Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
9 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I might have more respect for a diehard Trumper than anyone labeling themselves a "centrist" in this political climate. MAGA are idiots and some are downright evil, but at least it's an ethos. Demanding a middle ground during an authoritarian takeover is beyond ridiculous. 

 

I think demanding a middle ground and winning over voters in the middle are two different things.  It’s a fine line but that distinction is there. 
You don’t need to have policies in the middle to win over voters in the middle in this environment.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

5. Lincoln Project style videos showing every promise Trump did not keep.

The only promise MAGA gives a fuck about is normalizing their hate.  Promise kept.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

This will never happen so long as the media (Legacy Media, Big Tech, and "Alternative" Media) are all owned by the 1%. There will always be a narrative where republicans are held blameless for their economic problems. Always.

There are some things the GOP did that can't really be effectively copied from another angle, but I think their approach to media can. Dems need to build up a partisan media outlet (and appurtenant popular cultural commentary) and mercilessly attack the mainstream media for its bias. We need more people to see the mainstream media as owned and controlled by Republican-aligned interests, which should be doable because that's actually the truth and there is a ton of supporting evidence. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

There are some online left-wing outlets that have their audiences but the outlets lack the capital to end up on anyone's algorithms. It's nothing but echo chambers, which does nothing to help Dems lay blame at the republicans for their constant economic failings. Only one side has the means to "flood the zone" and they will continue running that play until it stops working (and it won't ever stop working)

Posted
5 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I think demanding a middle ground and winning over voters in the middle are two different things.  It’s a fine line but that distinction is there. 
You don’t need to have policies in the middle to win over voters in the middle in this environment.  

Voters in the middle are people who don't know what they want or believe and are easily swayed to go with whoever is more popular and/or seems more mainstream.  Ironically, it has been Democrats' attempts to avoid culture war issues (which have required them to pre-emptively surrender on them and concede that Republicans are on the right side of them) that has cost them with these voters.

Posted

Cruising around the internet and this guy happened across my feed. If you buy this take on American history  I don't know how you thread the needle to accomplish the purpose of this thread.  So I guess kind of back to what I originally said, there is going to have to be a horrific reckoning; nothing else will really change without that first.  

 

FUUUUCK

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Voters in the middle are people who don't know what they want or believe and are easily swayed to go with whoever is more popular and/or seems more mainstream.  Ironically, it has been Democrats' attempts to avoid culture war issues (which have required them to pre-emptively surrender on them and concede that Republicans are on the right side of them) that has cost them with these voters.

I see myself and many I know as ‘in the middle’ and none of those in our circle are voting R no matter how far left the Dems go.  That’s just a fact.  Vehemently opposed to Trump and his policies.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I think demanding a middle ground and winning over voters in the middle are two different things.  It’s a fine line but that distinction is there. 
You don’t need to have policies in the middle to win over voters in the middle in this environment.  

Spend more energy on the 90 million Americans who didn't vote in 2024 instead of acquiescing the hostage demands from the much smaller "middle".  Current day centrists are basically political terrorists, stop negotiating with them. 

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I see myself and many I know as ‘in the middle’ and none of those in our circle are voting R no matter how far left the Dems go.  That’s just a fact.  Vehemently opposed to Trump and his policies.  

Exactly. So we need to stop worrying about them. 

 

Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Voters in the middle are people who don't know what they want or believe and are easily swayed to go with whoever is more popular and/or seems more mainstream.  Ironically, it has been Democrats' attempts to avoid culture war issues (which have required them to pre-emptively surrender on them and concede that Republicans are on the right side of them) that has cost them with these voters.

I actually think big D should court and go after harder the 1, 2 and 3rd generation Asian, South Asian, and Middle East demographics which are fast growing, family-oriented, highly educated, high earning, and still for some reason will vote for someone like Trump. Just a hunch but I think if yo could activate these demographics, you wouldn’t need the hard to win middle/moderates/independents.
 

