make us even more kick ass.
And if a journalist quotes what someone else said that is a legit counter, lead in with "well, as a good christian and true believer in the wisdom of the founding fathers" and then go on to say why this bill is needed for that.
Don't appeal to the nicer sides of people. The goal shouldn't be passing healthcare, the goal should be using the bill to attack the other side at each given chance. If it passes, bonus!
At least, that's what I'd do.
Aside from the fact that the overt Christianity pandering wouldn't work because no one would really believe it coming from Obama, the rest of what you suggest is pretty on point.
Then drag out some Dems who can do it.
I'm really shocked the Dems don't do this more. Republicans don't pander to populism, the flag, religion because they actually believe it, they do it because it works.
Hell trot out some people like Clark, Webb, and drone on and on about national security, and have them start waving fucking flags. And when anybody says shit claim they are disrespecting our veterans and go on a rant about how they didn't fight vietnam to have some crook that hates America steal from hardworking people only to invest the money in Dubai where those damn Muslims live. Keep talking about that, even though the actual bill is about Wall Street reform.
I am not the D&D straw-atheist who believes all Christians cling to the literal truth of every single Bible passage, just to nip that in the bud.
I don't know the numbers, and I speak purely from anecdotal experience. I really, really hope that I'm completely wrong. But I think there's a strong correlation between Christian observance and support for (or at least apathy regarding) patriarchy. I do not think that the majority of Americans are as outraged by the "submit to their husbands" line as we D&D posters would be.
And I'm afraid that some of them would be deeply offended by comparison of aspects of their own earnestly-felt beliefs to the Taliban.
Ah, assuming that you're talking a bilblical patriarchy (and I think that's a safe assumption?) then this is where we disagree. I've never seen any evidence to support this idea.
And even if there is, I doubt they are also pro-Taliban.
The point being to link something you know they won't support with the candidate, by way of something they both have in common.
Even if the audience and the Taliban might technically believe the same thing, they won't believe they are the same. That's why you link the other candidate to the Taliban and not just Covenant Marriage. They both may mean the same thing, but one is something people can convince themselves is ok, the other is not.
Fartacus wrote: View Post
The narrative should have been really simple. It should have been basically these things:
(1) No one should go broke or die just because they got sick.
(2) You're gonna get healthcare.
(3) The GOP doesn't care if poor people die so long as their buddies get rich
(4) Why would you trust your healthcare to a corporation that would rather see you die than receive expensive care?
(5) We're a country that stands together, and we need to look out for each other, and care for the less fortunate.
But especially number 1.
This is sweet and all. But you tried it, and still got killed over it. Plus people don't really agree with that. If you want to win, the other guy has to lose. Treat this like a mugging, get in their and hit them as hard as you possibly can, even on their strength. And then kick while they are down. You need to hurt them.
Here is what should have been done.
Obama get's on TV and says he's been praying and looking for answers to our economy. As a result, he's introducing the "strengthen America for future" initiative, so we can be even more kick ass than we are. Mention he was praying again, and have a fucking neon lapel pin, be playing some patriotic junk in the background as well.
As part of that plan hit on healthcare. As making business strong, helping us compete, and that extra cash can go into your paycheck since the company isn't taking it. Mention that this is pretty much a tax cut for business. Then drop that some people have been working to make this country weak so they can ship jobs overseas, claim this is stopping those people. Then quote a shit ton of bible crap about helping the week, and also say this is something he must do because of Jesus, and this is a Jesus guided decision. Then mention the "life, liberty, freedom" junk from the declaration of independence, but claim it's in the constitution, nobody will know the difference. So say due to life this is a constitutional requirement as well.
Then, when anybody dares mention crap about it. Say they haven't really read the bible and don't love Jesus, claim they don't think the consitution is perfect so they aren't a good American, and when they retort keep asking them why they want to make America weaker, and go on some random tirade about how great this place is and how "strengthening America" act is going to make us even more kick ass.
And if a journalist quotes what someone else said that is a legit counter, lead in with "well, as a good christian and true believer in the wisdom of the founding fathers" and then go on to say why this bill is needed for that.
Don't appeal to the nicer sides of people. The goal shouldn't be passing healthcare, the goal should be using the bill to attack the other side at each given chance. If it passes, bonus!
At least, that's what I'd do.
Aside from the fact that the overt Christianity pandering wouldn't work because no one would really believe it coming from Obama, the rest of what you suggest is pretty on point.
Then drag out some Dems who can do it.
I'm really shocked the Dems don't do this more. Republicans don't pander to populism, the flag, religion because they actually believe it, they do it because it works.
Hell trot out some people like Clark, Webb, and drone on and on about national security, and have them start waving fucking flags. And when anybody says shit claim they are disrespecting our veterans and go on a rant about how they didn't fight vietnam to have some crook that hates America steal from hardworking people only to invest the money in Dubai where those damn Muslims live. Keep talking about that, even though the actual bill is about Wall Street reform.
You do know who Saxby Chambliss is,right?
There is not a man I want out of our government more than that piece of shit. Even Lieberman.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I am not the D&D straw-atheist who believes all Christians cling to the literal truth of every single Bible passage, just to nip that in the bud.
I don't know the numbers, and I speak purely from anecdotal experience. I really, really hope that I'm completely wrong. But I think there's a strong correlation between Christian observance and support for (or at least apathy regarding) patriarchy. I do not think that the majority of Americans are as outraged by the "submit to their husbands" line as we D&D posters would be.
