Republicans do actually use Pelosi in their attack ads, so they at least seem to think that she's a liability. But then again, any minority leader might find themselves in a similar position. Democrats have certainly used "[X] is LAUGHING" and "[X] WINS" for all Republican values of X in fundraising and so on, so it may just be that visible politician --> oppo demonization without really that much concern for what they're actually doing or like.
I think Pelosi is good at her job and I generally trust her on the issues so I'd be reluctant to see her go even if she was an awkward ally for house members contesting marginal districts. In general, the things which seem to be hate magnets for her are that she's a powerful woman (and liberal) from San Francisco (a very liberal district) and I'm not really seeing a leadership I love that doesn't have figures like that somewhere in it. So I'm more inclined to think that sort of animosity is something we need to find ways to message around. Or, at least, that's my relatively unstudied take on the situation.
Pelosi the rest of the leadership should make themselves irrelevant by producing a new sexy platform for people to talk about instead of personality. Oooga booga look there's Nancy! would be less effective if there was something else to talk about.
What difference would it make? Whoever the Dems put in charge next will just become the next boogeyman. This isn't about Pelosi, it's about the party.
Republicans do actually use Pelosi in their attack ads, so they at least seem to think that she's a liability. But then again, any minority leader might find themselves in a similar position. Democrats have certainly used "[X] is LAUGHING" and "[X] WINS" for all Republican values of X in fundraising and so on, so it may just be that visible politician --> oppo demonization without really that much concern for what they're actually doing or like.
I think Pelosi is good at her job and I generally trust her on the issues so I'd be reluctant to see her go even if she was an awkward ally for house members contesting marginal districts. In general, the things which seem to be hate magnets for her are that she's a powerful woman (and liberal) from San Francisco (a very liberal district) and I'm not really seeing a leadership I love that doesn't have figures like that somewhere in it. So I'm more inclined to think that sort of animosity is something we need to find ways to message around. Or, at least, that's my relatively unstudied take on the situation.
Pelosi the rest of the leadership should make themselves irrelevant by producing a new sexy platform for people to talk about instead of personality. Oooga booga look there's Nancy! would be less effective if there was something else to talk about.
What difference would it make? Whoever the Dems put in charge next will just become the next boogeyman. This isn't about Pelosi, it's about the party.
i think his point was instead of replacing Pelosi, improve messaging so that instead of constantly playing defense, Dems can actually motivate their base
Yes, improving messaging should be Point #1 in any Democratic improvement portfolio. Their messaging for the past.....ever? has been absolutely pathetic. The Democratic Party is an abject failure at getting their messaging out.
And I agree with people who say the Dem leadership needs to go, just maybe not for the same reasons as they.
Republicans do actually use Pelosi in their attack ads, so they at least seem to think that she's a liability. But then again, any minority leader might find themselves in a similar position. Democrats have certainly used "[X] is LAUGHING" and "[X] WINS" for all Republican values of X in fundraising and so on, so it may just be that visible politician --> oppo demonization without really that much concern for what they're actually doing or like.
I think Pelosi is good at her job and I generally trust her on the issues so I'd be reluctant to see her go even if she was an awkward ally for house members contesting marginal districts. In general, the things which seem to be hate magnets for her are that she's a powerful woman (and liberal) from San Francisco (a very liberal district) and I'm not really seeing a leadership I love that doesn't have figures like that somewhere in it. So I'm more inclined to think that sort of animosity is something we need to find ways to message around. Or, at least, that's my relatively unstudied take on the situation.
Pelosi the rest of the leadership should make themselves irrelevant by producing a new sexy platform for people to talk about instead of personality. Oooga booga look there's Nancy! would be less effective if there was something else to talk about.
What difference would it make? Whoever the Dems put in charge next will just become the next boogeyman. This isn't about Pelosi, it's about the party.
Weird not weird that the target for blame ends up on the next most powerful woman as soon as Hillary is out of the picture!
That's fine as a starting point, but considering how the story ended for Hillary leaving it at the acknowledgement of sexism without a comprehensive plan to win is probably not a good idea.
Weird not weird that the target for blame ends up on the next most powerful woman as soon as Hillary is out of the picture!
That's fine as a starting point, but considering how the story ended for Hillary leaving it at the acknowledgement of sexism without a comprehensive plan to win is probably not a good idea.
Even if Pelosi did step down from leadership the attacks would just change to whoever took her place being her deep state puppet. It's not a solution to anything.
+7
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Well fuck that guy then.
Also, Jeffery Beauregard Sessions III is the attorney general. We need to be making more ads about that.