Winning them is probably a ticket that upsets the most ardent on the left because I think the really socially progressive angles would be left on the cutting room floor, but I mean… I was just in California on vacation and every one of my Lyft drivers was one of the above and most were “well I don’t like him on everything but he’s doing some things really well”. (Even the immigrant from Mexico!). Granted this was SoCal and not Bay Area where I understand there is more red to be found.

Edited by Vegas64
Posted
26 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I see myself and many I know as ‘in the middle’ and none of those in our circle are voting R no matter how far left the Dems go.  That’s just a fact.  Vehemently opposed to Trump and his policies.  

That gets into a bunch of self-identification stuff, but for these purposes if you've vehemently against Trump and the modern GOP, I don't really consider that in "the middle."  In terms of political strategy, Dems don't need to worry about trying to win your vote any more than they need to worry about trying to win mine.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

When did a Democratic candidate make a special interest social issue the center of their agenda?

Wendy Davis literally ran a campaign for governor that mostly ignored daily life problems and almost exclusively focused on an abortion bill filibuster that ultimately failed. It wound up like the extension ND gave Charlie Weiss after his “signature loss” to USC. And that’s the Dems *best* social issue.

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

There is no running from social issues to focus on material issues. Democrats have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.  

Tell you what. Let’s you and me walk a block for 3 hours, anywhere in Texas with a Democrat% lower than 60%.
We have a maximum of five minutes with each person. You can say anything you want, but the first thing you must tell them is why they should support trans rights. I’ll exclusively talk about the economy and nothing else.
I bet I can collect more D votes, deal?
 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted (edited)

Btw, @wildcat09 you’ve bought a new car before, right? Does it have features you either didn’t care about much or even thought you disliked but could live with?

Did the marketing you saw and the salesperson you spoke with focus your attention on what you cared about, or did chant a litany of every feature and then demand that you actively embrace the auto-off switch and the heated seats?

If they didn’t, were they running from those features?

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted

Those are shitty terms. Why does it have to be the first thing I tell them? I might as well say you've got to tell them you think this guy has some decent points:

bafkreihju7whzippkhiogiix3tb6lrofenuxqdi

 

You and I are both saying they need to be able to message both social and material issues. I don't think you even disagree with the emphasis I've placed on the importance of fighting for social issues, so much as the exact wording I used in one post. You damned well know my point isn't that we've got to convert every voter to being 100% pro trans in their hearts, my point is that retreating from the political debate on social issues is ineffective and surrenders ground on issues we can and should actually be on the popular side of. 

Posted

Democrats who run in Texas should crisscross the state complaining about exploding energy costs and blaming Republicans. I think that will resonate with a lot of people, including those who might become voters on the issue of waning affordability.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Btw, @wildcat09 you’ve bought a new car before, right? Does it have features you either didn’t care about much or even thought you disliked but could live with?

Did the marketing you saw and the salesperson you spoke with focus your attention on what you cared about, or did chant a litany of every feature and then demand that you actively embrace the auto-off switch and the heated seats?

If they didn’t, were they running from those features?

image.jpeg.73fc9e84d2869693fa3e25e463fd266e.jpeg

 

new Dem motto

”if you think you hate us now”

Edited by Sawbonz
  • Haha 2
Posted
5 hours ago, Tuco said:

I don’t think you’ll find political movement in going after random CEOs.

The reaction to Luigi capping the health insurance CEO would say otherwise. 

Posted
5 hours ago, Goredho said:

No.  Are you seriously going to be stuck in a loop of infinite recursion asking me this over and over when I am plainly stating that Democrats will lose my vote if they want to swing hard left and truly become what the right has successfully advertised them as?

Are Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare hard left? From another perspective, did these programs solve problems?

  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Ojo Rojo said:

1. Attack and tax the rick.  Vilify the rich.  Instead of minorities and immigrants, make them the reason for all of the bad things that happen to working class people.