And I'm afraid that some of them would be deeply offended by comparison of aspects of their own earnestly-felt beliefs to the Taliban.
Ah, assuming that you're talking a bilblical patriarchy (and I think that's a safe assumption?) then this is where we disagree. I've never seen any evidence to support this idea.
I... you don't think the Bible supports patriarchal ideas? Or you don't think many Christians are observant of the patriarchal ideas supported by the Bible?
If the former then we'll just have to agree to disagree because I don't have the patience for that argument (and I really can't take your position seriously at all) and it's totally OT anyway. If the latter, well, that's exactly what I want to believe and if you can produce data supporting this it'll trump my anecdotal experience and I'll sleep well tonight knowing that my country is a better place than I thought it was.
EDIT: I realize it's pretty goosey of me to request that another poster produce data when I'm not willing to do the research myself. The problem is that I am willing but just unable to produce it! I've been googling around, thinking it would be relatively easy to find an opinion poll along the lines of "what is your opinion of feminism, positive or negative or neutral" (accepting this as a sort of inverse of patriarchy here, and i understand that's not without controversy) compared to church attendance or something. So far I've got nothin'
nescientist on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
edited September 2010
I talked about this thing with a guy in the bar a few hours ago. I mentioned to him that the republicans had managed to make the stances on several issues totally warped. I said that anti-abortionists were called "pro-life" and that estate-taxes were called "death-tax". We thought it was bizarre that both sides used those terms instead of the democrats saying "what the fucking fuck is your fucking problem?"
I talked about this thing with a guy in the bar a few hours ago. I mentioned to him that the republicans had managed to make the stances on several issues totally warped. I said that anti-abortionists were called "pro-life" and that estate-taxes were called "death-tax". We thought it was bizarre that both sides used those terms instead of the democrats saying "what the fucking fuck is your fucking problem?"
If I want good legislation I'll ask a Democrat, if I want legislation to be passed I'll ask a Republican.
I talked about this thing with a guy in the bar a few hours ago. I mentioned to him that the republicans had managed to make the stances on several issues totally warped. I said that anti-abortionists were called "pro-life" and that estate-taxes were called "death-tax". We thought it was bizarre that both sides used those terms instead of the democrats saying "what the fucking fuck is your fucking problem?"
Sadly, Democrats are afraid of their own shadow. They're utterly terrified of Republicans.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
If you're willing to deliberately misrepresent your opponent to get votes, you're probably willing to misrepresent your positions for the same goal. There are types for whom power is a goal unto itself, and this type of behavior is a strong indicator. Trust is an important asset for someone asking for power, and replacing that with faith in the letter next to their name is a mistake in my opinion.
But if you don't have any better options, well I guess you just have to hold your nose. Like you said, you already know Webster is in favor of DOMA.
Modifying the framework of the argument such that it does not coincide with your opponents moral framework is not deliberately misrepresenting your position or opponent. It is creating a compelling argument.
If you're in a fight where weapons are allowed it is not immoral to use them. It is simply stupid not to. The democrats are bringing knifes to gun fights and then wondering why they lose.
Goumindong on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Ed: this was @happylilelf, before Carrot posted
Fundamentalists are pretty much 100% behind Taliban Dan here, and you're right to call them "negligible" especially as far as Democratic messaging is concerned. They aren't and shouldn't be a serious consideration in the formation of messages like the ad we're discussing.
But their nutty extremity that would say "a wife should submit to her husband" outright is supported by the religion that 80% of the country does at least pay lip-service to. I'm not talking about some obscure passage out of Leviticus when I say that Christianity is a patriarchal religion. I'm talking about referring to God as "Him" for fuck's sake.
Oh so are you assuming that everyone or even a sizeable percentage of people who identify as Christian's believe everything said in the Bible? Because that's not really the case at all.
Just because they haven't actually read their own bible doesn't mean they're not more likely to support someone who talks about what is in that bible.
I don't think it's crazy to assume that even within the ranks of blind religious supporters there is a sizeable portion of voters who truly think that men should earn money and women should be in the kitchen. Religion is negatively correlated with progressive values, which includes men and women being totally equal.
EDIT: Seriously, aside from the fact that your post was full of shit, the point related to the thread is that the tactic you employed is common on the right and that hearing people bitch about Grayson's ad is bullshit when you take that into account.
Whether I agree with you on this is immaterial. Assume you are right, and Republican party is masterful at spreading lies and doing all these bad, horrible, no-good things.
That doesn't change the fact that the Democrats are horribly incompetent at framing their arguments in a way that are even remotely appealing to a large amount of people outside their base. The fervor that erupts around here about fundies, Beck, taxation, EEO, you name it, is your problem. This thread is its own example of the piss-poor framing of arguments. Rail on about how the right does the same, that's beside the point, irrespective of whether you are correct in your assertion.
Well yeah, we know that our side has shitty message creators. Honestly, if AA is your best example of poor framing, I think you're doing it wrong. It's an issue that we'll always fight uphill on because people like you refuse to accept reality because doing so reveals ugly truths about your life and American society in general. I mean, since you seem to think you know good messaging from bad messaging, please enlighten us as to how we ought to be better framing AA (in the AA thread, of course). Aside from AA, what else have we been saying in here that indicates that we suck at framing the message?