Even if Pelosi did step down from leadership the attacks would just change to whoever took her place being her deep state puppet. It's not a solution to anything.
More to the point, her stepping down to be replaced by a Midwestern white male Representative would be demoralizing to a decent portion of regular Democratic voters who are women.
Ossoff's candidacy was pushed by the liberal grassroots, especially dailykos, and John Lewis. Complaining that he represents the national party not getting black voters doesn't make any sense unless you just want to be mad at the national party.
When I say we should figure out how to turn out the black vote I mean we should figure how to turn out the black vote, I don't mean we need more white people to congratulate themselves for their association with a civil right leader. The black vote is not turning out for Democrats like it used to, and that's just a plain fact and it's most acute among young black voters who aren't responding to this messaging.
I wonder whats different between 2008 and 2012 and every other election ever? Hmmm
You're not getting Obama level turnout for African Americans without Obama, which is what "reverting to the mean" is. I mean maybe we choose Corey Booker or Deval Patrick in 2020 but that's both a long way away, not what you're arguing for and not really an answer. In the 2017 first round special election, black turnout % was higher than Republican turnout % and we have no data on the runoff. That only seems like a problem with candidates like Jon Ossoff if you really want it to be.
Republicans do actually use Pelosi in their attack ads, so they at least seem to think that she's a liability. But then again, any minority leader might find themselves in a similar position. Democrats have certainly used "[X] is LAUGHING" and "[X] WINS" for all Republican values of X in fundraising and so on, so it may just be that visible politician --> oppo demonization without really that much concern for what they're actually doing or like.
I think Pelosi is good at her job and I generally trust her on the issues so I'd be reluctant to see her go even if she was an awkward ally for house members contesting marginal districts. In general, the things which seem to be hate magnets for her are that she's a powerful woman (and liberal) from San Francisco (a very liberal district) and I'm not really seeing a leadership I love that doesn't have figures like that somewhere in it. So I'm more inclined to think that sort of animosity is something we need to find ways to message around. Or, at least, that's my relatively unstudied take on the situation.
Pelosi the rest of the leadership should make themselves irrelevant by producing a new sexy platform for people to talk about instead of personality. Oooga booga look there's Nancy! would be less effective if there was something else to talk about.
Yes, all you need to do in order to completely control the other side's rhetoric is say something and they have to talk about what you want to talk about. And also all the coach had to do was blitz and we'd win the Super Bowl
Randy Bryce seems like the kind of guy the Democrats need to look to for the future (at least so far, please don't fuck everything up, Randy)
RACINE, WISCONSIN – Despite his 6’2 frame, the half-Mexican, half-Polish Army veteran known as the “@IronStache” on Twitter is the epitome of a gentle giant. Holding a beef brisket sandwich in his hand, he hugs, back slaps, and laughs his way through the crowd at the Juneteenth parade on the lakefront of Racine.
[...]
If elected to Congress, he sees his role there as being more of a shop steward than a politician, and that he aims to run a campaign that amplifies the voices of others. “For an African American woman, there is no possible way that I can put myself into that woman’s frame of mind, the struggles she faces on a daily basis,” Bryce says. “I could do something to pretend, but I can’t experience it myself, so I need to rely on other people.”…
I think the ads against Ossoff demonstrate that any Democratic leader would be demonized in similar ways. He ran an extremely caution, centrist campaign and got tarred as a wild eyed liberal who supported the assassination of Republican Congressmen. Sadly it's probably more effective because Pelosi is a powerful woman but the root is just that she's a Democrat and they run the same playbook against every Democrat. So replacing her probably won't help all that much except I guess in the narrow sense that it takes some time for those narratives to be built. And caving to these fuckwads makes me mad.
As for the Democrats calling on her to step aside: Moulton is otherwise decent from what I know. Rice was a Republican until 2005. Ryan was part of the Stupak Amendment clusterfuck. So yeah.
As for black (youth) turnout, my anecdotal evidence right now is that there's a large increase in hopelessness among my black friends. The Castille verdict and subsequent dashcam footage seemed like it might have been the straw that broke the camel's back as far as working with the system goes.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
But the Georgia 6 April primary was a continuation of some 2016 turnout trends too — trends that should worry Democrats. In 2016, turnout among whites was up across the country, and in highly educated areas like the 6th District in the suburbs of Atlanta. This redounded to Democrats’ advantage. At the same time, black turnout was down precipitously, from 66 percent in 2012 to 59 percent in 2016. This black-white turnout gap continued in the first round of Georgia’s special election, where the Democrats got impressive turnout levels from all races and ethnicities — except African-Americans.