The Office Thank You GIF

Posted

Talk economics, but if they bring up a social issue, ask them how that directly impacts them.

Honestly, I think poisoned kool-aid may be the only solution at this point. A lot of these folks are net drains on society.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

Short term emergency priorities (to stop the bleeding and win the next presidency):

1. Find likable, charismatic leaders who can appeal to a broad range of voters.  The current roster of 2028 hopefuls fucking sucks: a California douchebag named “Gavin”, a super smart gay dude who black people will never show up for, a milquetoast dude from Kentucky, and a bunch of other people who lack personality.  I don’t who it is, but they need a leader that can unify people and get them to show up.

2. Demonize the rich.  Almost all of the political issues being framed by race and gender should really be about class.  Wealth consolidation is destroying our society.  It is going to take a long time to make change, but Democrats need to pound the narrative to get the ball rolling and switch the narrative.  The Democrats have the platform that benefits the poor and middle class, and they need to sell it.  >99.999% of people with a net worth over $100,000,000.00 are pieces of shit.  They’re the problem.

3. Ditch intellectualism.  I actually think this might be happening.  I’ve noticed several Dems starting to regularly curse during appearances; that is a good start.  Showing some legit anger and candor and speaking the way the median person speaks is the way.  This also means Dems showing up a lot more in rural areas.

Medium term (the next time they win the presidency and majority):

1. Pack the courts.  It’s the only move to quickly reverse some of the damage Trump has done.

2. Universal healthcare.  Once they get it, the GOP will never be able to take it away.

3. Balanced budget amendment.  They will be able to live with this more than the GOP will, because there’s a TON more room to add revenue than there is to cut spending.  The debt is a real risk, and it’s no longer a far off consequence.

Long term:

1. Lead the way to manage the pending demographic crisis.  This means making it more appealing for folks to start families (extended paid parental leave, increased tax credits for childcare) and managing immigration to bring in additional young people as needed.  I also like the idea of subsidized 0% interest home loans for all first time buyers.

2. Manage the changes brought on by AI and automation.  Before we know it (it could be less than a decade from now), 70%+ of white collar and 30%+ of blue collar jobs will be gone.  This might mean Universal Basic Income or a dramatically reduced work week.  

3. Keep the pipeline of leadership full and improve civic engagement and voter education.  Among other things it means figuring out how to fight misinformation.

 

  • Like 2
Posted
20 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

Short term emergency priorities (to stop the bleeding and win the next presidency):

1. Find likable, charismatic leaders who can appeal to a broad range of voters.  The current roster of 2028 hopefuls fucking sucks: a California douchebag named “Gavin”, a super smart gay dude who black people will never show up for, a milquetoast dude from Kentucky, and a bunch of other people who lack personality.  I don’t who it is, but they need a leader that can unify people and get them to show up.

2. Demonize the rich.  Almost all of the political issues being framed by race and gender should really be about class.  Wealth consolidation is destroying our society.  It is going to take a long time to make change, but Democrats need to pound the narrative to get the ball rolling and switch the narrative.  The Democrats have the platform that benefits the poor and middle class, and they need to sell it.  >99.999% of people with a net worth over $100,000,000.00 are pieces of shit.  They’re the problem.

3. Ditch intellectualism.  I actually think this might be happening.  I’ve noticed several Dems starting to regularly curse during appearances; that is a good start.  Showing some legit anger and candor and speaking the way the median person speaks is the way.  This also means Dems showing up a lot more in rural areas.

Medium term (the next time they win the presidency and majority):

1. Pack the courts.  It’s the only move to quickly reverse some of the damage Trump has done.

2. Universal healthcare.  Once they get it, the GOP will never be able to take it away.

3. Balanced budget amendment.  They will be able to live with this more than the GOP will, because there’s a TON more room to add revenue than there is to cut spending.  The debt is a real risk, and it’s no longer a far off consequence.