AA isn't the best example, it was only the most relevant due to its recent debate in this thread.
For the record, I'm arguing this part irrespective of my actual beliefs. What I mean by that is that I'm speaking only of the "strategic incompetence" despite my personal opposition to the topic.
You guys should have been able to sell healthcare and financial reform with much greater success than you did. Two of the least trusted institutions who have collectively fucked over millions of people. But the Dems either framed, or allowed the topic to be framed I'm such a way that made these successes into embarrassing closet skeletons. Other topics (of varying importance) you suck at framing:
Gay marriage - I'm hard right, support it, but find the lefty position milquetoast at best
Stimulus spending
Getting out of Afghanistan
Crime
And more. Except this forum is horribly difficult to post to from an iPad, so my fingers are tired.
I submit that American political culture is such that any stance other than "I hate crime so much I will make all the criminals be raped by dickwolves forever" will be called out as "soft on crime" and is therefore basically impossible to frame.
As for gay marriage... milquetoast? What?
Stimulus spending, again, seems like "soft on banks" when the populace would like to see some good ol' dickwolf-raping instead.
Getting out of Afghanistan is like textbook miserable thing to frame. It's a retreat! Ohnoes, how terribly unmanly and pitiful and weak. Soft on terror!
I was watching Bill Clinton's extended interview on The Daily Show, and to be honest, the difference between Clinton and the various democrats that come and go through their was pretty stark. Perhaps it's because he's out of politics that he comes off as so genuine and straightforward, and even though I probably don't agree with all of his points, I feel like I could be convinced to give his policy a chance, especially compared to the lackluster Republicans out there that I don't trust at all, to see what he could do.
I am not the D&D straw-atheist who believes all Christians cling to the literal truth of every single Bible passage, just to nip that in the bud.
I don't know the numbers, and I speak purely from anecdotal experience. I really, really hope that I'm completely wrong. But I think there's a strong correlation between Christian observance and support for (or at least apathy regarding) patriarchy. I do not think that the majority of Americans are as outraged by the "submit to their husbands" line as we D&D posters would be.
And I'm afraid that some of them would be deeply offended by comparison of aspects of their own earnestly-felt beliefs to the Taliban.
Ah, assuming that you're talking a bilblical patriarchy (and I think that's a safe assumption?) then this is where we disagree. I've never seen any evidence to support this idea.
I... you don't think the Bible supports patriarchal ideas? Or you don't think many Christians are observant of the patriarchal ideas supported by the Bible?
If the former then we'll just have to agree to disagree because I don't have the patience for that argument (and I really can't take your position seriously at all) and it's totally OT anyway. If the latter, well, that's exactly what I want to believe and if you can produce data supporting this it'll trump my anecdotal experience and I'll sleep well tonight knowing that my country is a better place than I thought it was.
EDIT: I realize it's pretty goosey of me to request that another poster produce data when I'm not willing to do the research myself. The problem is that I am willing but just unable to produce it! I've been googling around, thinking it would be relatively easy to find an opinion poll along the lines of "what is your opinion of feminism, positive or negative or neutral" (accepting this as a sort of inverse of patriarchy here, and i understand that's not without controversy) compared to church attendance or something. So far I've got nothin'
I was responding to what I bolded so I was responding to the idea that a significant number of christians believe in and support a biblical patriarchy. I do not believe this to be the case, nothing I've seen in my life has led me to believe this is the case, or even a credible problem, nor has any research data I've been presented.
But honestly the real reason you don't want to go data-diving, and I really reccommend you don't because of this, is because there is no reliable data out there. At best you might be able to try and piece together bits and parts of various polls (that almost universally have huge amounts of bias in the questions asked) to try and support that idea but even doing that I doubt you'd find anything to actually make a case for the worst case scenario you seem to be worried may exist.
People who outright call their views "biblical patriarchy," though real, are definitely not the problem here. They're not even relevant, as they're a subsection even of the fundies really. Crazy people can probably be ignored for the purposes of discussing a political party's messaging targets, because crazy is pretty difficult to message towards while running a country that is at least 70% not crazy (even the GOP can't do it really, which is why the crazy-leaders are mostly talk show hosts instead of politicians).
I still worry, though, that there are a lot of non-crazy people who might see an attack on a devout Christian for having similar beliefs to the Taliban as an attack on their own religious identity (regardless of their feelings about women). I have personally met people who might even find Dan's stance on women inoffensive, who are just generally nice and you'd never know it but they seriously believe that women are naturally domestically inclined because God made them that way (and not because he made them that way 6,000 years ago; he employed theistic evolution in order to engineer women to be appropriate for 1950's gender norms). These people probably vote overwhelmingly republican already but they aren't so locked in as the devil-buried-dinosaur-bones set.
I talked about this thing with a guy in the bar a few hours ago. I mentioned to him that the republicans had managed to make the stances on several issues totally warped. I said that anti-abortionists were called "pro-life" and that estate-taxes were called "death-tax". We thought it was bizarre that both sides used those terms instead of the democrats saying "what the fucking fuck is your fucking problem?"
This relates back to dobalina's point.
Basically, it ain't the democrats who are "framing this poorly"
They just refuse to change the terms, and honestly? They tried in a lot of cases. These just stuck around because they were more scandalous, and easier to set up strawman arguments against that gets your base worked into a tizzy.