Turns out the sort of campaigns Democrats like Ossoff are running is leaving African Americans snoozing and reverting to the mean in the general.
Turns out systematic voter suppression keeps black people from voting.
In short, no that's doesn't get at what's happening. If you look at states without an increased voter suppression effort you'll find the same story of black participation dropping across the board everywhere.
Some only vote for presidential candidates. Who are named Obama. Ugh.
Maybe instead of blaming voters for not voting, we figure out how to make them want to vote and help them get to the polls.
I don't see how?
if the thought of donald fucking trump taking away your childrens healthcare doesn't do it ....
I don't know, maybe we ask them
we already know!
more jobs, higher pay, better healthcare, cleaner water
you know, the democratic platform. at this point it's laziness and apathy. it must be. I can't think of anything that hasn't in some way been touched upon and offered up improvement in some fashion by the dems
aside from I guess deregulation (with good reason!)
But the Georgia 6 April primary was a continuation of some 2016 turnout trends too — trends that should worry Democrats. In 2016, turnout among whites was up across the country, and in highly educated areas like the 6th District in the suburbs of Atlanta. This redounded to Democrats’ advantage. At the same time, black turnout was down precipitously, from 66 percent in 2012 to 59 percent in 2016. This black-white turnout gap continued in the first round of Georgia’s special election, where the Democrats got impressive turnout levels from all races and ethnicities — except African-Americans.
Turns out the sort of campaigns Democrats like Ossoff are running is leaving African Americans snoozing and reverting to the mean in the general.
Turns out systematic voter suppression keeps black people from voting.
In short, no that's doesn't get at what's happening. If you look at states without an increased voter suppression effort you'll find the same story of black participation dropping across the board everywhere.
Some only vote for presidential candidates. Who are named Obama. Ugh.
Black men strike again, they are dastardly. Anyways, Jeff Stein from Vox was testing out Brian Fallon's Panera Bread theory in GA-06. He went to a Panera bread to talk to the Democrats' beloved wealthy suburbanites and after getting kicked out went to a Waffle House and talked with two young black dudes, who are familiar to me as Atlanta guys.
It's their fault Ossoff was talking about data consolidation and reducing the deficit? Yeah they sound a bit naive, but that's a lot of people. Now and in the past and forever. They're not gonna turn out for a platform of President tweets and that's bad.
I used to live next door to Tim Ryan's district. It's great that he can maintain a Democratic hold over Eastern Ohio, but he has to get that he now represents the rump of the party, not its vanguard. At best the goal is a rearguard action to claim certain chunks of the Midwest before we can open up Texas, Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia and build momentum in Florida.
The future of the Democratic party is brown and southern. Tim Ryan would be a flash in the pan.
But the Georgia 6 April primary was a continuation of some 2016 turnout trends too — trends that should worry Democrats. In 2016, turnout among whites was up across the country, and in highly educated areas like the 6th District in the suburbs of Atlanta. This redounded to Democrats’ advantage. At the same time, black turnout was down precipitously, from 66 percent in 2012 to 59 percent in 2016. This black-white turnout gap continued in the first round of Georgia’s special election, where the Democrats got impressive turnout levels from all races and ethnicities — except African-Americans.
Turns out the sort of campaigns Democrats like Ossoff are running is leaving African Americans snoozing and reverting to the mean in the general.
Turns out systematic voter suppression keeps black people from voting.
In short, no that's doesn't get at what's happening. If you look at states without an increased voter suppression effort you'll find the same story of black participation dropping across the board everywhere.
Some only vote for presidential candidates. Who are named Obama. Ugh.
Black men strike again, they are dastardly. Anyways, Jeff Stein from Vox was testing out Brian Fallon's Panera Bread theory in GA-06. He went to a Panera bread to talk to the Democrats' beloved wealthy suburbanites and after getting kicked out went to a Waffle House and talked with two young black dudes, who are familiar to me as Atlanta guys.
It's their fault Ossoff was talking about data consolidation and reducing the deficit? Yeah they sound a bit naive, but that's a lot of people. Now and in the past and forever. They're not gonna turn out for a platform of President tweets and that's bad.
The GOP gets their voters like this to the polls with threats of takin yer guns and planned parenthood conspiracy theories
Clearly the Dems need to get better at motivating bullshit.
I think the ads against Ossoff demonstrate that any Democratic leader would be demonized in similar ways. He ran an extremely caution, centrist campaign and got tarred as a wild eyed liberal who supported the assassination of Republican Congressmen.