Long term:

1. Lead the way to manage the pending demographic crisis.  This means making it more appealing for folks to start families (extended paid parental leave, increased tax credits for childcare) and managing immigration to bring in additional young people as needed.  I also like the idea of subsidized 0% interest home loans for all first time buyers.a

2. Manage the changes brought on by AI and automation.  Before we know it (it could be less than a decade from now), 70%+ of white collar and 30%+ of blue collar jobs will be gone.  This might mean Universal Basic Income or a dramatically reduced work week.  

3. Keep the pipeline of leadership full and improve civic engagement and voter education.  Among other things it means figuring out how to fight misinformation.

 

A balanced budget amendment requires a lot more than a majority and the presidency.

Also, good luck with that.

Posted
5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

A balanced budget amendment requires a lot more than a majority and the presidency.

Also, good luck with that.

There’s that fag talk I was talking about.

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Snake Diggity said:

1. Find likable, charismatic leaders who can appeal to a broad range of voters.  The current roster of 2028 hopefuls fucking sucks: a California douchebag named “Gavin”, a super smart gay dude who black people will never show up for, a milquetoast dude from Kentucky, and a bunch of other people who lack personality.  I don’t who it is, but they need a leader that can unify people and get them to show up.

Well, we've heard about the Democrats' deep bench, so implement an age limit for DNC money. You're an elected official over age 65 who thinks you're fit to run again? Fine, but no party money for you. Oh, and count on a primary challenger who will campaign ruthlessly about your old ass standing in the way of real progress. The Democrats need to be the party of tomorrow.

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Why do so many people constantly talk about a fake version of the Democratic party that's even worse at politics than the real Democratic party? Why is their "solution" to the problems of this fake party always what the real party has been doing (and which has proven insufficient)?

Dems have been trying to hide from social issues, duck culture war shit, and focus on kitchen table issues every single election since 1992. When do you think that will start actually working? Before or after they've herded us all into gas chambers? 

Ducking from culture war fights is how you lose the fucking culture war and that fight is much more important to most people than economic issues they don't understand. When you tell voters that your opponents are right on their culture war shit, you're telling them to vote for your opponents. THAT is what has driven people to vote Republican. It wasn't telling them that we support trans rights, it was refusing to tell them they should too.  

I am hearing both of you here, even as I am more naturally a basic bitch centrist. I feel obligated to say here that the Democrats won more votes for President  than the GOP in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020. And in 2000 they likely ACTUALLY won the EC as well. The GOP won more votes in 2004 and 2024. Most Americans respond to kitchen table issues, most of the time. 

The issue here is that Dems play by norms and bipartisanship and good governance when in power and when they lose. The GOP wins through hyper partisan judges, by out street fighting the Dems in state legislatures, and by counting on Dems to be cautious with prosecutions. 

The GOP does neither.  Getting out of that cycle is complicated because you’re asking the Dems to destroy the village in order to save it. 

Edited by 956 Worldwide
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Posted

I’ll also add that when all politics becomes national rather than local, that is going to harm the party trying to appeal to the broadest base under our system.  The GOP used to try and be a big tent party but it ditched that. 
 

It is baked into our system that it pays off, relatively, to win more square miles.  The GOP realized that winning Texas by .5 percent is more valuable than winning New York by 30 percent when it comes to electoral college math. And it’s easier to build a red wallof rural white voters than it is to build a blue wall of complicated competing ethnic and social blocs, especially when the most provocative voices are accessible even when they are the most hyper-local. 

Posted

I love how multiple posters have proposed several good ideas then tossed in “balance the budget.” Guys, it has no political salience at all and it’s bad policy to boot.

Posted
49 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The GOP does neither.  Getting out of that cycle is complicated because you’re asking the Dems to destroy the village in order to save it. 

Well said.  This notion has been percolating just under my cortex for some time.

 



×
×
  • Create New...