I talked about this thing with a guy in the bar a few hours ago. I mentioned to him that the republicans had managed to make the stances on several issues totally warped. I said that anti-abortionists were called "pro-life" and that estate-taxes were called "death-tax". We thought it was bizarre that both sides used those terms instead of the democrats saying "what the fucking fuck is your fucking problem?"
This relates back to dobalina's point.
Basically, it ain't the democrats who are "framing this poorly"
They just refuse to change the terms, and honestly? They tried in a lot of cases. These just stuck around because they were more scandalous, and easier to set up strawman arguments against that gets your base worked into a tizzy.
Merit aside, if you want to win an argument you should debate it on your terms. At the very least it allows you home-field advantage. One of the best examples of this is how the abortion debate plays out -- both sides kind of won their framing fight: Pro-Life sounds great, because who doesn't like life? Pro-choice also sounds great, because choice is good stuff, right?
Of course pro-life doesn't usually extend to capital punishment (and thus is not an absolute term) and pro-choice doesn't seem to extend to school vouchers (again, not an absolute term), but for this argument both sides have placed their argument in terms of life and choice, abstract representations of the real argument -- are you pro or anti abortion?
This is sweet and all. But you tried it, and still got killed over it.
Not really, no. The Senate Dems especially never really had any coherent message. Half the time we were talking about the deficit. For fuck's sake we called it the "public option." What does that even mean? Just call it Medicare-for-all! There was no unified messaging. There were a bunch of politicians looking out for themselves, half of them trying to run from the party or water-down its legislation and blatantly contradicting the narrative coming out of the White House and the leadership.
There was a lot of being on the defensive and trying to make factual points about what's in the legislation. There was really very little passionate moral language about the bill -- the best was when Obama did his televised primetime speech about it. Not surprisingly, the bill gained popularity in most polls immediately after, and then the Senate dems shat it all away in the space of a week or two.
Plus people don't really agree with that. If you want to win, the other guy has to lose. Treat this like a mugging, get in there and hit them as hard as you possibly can, even on their strength. And then kick while they are down. You need to hurt them.
I disagree that people don't really agree with progressive values. A good portion of the country exclusively believes in progressive values (the activist base of the party), and most swing voters seem to be amenable to both worldviews, and probably employ each of them in different parts of their lives.
I'm all for kicking the shit out of them though, but you can take all those bullet points and flip them on the GOP. Basically you paint them as heartless, cruel, greedy, and willing to fuck you in the ass to make a buck.
Here is what should have been done.
Obama get's on TV and says he's been praying and looking for answers to our economy. As a result, he's introducing the "strengthen America for future" initiative, so we can be even more kick ass than we are. Mention he was praying again, and have a fucking neon lapel pin, be playing some patriotic junk in the background as well.
As part of that plan hit on healthcare. As making business strong, helping us compete, and that extra cash can go into your paycheck since the company isn't taking it. Mention that this is pretty much a tax cut for business. Then drop that some people have been working to make this country weak so they can ship jobs overseas, claim this is stopping those people. Then quote a shit ton of bible crap about helping the week, and also say this is something he must do because of Jesus, and this is a Jesus guided decision. Then mention the "life, liberty, freedom" junk from the declaration of independence, but claim it's in the constitution, nobody will know the difference. So say due to life this is a constitutional requirement as well.
Then, when anybody dares mention crap about it. Say they haven't really read the bible and don't love Jesus, claim they don't think the consitution is perfect so they aren't a good American, and when they retort keep asking them why they want to make America weaker, and go on some random tirade about how great this place is and how "strengthening America" act is going to make us even more kick ass.
This seems to be pretty close to what a lot of Democrats think right now. Because, like you, they see this shit as just "what people want," not a specific worldview that's been culturally dominant for 40 years but which has eroded substantially in its public acceptance.
If go out and try all this shit, no one will believe you, because these are the things that conservatives want and conservatives value, and they're going to recognize the fundamental disconnect between their language being co-opted and the policy ideas (not the details, but the broad ideas of shit like "government bad! GOVERNMENT BAD! YOU MAKE MORE GOVERNMENT! BECK SMASH!"), and the result is that it won't resonate. Swing voters will find it unconvincing and disingenuous, and the progressive base will not particularly give a shit about your message since it's not for them.
This is the wrong way to go about things. This is what leads to compromised legislation and electoral failure.
Don't appeal to the nicer sides of people. The goal shouldn't be passing healthcare, the goal should be using the bill to attack the other side at each given chance. If it passes, bonus!
Well, the point of getting elected is to pass legislation, so I'd put a bit more emphasis than that on getting it passed.
I submit that American political culture is such that any stance other than "I hate crime so much I will make all the criminals be raped by dickwolves forever" will be called out as "soft on crime" and is therefore basically impossible to frame.
As for gay marriage... milquetoast? What?
Stimulus spending, again, seems like "soft on banks" when the populace would like to see some good ol' dickwolf-raping instead.
Getting out of Afghanistan is like textbook miserable thing to frame. It's a retreat! Ohnoes, how terribly unmanly and pitiful and weak. Soft on terror!
1) Not true. There is a serious argument to be made on the effectiveness of drug criminalization and mandatory sentencing, three strikes, and such. The republicans aren't interested in discussing alternatives it seems, so they win by making the dickwolf argument. If Dems were better at framing, they could make inroads into real reform and not just who wants to rape prisoners with more fervor.