See, I think this is a major problem with the Democratic party. They select moderates, hoping to appeal to independents. The right leaning candidate rails against the moderate as the embodiment of godless commie hyper-left baby killing radicalism out to take your jobs and sell your daughters to ISIS to pay for welfare. And everyone buys it! None of the supposed benefits actually exist!
There is ZERO reason to run a moderate begging for independent votes. It does not work. It has not worked for almost twenty fucking years. If your candidate does not have a clear message that resonates with your ideological base, you WILL lose consistently. And over those 20 years of repeating this, what was CENTRIST or even center right has become untenably left wing (see: the ACA), and now our 'centrists' are largely conservatives sane enough not to hop on the crazy train...and either don't believe or can't even articulate a progressive ideological message anyway.
There's also the point that getting people to vote means restoring their trust on the system and their hope that things can get better.
That's a lot of grassroot effort, and trying to go all in on "The Special Election (tm)" as a quick magic fix won't work, and the DOOM emails don't help either.
There's also the point that getting people to vote means restoring their trust on the system and their hope that things can get better.
That's a lot of grassroot effort, and trying to go all in on "The Special Election (tm)" as a quick magic fix won't work, and the DOOM emails don't help either.
I think the ads against Ossoff demonstrate that any Democratic leader would be demonized in similar ways. He ran an extremely caution, centrist campaign and got tarred as a wild eyed liberal who supported the assassination of Republican Congressmen.
See, I think this is a major problem with the Democratic party. They select moderates, hoping to appeal to independents. The right leaning candidate rails against the moderate as the embodiment of godless commie hyper-left baby killing radicalism out to take your jobs and sell your daughters to ISIS to pay for welfare. And everyone buys it! None of the supposed benefits actually exist!
There is ZERO reason to run a moderate begging for independent votes. It does not work. It has not worked for almost twenty fucking years. If your candidate does not have a clear message that resonates with your ideological base, you WILL lose consistently. And over those 20 years of repeating this, what was CENTRIST or even center right has become untenably left wing (see: the ACA), and now our 'centrists' are largely conservatives sane enough not to hop on the crazy train...and either don't believe or can't even articulate a progressive ideological message anyway.
There aren't enough democrats in GA06 to win this way. If you want to contest every seat, you have to find people that work in those seats. You can't have it both ways.
+7
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
"Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, an open critic of Ms. Pelosi, called the Georgia result “frustrating” and urged a shake-up at the top of the party.
Representative Kathleen Rice of New York told CNN the entire Democratic leadership team should go.
Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio, who tried to unseat Ms. Pelosi as House minority leader late last fall, said she remained a political millstone for Democrats. But Mr. Ryan said the Democratic brand had also become “toxic” in much of the country because voters saw Democrats as “not being able to connect with the issues they care about.”
And over those 20 years of repeating this, what was CENTRIST or even center right has become untenably left wing (see: the ACA)
As previously explained, this is bullshit and incredibly frustrating.
It's incredibly frustrating because it's absolutely true. I haven't seen anything in this thread or elsewhere that even partially explains that it's not.
There's also the point that getting people to vote means restoring their trust on the system and their hope that things can get better.
That's a lot of grassroot effort, and trying to go all in on "The Special Election (tm)" as a quick magic fix won't work, and the DOOM emails don't help either.
unfortunately, we can't do that unless they vote
Maybe not on a national scale but how about the local? Is there anything stopping states that have a liberal majority from cracking down on things like police: brutality, obstruction of justice, cover-ups, etc? What's keeping a state that has the power from taking a step forward and putting their money where their mouth is? Until they see that someone with strength is willing to fight for them and won't fold like a cheap tent at the first sign of trouble their trust in a system that's keep custom-designed to crush them will be understandably minimal.
So what I'm reading there is that after talking to people for 90 minutes about how a specific party's platform aligns with a decent number of things that are important to them they ... have no idea why they won't vote for that party's candidate?
So "talk to them" seems to be out now, since that won't help.
Also, I'm pretty sure that "I dont partake in this government system. I wish I could just secede from America" should've quickly led to "OK, cool, so you're what, a Freeman? A Soverign Citizen?" Just... what?
The Democratic Party of today does not resemble the Democratic Party of the 90s. Obama and more recently Sanders really did move the range of acceptable opinions well to the left. Continuing to use the 90s as an example of how conservative the modern Democratic Party is is obnoxious at best and disingenuous at worst. Obvious example is basically all Democrats are now for expanding social security, which definitely wasn't the case as recently as 5 years ago. I doubt anyone who runs for the Democratic nomination in 2020 will run on anything short of a public option and a bunch of candidates will be running on Medicare for all, including I think all of the theoretical front runners right now. And they're not warmed over 90s Republican proposals, as those proposals were fucking insane. You're seriously misremembering how evil the Gingrich Congress was. Say what you will about Democratic policy positions, they aren't that.
Here's my previous post on the topic. Which is purely economic and ignores social issues entirely, where the Democratic Party has moved so far to the left people in the 90s wouldn't fucking recognize it.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So what I'm reading there is that after talking to people for 90 minutes about how a specific party's platform aligns with a decent number of things that are important to them they ... have no idea why they won't vote for that party's candidate?
So "talk to them" seems to be out now, since that won't help.
Also, I'm pretty sure that "I dont partake in this government system. I wish I could just secede from America" should've quickly led to "OK, cool, so you're what, a Freeman? A Soverign Citizen?" Just... what?
He wasn't trying to talk them into voting for the Democrats or anyone, he's not canvasser, I think he was trying to understand what they think and maybe relate their story. Journalist, not Democratic activist.
Also, if you polled 100% of people who decide not to vote, maybe 0.1% of their answers will be better. Do you remember talking to someone who's not voting, but could probably find ground with a mainstream party, and coming away thinking coming away convinced that they have a great reason not to vote? All non-voters sound like that.
But the Georgia 6 April primary was a continuation of some 2016 turnout trends too — trends that should worry Democrats. In 2016, turnout among whites was up across the country, and in highly educated areas like the 6th District in the suburbs of Atlanta. This redounded to Democrats’ advantage. At the same time, black turnout was down precipitously, from 66 percent in 2012 to 59 percent in 2016. This black-white turnout gap continued in the first round of Georgia’s special election, where the Democrats got impressive turnout levels from all races and ethnicities — except African-Americans.
Turns out the sort of campaigns Democrats like Ossoff are running is leaving African Americans snoozing and reverting to the mean in the general.
Turns out systematic voter suppression keeps black people from voting.
In short, no that's doesn't get at what's happening. If you look at states without an increased voter suppression effort you'll find the same story of black participation dropping across the board everywhere.
Some only vote for presidential candidates. Who are named Obama. Ugh.
Black men strike again, they are dastardly. Anyways, Jeff Stein from Vox was testing out Brian Fallon's Panera Bread theory in GA-06. He went to a Panera bread to talk to the Democrats' beloved wealthy suburbanites and after getting kicked out went to a Waffle House and talked with two young black dudes, who are familiar to me as Atlanta guys.
It's their fault Ossoff was talking about data consolidation and reducing the deficit? Yeah they sound a bit naive, but that's a lot of people. Now and in the past and forever. They're not gonna turn out for a platform of President tweets and that's bad.
The GOP gets their voters like this to the polls with threats of takin yer guns and planned parenthood conspiracy theories
Clearly the Dems need to get better at motivating bullshit.
They're able to do that because their voters feel enfranchised, in the full sense of the word.
Like here's the moderate dude running for Governor in Virginia:
That's the left's rhetoric! Specifically Warren's. The center of the Democratic Party is moving towards the left, unfortunately the left part of the Democratic Party refuses to acknowledge that.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I think the ads against Ossoff demonstrate that any Democratic leader would be demonized in similar ways. He ran an extremely caution, centrist campaign and got tarred as a wild eyed liberal who supported the assassination of Republican Congressmen.
See, I think this is a major problem with the Democratic party. They select moderates, hoping to appeal to independents. The right leaning candidate rails against the moderate as the embodiment of godless commie hyper-left baby killing radicalism out to take your jobs and sell your daughters to ISIS to pay for welfare. And everyone buys it! None of the supposed benefits actually exist!
There is ZERO reason to run a moderate begging for independent votes. It does not work. It has not worked for almost twenty fucking years. If your candidate does not have a clear message that resonates with your ideological base, you WILL lose consistently. And over those 20 years of repeating this, what was CENTRIST or even center right has become untenably left wing (see: the ACA), and now our 'centrists' are largely conservatives sane enough not to hop on the crazy train...and either don't believe or can't even articulate a progressive ideological message anyway.
There aren't enough democrats in GA06 to win this way. If you want to contest every seat, you have to find people that work in those seats. You can't have it both ways.
That's not really what I'm saying, though - I'm saying that the shorthand of 'Democrat means X' and 'Republican means Y' is incredibly, incredibly important. Probably more important in many cases than the actual candidates' policy positions, since certain as we've seen running candidates with more moderate positions in districts like these doesn't actually have the effect we want it to (ie, even moderate candidates are still successfully tied to liberal identification).