2) Yes, milquetoast. We've had a ton of gay marriage threads, and my position was discussed (and dismissed by this crowd) repeatedly. But that's part of the left's problem. If you want be more "strategically competent", you can't just yell "civil rights" until you are blue in the face. A not-so-small portion of the country doesn't believe this is a civil rights issue, and yelling it louder just annoys them. You can disagree on the validity, but if you want to be more successful, you'll need to accept that fact (the royal you, not the specific you).
3) I think you misunderstand the objection to stimulus spending.
4) There is actually a conservative position for pulling out of Afghanistan. Dems would do well to co-opt that one, as it could achieve their aim with greater support -- they both achieve the same end. It's no secret I'm about a Right as they come around here, but even I support a pullout. The Democrats allow their position to be one based on sissy-ness, which is their fault, and which is why I don't support Obama's pullout.
I talked about this thing with a guy in the bar a few hours ago. I mentioned to him that the republicans had managed to make the stances on several issues totally warped. I said that anti-abortionists were called "pro-life" and that estate-taxes were called "death-tax". We thought it was bizarre that both sides used those terms instead of the democrats saying "what the fucking fuck is your fucking problem?"
This relates back to dobalina's point.
Basically, it ain't the democrats who are "framing this poorly"
They just refuse to change the terms, and honestly? They tried in a lot of cases. These just stuck around because they were more scandalous, and easier to set up strawman arguments against that gets your base worked into a tizzy.
Merit aside, if you want to win an argument you should debate it on your terms. At the very least it allows you home-field advantage. One of the best examples of this is how the abortion debate plays out -- both sides kind of won their framing fight: Pro-Life sounds great, because who doesn't like life? Pro-choice also sounds great, because choice is good stuff, right?
Of course pro-life doesn't usually extend to capital punishment (and thus is not an absolute term) and pro-choice doesn't seem to extend to school vouchers (again, not an absolute term), but for this argument both sides have placed their argument in terms of life and choice, abstract representations of the real argument -- are you pro or anti abortion?
That actually is a pretty good example.
It's also one of the places that, from polling, it seems the left has lost relatively little ground in the last 40 years. Even in terms of legislation, we've had some setbacks on the choice front, but compared to our economic agenda it's quite intact.
1) Not true. There is a serious argument to be made on the effectiveness of drug criminalization and mandatory sentencing, three strikes, and such. The republicans aren't interested in discussing alternatives it seems, so they win by making the dickwolf argument. If Dems were better at framing, they could make inroads into real reform and not just who wants to rape prisoners with more fervor.
"Serious argument" does not apply to how much you raise your voice, only to the merit of the argument itself. The issue here is that Republicans often come from a background which teaches vengence and forgiveness-only-after-death (if then). It's rather hard to argue against people who treat punishment as a sacrement.
2) Yes, milquetoast. We've had a ton of gay marriage threads, and my position was discussed (and dismissed by this crowd) repeatedly. But that's part of the left's problem. If you want be more "strategically competent", you can't just yell "civil rights" until you are blue in the face. A not-so-small portion of the country doesn't believe this is a civil rights issue, and yelling it louder just annoys them. You can disagree on the validity, but if you want to be more successful, you'll need to accept that fact (the royal you, not the specific you).
So you're saying that the left needs to be dishonest instead of treating the right as if they were rational adults? The problem there is that while a lot of people who refuse to accept that the rights of civilians are in fact civil rights because looking like they enjoy violating civil rights makes them feel bad about themselves, there are other people on the right who, despite being surrounded by such ignorance, are not themselves blind to reality, and they will happily point out any such manipulation that you're suggesting.
3) I think you misunderstand the objection to stimulus spending.
4) There is actually a conservative position for pulling out of Afghanistan. Dems would do well to co-opt that one, as it could achieve their aim with greater support -- they both achieve the same end. It's no secret I'm about a Right as they come around here, but even I support a pullout. The Democrats allow their position to be one based on sissy-ness, which is their fault, and which is why I don't support Obama's pullout.
"Sissy." You want to pull out of the Arghanistan war BUT because the democrats will appparantly make our troops skip along with flowers in their buzzcuts and frills on their tanks, you are against it.
Do you not see how difficult it is for a modern, educated adult to base policy decisions on this kind of mentality? War is not an episode of the Little Rascals.
2) Yes, milquetoast. We've had a ton of gay marriage threads, and my position was discussed (and dismissed by this crowd) repeatedly. But that's part of the left's problem. If you want be more "strategically competent", you can't just yell "civil rights" until you are blue in the face. A not-so-small portion of the country doesn't believe this is a civil rights issue, and yelling it louder just annoys them. You can disagree on the validity, but if you want to be more successful, you'll need to accept that fact (the royal you, not the specific you).
Thanks for the hand-wringing about how maybe we'd be more successful on gay marriage if only we stopped talking so much about gay marriage. We appreciate your concern, but I think we're going to take a pass on your advice. Doing so would be a tacit agreement that the public has a right to weigh in with their opinions on anyone's private marriage in the first place, to the point where ultimately they have the moral authority to invalidate those unions. And that's a slippery slope that I don't think either of us want to go down since -- let's be honest -- your wife is way too good for you and should be with someone both more-handsome and smarter.