I think we've arrived at a place where the Republican party does a good job of presenting a (minimally) coherent and easily understood worldview that the people they're pitching it to can understand. They also do a good job of finding candidates that buy what they're selling, and not diluting their brand by attaching it to any weird set of positions they think might be able to win a given district.
Now their model is fucking wrong, but that's only important if you can offer an alternative. What should concern Democrats is that as a collective party banner, we don't do that, and many of our candidates seem actively embarassed to be associated with what I'd consider to be core to a coherent Democratic party worldview, if I were to try to figure out what that actually is.
Also, I'm pretty sure that "I dont partake in this government system. I wish I could just secede from America" should've quickly led to "OK, cool, so you're what, a Freeman? A Soverign Citizen?" Just... what?
If you're any degree away from the white Christian cis hetero male standard, our government will shit on you in a bunch of different ways, with the greater the diversion, the greater the amount of fecal matter. Given what black Americans deal with, I'm not surprised that this individual feels disconnected.
Also, I'm pretty sure that "I dont partake in this government system. I wish I could just secede from America" should've quickly led to "OK, cool, so you're what, a Freeman? A Soverign Citizen?" Just... what?
If you're any degree away from the white Christian cis hetero male standard, our government will shit on you in a bunch of different ways, with the greater the diversion, the greater the amount of fecal matter. Given what black Americans deal with, I'm not surprised that this individual feels disconnected.
The trust is shattered and things like the recent acquittal of a police officer in the murder of a black man despite clear dashcam footage sure aren't helping.
I guess it just needs to be bad enough for people to vote
Which we're well on our way to!
Shame about my kids healthcare and such though =/
Voting patterns by income suggest otherwise, when people are worse off they stay away from the system. It's something to be overcome.
Democrats do best when Republican policy finally hits the middle class white person in their pocketbook. Then we fix shit, at least for them, and they vote their cultural identity.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So what I'm reading there is that after talking to people for 90 minutes about how a specific party's platform aligns with a decent number of things that are important to them they ... have no idea why they won't vote for that party's candidate?
So "talk to them" seems to be out now, since that won't help.
Also, I'm pretty sure that "I dont partake in this government system. I wish I could just secede from America" should've quickly led to "OK, cool, so you're what, a Freeman? A Soverign Citizen?" Just... what?
He wasn't trying to talk them into voting for the Democrats or anyone, he's not canvasser, I think he was trying to understand what they think and maybe relate their story. Journalist, not Democratic activist.
Also, if you polled 100% of people who decide not to vote, maybe 0.1% of their answers will be better. Do you remember talking to someone who's not voting, but could probably find ground with a mainstream party, and coming away thinking coming away convinced that they have a great reason not to vote? All non-voters sound like that.
Cornell West gets a lot of shit in these parts, but I think his central criticism of Obama is sound - if eight years of a black Democratic president ends with the overall black community worse off than before, what is the overall message that the party is sending about voting? Yes, the other party is worse and will make conditions deteriorate, but there is plenty of research that shows that negative messaging in any field is only useful to reduce enthusiasm/turnout.
It is Advertising 101. You can't sell a product by convincing people your competitor sucks. That just drives people out of the market. You need to convince them your product will improve their lives.
So what I'm reading there is that after talking to people for 90 minutes about how a specific party's platform aligns with a decent number of things that are important to them they ... have no idea why they won't vote for that party's candidate?
So "talk to them" seems to be out now, since that won't help.
Also, I'm pretty sure that "I dont partake in this government system. I wish I could just secede from America" should've quickly led to "OK, cool, so you're what, a Freeman? A Soverign Citizen?" Just... what?
He wasn't trying to talk them into voting for the Democrats or anyone, he's not canvasser, I think he was trying to understand what they think and maybe relate their story. Journalist, not Democratic activist.
Also, if you polled 100% of people who decide not to vote, maybe 0.1% of their answers will be better. Do you remember talking to someone who's not voting, but could probably find ground with a mainstream party, and coming away thinking coming away convinced that they have a great reason not to vote? All non-voters sound like that.
Cornell West gets a lot of shit in these parts, but I think his central criticism of Obama is sound - if eight years of a black Democratic president ends with the overall black community worse off than before, what is the overall message that the party is sending about voting? Yes, the other party is worse and will make conditions deteriorate, but there is plenty of research that shows that negative messaging in any field is only useful to reduce enthusiasm/turnout.