I can promise you with a fair degree of confidence, however, that the moment these poor unfortunate souls who have been so "annoyed" stop trying to interject their own personal and unsolicited opinions into the private marriages of other Americans -- by which I mean to say the moment they agree to stop making what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes into a matter for the public forum -- at that point in time we'll agree that we don't have to talk about it any more, either. Sort of like how we never really have to talk about the validity of interracial marriages anymore even though those also used to be illegal.
Posts
This is sweet and all. But you tried it, and still got killed over it. Plus people don't really agree with that. If you want to win, the other guy has to lose. Treat this like a mugging, get in their and hit them as hard as you possibly can, even on their strength. And then kick while they are down. You need to hurt them.
Here is what should have been done.
Obama get's on TV and says he's been praying and looking for answers to our economy. As a result, he's introducing the "strengthen America for future" initiative, so we can be even more kick ass than we are. Mention he was praying again, and have a fucking neon lapel pin, be playing some patriotic junk in the background as well.
As part of that plan hit on healthcare. As making business strong, helping us compete, and that extra cash can go into your paycheck since the company isn't taking it. Mention that this is pretty much a tax cut for business. Then drop that some people have been working to make this country weak so they can ship jobs overseas, claim this is stopping those people. Then quote a shit ton of bible crap about helping the week, and also say this is something he must do because of Jesus, and this is a Jesus guided decision. Then mention the "life, liberty, freedom" junk from the declaration of independence, but claim it's in the constitution, nobody will know the difference. So say due to life this is a constitutional requirement as well.
Then, when anybody dares mention crap about it. Say they haven't really read the bible and don't love Jesus, claim they don't think the consitution is perfect so they aren't a good American, and when they retort keep asking them why they want to make America weaker, and go on some random tirade about how great this place is and how "strengthening America" act is going to make us even more kick ass.
And if a journalist quotes what someone else said that is a legit counter, lead in with "well, as a good christian and true believer in the wisdom of the founding fathers" and then go on to say why this bill is needed for that.
Don't appeal to the nicer sides of people. The goal shouldn't be passing healthcare, the goal should be using the bill to attack the other side at each given chance. If it passes, bonus!
At least, that's what I'd do.
Absolutely, and it's great that Grayson is appealing to those people, but it's hard to ignore that this appeal comes at the cost of attacking the views of those who believe that to be a divine mandate. Taliban Dan, sadly, ain't the only one.
Wow... I did not see that, thanks!
In my defense I was more impressed that my State's Congressmen/women are only half retarded.
To the point of thinking that the line of think that goes "A wife should submit to her husband" is a-ok?
What are you basing this on?
EDIT: for that matter, fundies are hardly the only people who take that line seriously. There are plenty of "moderate" Christians whose moderation goes far enough to maybe accept that gays are people and abortion isn't murder (but still wrong) but who still have the patriarchal values going.
Well yeah, we know that our side has shitty message creators. Honestly, if AA is your best example of poor framing, I think you're doing it wrong. It's an issue that we'll always fight uphill on because people like you refuse to accept reality because doing so reveals ugly truths about your life and American society in general. I mean, since you seem to think you know good messaging from bad messaging, please enlighten us as to how we ought to be better framing AA (in the AA thread, of course). Aside from AA, what else have we been saying in here that indicates that we suck at framing the message?
Aside from the fact that the overt Christianity pandering wouldn't work because no one would really believe it coming from Obama, the rest of what you suggest is pretty on point.
If you want to limit your sample size to "fundamentalist protestants", well, uh sure I guess?
What I'm asking then is what are you basing your assumption that "fundamentalist christians who believe a wife should submit to her hersband make up a non-negligible portion of the country" on exactly?
Alienating people who are already going to vote against you overwhelmingly to gain more moderate votes is a very good campaign strategy.
Fundamentalists are pretty much 100% behind Taliban Dan here, and you're right to call them "negligible" especially as far as Democratic messaging is concerned. They aren't and shouldn't be a serious consideration in the formation of messages like the ad we're discussing.
But their nutty extremity that would say "a wife should submit to her husband" outright is supported by the religion that 80% of the country does at least pay lip-service to. I'm not talking about some obscure passage out of Leviticus when I say that Christianity is a patriarchal religion. I'm talking about referring to God as "Him" for fuck's sake.
@carrot
I really hope so. Probably even it is a valid strategy in the limited sense of Grayson v. Taliban Dan. I'm just worried that it contributes to the Tea Party-esque message that Democrats are the "party of the godless." I mean, as a godless person I'd love to have my own party but I recognize that in this country that does more injury to my party than it does benefit to me.
Oh so are you assuming that everyone or even a sizeable percentage of people who identify as Christian's believe everything said in the Bible? Because that's not really the case at all.
Shit, there's an entire thread on this phenomenon right now.
I don't know the numbers, and I speak purely from anecdotal experience. I really, really hope that I'm completely wrong. But I think there's a strong correlation between Christian observance and support for (or at least apathy regarding) patriarchy. I do not think that the majority of Americans are as outraged by the "submit to their husbands" line as we D&D posters would be.
And I'm afraid that some of them would be deeply offended by comparison of aspects of their own earnestly-felt beliefs to the Taliban.
Then drag out some Dems who can do it.
I'm really shocked the Dems don't do this more. Republicans don't pander to populism, the flag, religion because they actually believe it, they do it because it works.
Hell trot out some people like Clark, Webb, and drone on and on about national security, and have them start waving fucking flags. And when anybody says shit claim they are disrespecting our veterans and go on a rant about how they didn't fight vietnam to have some crook that hates America steal from hardworking people only to invest the money in Dubai where those damn Muslims live. Keep talking about that, even though the actual bill is about Wall Street reform.
Ah, assuming that you're talking a bilblical patriarchy (and I think that's a safe assumption?) then this is where we disagree. I've never seen any evidence to support this idea.
You do know who Saxby Chambliss is,right?
And even if there is, I doubt they are also pro-Taliban.
The point being to link something you know they won't support with the candidate, by way of something they both have in common.
Even if the audience and the Taliban might technically believe the same thing, they won't believe they are the same. That's why you link the other candidate to the Taliban and not just Covenant Marriage. They both may mean the same thing, but one is something people can convince themselves is ok, the other is not.
There is not a man I want out of our government more than that piece of shit. Even Lieberman.
I... you don't think the Bible supports patriarchal ideas? Or you don't think many Christians are observant of the patriarchal ideas supported by the Bible?
If the former then we'll just have to agree to disagree because I don't have the patience for that argument (and I really can't take your position seriously at all) and it's totally OT anyway. If the latter, well, that's exactly what I want to believe and if you can produce data supporting this it'll trump my anecdotal experience and I'll sleep well tonight knowing that my country is a better place than I thought it was.
EDIT: I realize it's pretty goosey of me to request that another poster produce data when I'm not willing to do the research myself. The problem is that I am willing but just unable to produce it! I've been googling around, thinking it would be relatively easy to find an opinion poll along the lines of "what is your opinion of feminism, positive or negative or neutral" (accepting this as a sort of inverse of patriarchy here, and i understand that's not without controversy) compared to church attendance or something. So far I've got nothin'
If I want good legislation I'll ask a Democrat, if I want legislation to be passed I'll ask a Republican.
Sadly, Democrats are afraid of their own shadow. They're utterly terrified of Republicans.
Modifying the framework of the argument such that it does not coincide with your opponents moral framework is not deliberately misrepresenting your position or opponent. It is creating a compelling argument.
If you're in a fight where weapons are allowed it is not immoral to use them. It is simply stupid not to. The democrats are bringing knifes to gun fights and then wondering why they lose.
Just because they haven't actually read their own bible doesn't mean they're not more likely to support someone who talks about what is in that bible.
I don't think it's crazy to assume that even within the ranks of blind religious supporters there is a sizeable portion of voters who truly think that men should earn money and women should be in the kitchen. Religion is negatively correlated with progressive values, which includes men and women being totally equal.
AA isn't the best example, it was only the most relevant due to its recent debate in this thread.
For the record, I'm arguing this part irrespective of my actual beliefs. What I mean by that is that I'm speaking only of the "strategic incompetence" despite my personal opposition to the topic.
You guys should have been able to sell healthcare and financial reform with much greater success than you did. Two of the least trusted institutions who have collectively fucked over millions of people. But the Dems either framed, or allowed the topic to be framed I'm such a way that made these successes into embarrassing closet skeletons. Other topics (of varying importance) you suck at framing:
Gay marriage - I'm hard right, support it, but find the lefty position milquetoast at best
Stimulus spending
Getting out of Afghanistan
Crime
And more. Except this forum is horribly difficult to post to from an iPad, so my fingers are tired.
As for gay marriage... milquetoast? What?
Stimulus spending, again, seems like "soft on banks" when the populace would like to see some good ol' dickwolf-raping instead.
Getting out of Afghanistan is like textbook miserable thing to frame. It's a retreat! Ohnoes, how terribly unmanly and pitiful and weak. Soft on terror!
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
I was responding to what I bolded so I was responding to the idea that a significant number of christians believe in and support a biblical patriarchy. I do not believe this to be the case, nothing I've seen in my life has led me to believe this is the case, or even a credible problem, nor has any research data I've been presented.
But honestly the real reason you don't want to go data-diving, and I really reccommend you don't because of this, is because there is no reliable data out there. At best you might be able to try and piece together bits and parts of various polls (that almost universally have huge amounts of bias in the questions asked) to try and support that idea but even doing that I doubt you'd find anything to actually make a case for the worst case scenario you seem to be worried may exist.
I still worry, though, that there are a lot of non-crazy people who might see an attack on a devout Christian for having similar beliefs to the Taliban as an attack on their own religious identity (regardless of their feelings about women). I have personally met people who might even find Dan's stance on women inoffensive, who are just generally nice and you'd never know it but they seriously believe that women are naturally domestically inclined because God made them that way (and not because he made them that way 6,000 years ago; he employed theistic evolution in order to engineer women to be appropriate for 1950's gender norms). These people probably vote overwhelmingly republican already but they aren't so locked in as the devil-buried-dinosaur-bones set.
This relates back to dobalina's point.
Basically, it ain't the democrats who are "framing this poorly"
They just refuse to change the terms, and honestly? They tried in a lot of cases. These just stuck around because they were more scandalous, and easier to set up strawman arguments against that gets your base worked into a tizzy.
Merit aside, if you want to win an argument you should debate it on your terms. At the very least it allows you home-field advantage. One of the best examples of this is how the abortion debate plays out -- both sides kind of won their framing fight: Pro-Life sounds great, because who doesn't like life? Pro-choice also sounds great, because choice is good stuff, right?