It is Advertising 101. You can't sell a product by convincing people your competitor sucks. That just drives people out of the market. You need to convince them your product will improve their lives.
Except that the black community wasn't worse off than before, which is why his critique fails. And that's not getting into the stew of toxic blackness that West's arguments sit in.
So what I'm reading there is that after talking to people for 90 minutes about how a specific party's platform aligns with a decent number of things that are important to them they ... have no idea why they won't vote for that party's candidate?
So "talk to them" seems to be out now, since that won't help.
Also, I'm pretty sure that "I dont partake in this government system. I wish I could just secede from America" should've quickly led to "OK, cool, so you're what, a Freeman? A Soverign Citizen?" Just... what?
He wasn't trying to talk them into voting for the Democrats or anyone, he's not canvasser, I think he was trying to understand what they think and maybe relate their story. Journalist, not Democratic activist.
Also, if you polled 100% of people who decide not to vote, maybe 0.1% of their answers will be better. Do you remember talking to someone who's not voting, but could probably find ground with a mainstream party, and coming away thinking coming away convinced that they have a great reason not to vote? All non-voters sound like that.
Cornell West gets a lot of shit in these parts, but I think his central criticism of Obama is sound - if eight years of a black Democratic president ends with the overall black community worse off than before, what is the overall message that the party is sending about voting? Yes, the other party is worse and will make conditions deteriorate, but there is plenty of research that shows that negative messaging in any field is only useful to reduce enthusiasm/turnout.
It is Advertising 101. You can't sell a product by convincing people your competitor sucks. That just drives people out of the market. You need to convince them your product will improve their lives.
Except that the black community wasn't worse off than before, which is why his critique fails. And that's not getting into the stew of toxic blackness that West's arguments sit in.
Posts
I'm not sure what our disagreement is.
Yes, improving messaging should be Point #1 in any Democratic improvement portfolio. Their messaging for the past.....ever? has been absolutely pathetic. The Democratic Party is an abject failure at getting their messaging out.
And I agree with people who say the Dem leadership needs to go, just maybe not for the same reasons as they.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Nothing, apparently I just misread your post.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
That's fine as a starting point, but considering how the story ended for Hillary leaving it at the acknowledgement of sexism without a comprehensive plan to win is probably not a good idea.
I know.
It sucks though.
(Tyler Jones is a SC Dem strategist/comms guy, who runs a new-ish PR firm and would like said candidate to hire him)
Also, Jeffery Beauregard Sessions III is the attorney general. We need to be making more ads about that.
More to the point, her stepping down to be replaced by a Midwestern white male Representative would be demoralizing to a decent portion of regular Democratic voters who are women.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
You're not getting Obama level turnout for African Americans without Obama, which is what "reverting to the mean" is. I mean maybe we choose Corey Booker or Deval Patrick in 2020 but that's both a long way away, not what you're arguing for and not really an answer. In the 2017 first round special election, black turnout % was higher than Republican turnout % and we have no data on the runoff. That only seems like a problem with candidates like Jon Ossoff if you really want it to be.
Yes, all you need to do in order to completely control the other side's rhetoric is say something and they have to talk about what you want to talk about. And also all the coach had to do was blitz and we'd win the Super Bowl
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
http://paydayreport.com/1566-2/
How many other Democrats were out in Juneteenth parades? If the answer is anything less than "all of them", they've fucked up.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
As for the Democrats calling on her to step aside: Moulton is otherwise decent from what I know. Rice was a Republican until 2005. Ryan was part of the Stupak Amendment clusterfuck. So yeah.
As for black (youth) turnout, my anecdotal evidence right now is that there's a large increase in hopelessness among my black friends. The Castille verdict and subsequent dashcam footage seemed like it might have been the straw that broke the camel's back as far as working with the system goes.
we already know!
more jobs, higher pay, better healthcare, cleaner water
you know, the democratic platform. at this point it's laziness and apathy. it must be. I can't think of anything that hasn't in some way been touched upon and offered up improvement in some fashion by the dems
aside from I guess deregulation (with good reason!)
Black men strike again, they are dastardly. Anyways, Jeff Stein from Vox was testing out Brian Fallon's Panera Bread theory in GA-06. He went to a Panera bread to talk to the Democrats' beloved wealthy suburbanites and after getting kicked out went to a Waffle House and talked with two young black dudes, who are familiar to me as Atlanta guys.
It's their fault Ossoff was talking about data consolidation and reducing the deficit? Yeah they sound a bit naive, but that's a lot of people. Now and in the past and forever. They're not gonna turn out for a platform of President tweets and that's bad.