Of course pro-life doesn't usually extend to capital punishment (and thus is not an absolute term) and pro-choice doesn't seem to extend to school vouchers (again, not an absolute term), but for this argument both sides have placed their argument in terms of life and choice, abstract representations of the real argument -- are you pro or anti abortion?
Not really, no. The Senate Dems especially never really had any coherent message. Half the time we were talking about the deficit. For fuck's sake we called it the "public option." What does that even mean? Just call it Medicare-for-all! There was no unified messaging. There were a bunch of politicians looking out for themselves, half of them trying to run from the party or water-down its legislation and blatantly contradicting the narrative coming out of the White House and the leadership.
There was a lot of being on the defensive and trying to make factual points about what's in the legislation. There was really very little passionate moral language about the bill -- the best was when Obama did his televised primetime speech about it. Not surprisingly, the bill gained popularity in most polls immediately after, and then the Senate dems shat it all away in the space of a week or two.
I disagree that people don't really agree with progressive values. A good portion of the country exclusively believes in progressive values (the activist base of the party), and most swing voters seem to be amenable to both worldviews, and probably employ each of them in different parts of their lives.
I'm all for kicking the shit out of them though, but you can take all those bullet points and flip them on the GOP. Basically you paint them as heartless, cruel, greedy, and willing to fuck you in the ass to make a buck.
This seems to be pretty close to what a lot of Democrats think right now. Because, like you, they see this shit as just "what people want," not a specific worldview that's been culturally dominant for 40 years but which has eroded substantially in its public acceptance.
If go out and try all this shit, no one will believe you, because these are the things that conservatives want and conservatives value, and they're going to recognize the fundamental disconnect between their language being co-opted and the policy ideas (not the details, but the broad ideas of shit like "government bad! GOVERNMENT BAD! YOU MAKE MORE GOVERNMENT! BECK SMASH!"), and the result is that it won't resonate. Swing voters will find it unconvincing and disingenuous, and the progressive base will not particularly give a shit about your message since it's not for them.
This is the wrong way to go about things. This is what leads to compromised legislation and electoral failure.
Well, the point of getting elected is to pass legislation, so I'd put a bit more emphasis than that on getting it passed.
1) Not true. There is a serious argument to be made on the effectiveness of drug criminalization and mandatory sentencing, three strikes, and such. The republicans aren't interested in discussing alternatives it seems, so they win by making the dickwolf argument. If Dems were better at framing, they could make inroads into real reform and not just who wants to rape prisoners with more fervor.
2) Yes, milquetoast. We've had a ton of gay marriage threads, and my position was discussed (and dismissed by this crowd) repeatedly. But that's part of the left's problem. If you want be more "strategically competent", you can't just yell "civil rights" until you are blue in the face. A not-so-small portion of the country doesn't believe this is a civil rights issue, and yelling it louder just annoys them. You can disagree on the validity, but if you want to be more successful, you'll need to accept that fact (the royal you, not the specific you).
3) I think you misunderstand the objection to stimulus spending.
4) There is actually a conservative position for pulling out of Afghanistan. Dems would do well to co-opt that one, as it could achieve their aim with greater support -- they both achieve the same end. It's no secret I'm about a Right as they come around here, but even I support a pullout. The Democrats allow their position to be one based on sissy-ness, which is their fault, and which is why I don't support Obama's pullout.
That actually is a pretty good example.
It's also one of the places that, from polling, it seems the left has lost relatively little ground in the last 40 years. Even in terms of legislation, we've had some setbacks on the choice front, but compared to our economic agenda it's quite intact.
"Serious argument" does not apply to how much you raise your voice, only to the merit of the argument itself. The issue here is that Republicans often come from a background which teaches vengence and forgiveness-only-after-death (if then). It's rather hard to argue against people who treat punishment as a sacrement.
So you're saying that the left needs to be dishonest instead of treating the right as if they were rational adults? The problem there is that while a lot of people who refuse to accept that the rights of civilians are in fact civil rights because looking like they enjoy violating civil rights makes them feel bad about themselves, there are other people on the right who, despite being surrounded by such ignorance, are not themselves blind to reality, and they will happily point out any such manipulation that you're suggesting.
"Sissy." You want to pull out of the Arghanistan war BUT because the democrats will appparantly make our troops skip along with flowers in their buzzcuts and frills on their tanks, you are against it.
Do you not see how difficult it is for a modern, educated adult to base policy decisions on this kind of mentality? War is not an episode of the Little Rascals.
Thanks for the hand-wringing about how maybe we'd be more successful on gay marriage if only we stopped talking so much about gay marriage. We appreciate your concern, but I think we're going to take a pass on your advice. Doing so would be a tacit agreement that the public has a right to weigh in with their opinions on anyone's private marriage in the first place, to the point where ultimately they have the moral authority to invalidate those unions. And that's a slippery slope that I don't think either of us want to go down since -- let's be honest -- your wife is way too good for you and should be with someone both more-handsome and smarter.
I can promise you with a fair degree of confidence, however, that the moment these poor unfortunate souls who have been so "annoyed" stop trying to interject their own personal and unsolicited opinions into the private marriages of other Americans -- by which I mean to say the moment they agree to stop making what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes into a matter for the public forum -- at that point in time we'll agree that we don't have to talk about it any more, either. Sort of like how we never really have to talk about the validity of interracial marriages anymore even though those also used to be illegal.