The future of the Democratic party is brown and southern. Tim Ryan would be a flash in the pan.
The GOP gets their voters like this to the polls with threats of takin yer guns and planned parenthood conspiracy theories
Clearly the Dems need to get better at motivating bullshit.
There is ZERO reason to run a moderate begging for independent votes. It does not work. It has not worked for almost twenty fucking years. If your candidate does not have a clear message that resonates with your ideological base, you WILL lose consistently. And over those 20 years of repeating this, what was CENTRIST or even center right has become untenably left wing (see: the ACA), and now our 'centrists' are largely conservatives sane enough not to hop on the crazy train...and either don't believe or can't even articulate a progressive ideological message anyway.
As previously explained, this is bullshit and incredibly frustrating.
That's a lot of grassroot effort, and trying to go all in on "The Special Election (tm)" as a quick magic fix won't work, and the DOOM emails don't help either.
unfortunately, we can't do that unless they vote
There aren't enough democrats in GA06 to win this way. If you want to contest every seat, you have to find people that work in those seats. You can't have it both ways.
Don't tell me how to live my life.
My awful, awful life.
Maybe not on a national scale but how about the local? Is there anything stopping states that have a liberal majority from cracking down on things like police: brutality, obstruction of justice, cover-ups, etc? What's keeping a state that has the power from taking a step forward and putting their money where their mouth is? Until they see that someone with strength is willing to fight for them and won't fold like a cheap tent at the first sign of trouble their trust in a system that's keep custom-designed to crush them will be understandably minimal.
So "talk to them" seems to be out now, since that won't help.
Also, I'm pretty sure that "I dont partake in this government system. I wish I could just secede from America" should've quickly led to "OK, cool, so you're what, a Freeman? A Soverign Citizen?" Just... what?
Here's my previous post on the topic. Which is purely economic and ignores social issues entirely, where the Democratic Party has moved so far to the left people in the 90s wouldn't fucking recognize it.
Which we're well on our way to!
Shame about my kids healthcare and such though =/
He wasn't trying to talk them into voting for the Democrats or anyone, he's not canvasser, I think he was trying to understand what they think and maybe relate their story. Journalist, not Democratic activist.
Also, if you polled 100% of people who decide not to vote, maybe 0.1% of their answers will be better. Do you remember talking to someone who's not voting, but could probably find ground with a mainstream party, and coming away thinking coming away convinced that they have a great reason not to vote? All non-voters sound like that.
They're able to do that because their voters feel enfranchised, in the full sense of the word.
That's the left's rhetoric! Specifically Warren's. The center of the Democratic Party is moving towards the left, unfortunately the left part of the Democratic Party refuses to acknowledge that.
I think we've arrived at a place where the Republican party does a good job of presenting a (minimally) coherent and easily understood worldview that the people they're pitching it to can understand. They also do a good job of finding candidates that buy what they're selling, and not diluting their brand by attaching it to any weird set of positions they think might be able to win a given district.
Now their model is fucking wrong, but that's only important if you can offer an alternative. What should concern Democrats is that as a collective party banner, we don't do that, and many of our candidates seem actively embarassed to be associated with what I'd consider to be core to a coherent Democratic party worldview, if I were to try to figure out what that actually is.
Voting patterns by income suggest otherwise, when people are worse off they stay away from the system. It's something to be overcome.
If you're any degree away from the white Christian cis hetero male standard, our government will shit on you in a bunch of different ways, with the greater the diversion, the greater the amount of fecal matter. Given what black Americans deal with, I'm not surprised that this individual feels disconnected.
The trust is shattered and things like the recent acquittal of a police officer in the murder of a black man despite clear dashcam footage sure aren't helping.
Democrats do best when Republican policy finally hits the middle class white person in their pocketbook. Then we fix shit, at least for them, and they vote their cultural identity.
Cornell West gets a lot of shit in these parts, but I think his central criticism of Obama is sound - if eight years of a black Democratic president ends with the overall black community worse off than before, what is the overall message that the party is sending about voting? Yes, the other party is worse and will make conditions deteriorate, but there is plenty of research that shows that negative messaging in any field is only useful to reduce enthusiasm/turnout.
It is Advertising 101. You can't sell a product by convincing people your competitor sucks. That just drives people out of the market. You need to convince them your product will improve their lives.
Except that the black community wasn't worse off than before, which is why his critique fails. And that's not getting into the stew of toxic blackness that West's arguments sit in.
The ACLU's numbers disagree -
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/black-recession-housing-race/396725/
The recession wasn't Obama's fault, but that is irrelevent when talking about generating political engagement.