The Democratic Party Continues to Ignore Reality

[woolfe9998]

I disagree. Insofar as making that the message everyone hears.
Economic populism, yes... but speak towards helping people and the programs to do that. The policy to do that.
The details on how to pay for it are important, but not for PR. Not as a focal point.

It's because taxes are viewed as "taking away" and "harming" folks. They need to see the benefits (to them) before they'd accept it.

I agree that the public should be told what will directly benefit them along with being told how it will be paid for, which is what I would do. However, I would point out that increasing taxes on the wealthy is a popular idea, even it is only done for deficit reduction purposes. And I would advertise it as being for that purpose in addition to funding some additional spending. Making deficit reduction part of the equation gives it more cross-over appeal.

 

[ivwshane]

Instead of "fixing the electorate" maybe we will fix the message to the electorate.

Yes! Lets vote in whoever has the best message! What could possibly go wrong? History sure hasn't shown us that evil people come into power with a message that resonates!

/s

 

[Jhhnn]

Call Obama and tell him how wrong he is.

Obama being right & what I offered are not oppositional. Clinton got the message wrong because she over estimated he electorate.

 

[Jaskalas]

And lastly, you could have ads that show, factually, how Republican policies continuously fail to do what they claimed they would do (like reagans, kansas's, and Bush's tax cuts did not lead to an increase in tax revenue nor did they lead to above average growth in the economy.

Yeah... that whole trickle down cornerstone needs to be taken out back and beaten until it's buried in the ground. Hell, this time around I think it was glanced over in favor of scapegoats (trade deals, immigrants) to deliver the same false hope. Maybe it doesn't have the legs it used to, but I still know people who think the world revolves around tax cuts.

Even the basic stimulus VS austerity argument should be driven home. Capitalism needs liquidity, but that doesn't come from tax cuts. It comes from consumers. Throw in "Inequality For All" and there's the path I traveled. We don't want to change American capitalism, we want to restore it and it worked best when inequality was at historic lows. Specific policies will restore our consumers and our economy. We fight for them and we build a new economic majority.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes! Lets vote in whoever has the best message! What could possibly go wrong? History sure hasn't shown us that evil people come into power with a message that resonates!

/s

Dems obviously can't correct Repubs' very successful messaging & media manipulation. Repubs have been running Munchausen by proxy on America for decades. They're damned good at it, too.

 

[ivwshane]

Yeah... that whole trickle down cornerstone needs to be taken out back and beaten until it's buried in the ground. Hell, this time around I think it was glanced over in favor of scapegoats (trade deals, immigrants) to deliver the same false hope. Maybe it doesn't have the legs it used to, but I still know people who think the world revolves around tax cuts.

Even the basic stimulus VS austerity argument should be driven home. Capitalism needs liquidity, but that doesn't come from tax cuts. It comes from consumers. Throw in "Inequality For All" and there's the path I traveled. We don't want to change American capitalism, we want to restore it and it worked best when inequality was at historic lows. Specific policies will restore our consumers and our economy. We fight for them and we build a new economic majority.

Shit! That in of itself could be an ad

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Obama being right & what I offered are not oppositional. Clinton got the message wrong because she over estimated he electorate.

The statements are not at odds, but they are not the same. Obama was very clear and spinning it into something else isn't worthy of a loyalist such as yourself

 

[Jaskalas]

Dems obviously can't correct Repubs' very successful messaging & media manipulation. Repubs have been running Munchausen by proxy on America for decades. They're damned good at it, too.

It was the Reagan revolution and it changed the course of America. Now it's our turn for a revolution.

 

[ivwshane]

It was the Reagan revolution and it changed the course of America. Now it's our turn for a revolution.

And who are you exactly? I ask because you seemed pretty anti Obama, a president who took us in a now progressive direction. Yet, you also appear to be an anti trump and anti Hillary person.

 

[Jaskalas]

It's important to remember that the Democrats are divisive.

Is that what you call it when people ask you to be inclusive and pitch to a big tent electorate?

 

[mect]

Correct. So the focus shouldn't be on the party but the electorate. Its the electorate that elects people who then set or influence the party.
We can't move forward until those with the real power are held accountable and those with the real power are the electorate.

Now maybe you understand how and why I post. Its not to defend the party (of which I am not a part of), it's to hold those that vote accountable. I do this because they not only have to be better informed but because they also have to see and understand their own biases.

Holy fuck. That's all I can say to that. Holy fuck.

 

[dank69]

I agree that the public should be told what will directly benefit them along with being told how it will be paid for, which is what I would do. However, I would point out that increasing taxes on the wealthy is a popular idea, even it is only done for deficit reduction purposes. And I would advertise it as being for that purpose in addition to funding some additional spending. Making deficit reduction part of the equation gives it more cross-over appeal.

Doesn't the electorate historically demand spending decreases in exchange for tax increases?

 

[dank69]

Yeah... that whole trickle down cornerstone needs to be taken out back and beaten until it's buried in the ground. Hell, this time around I think it was glanced over in favor of scapegoats (trade deals, immigrants) to deliver the same false hope. Maybe it doesn't have the legs it used to, but I still know people who think the world revolves around tax cuts.

Even the basic stimulus VS austerity argument should be driven home. Capitalism needs liquidity, but that doesn't come from tax cuts. It comes from consumers. Throw in "Inequality For All" and there's the path I traveled. We don't want to change American capitalism, we want to restore it and it worked best when inequality was at historic lows. Specific policies will restore our consumers and our economy. We fight for them and we build a new economic majority.

At least 85% of the electorate have no fucking idea what you just said. You could say it a thousand times, but they'll just get mad at you for making them feel stupid.

 

[brandonbull]

We are capitalists. The goal of the Democratic party is not to turn the US into Venezuela, nor should it be. The goal is to tax capitalist activity to provide for those left behind.
You need to be sold on voting for your own self interest? Well, then enjoy others voting against it and winning.

Why is the government's trickle down economics better than the private sector's? The government shouldn't be the one to decide fair wages, but it should be the one's being left behind. It's an insane idea to trust the government with large sums of money to ration out based on what politicians think is best.

 

[Blackjack200]

I think one needs to understand that both parties have become more divisive over time. The Rep leadership could not care less about those who aren't affluent or "mom and apple pie" conformists. There is much hatred and suspicion of anything outside understanding such as Muslims.

Against the Dem equivalents we have a move away from inclusivity, a desire for opportunity and rights for all. It's not "all gods children", but marketed segments. That is how Hillary lost the states she needed. They were shown no consideration for real troubles they have and being disregarded cost her dearly. But of course that's not everything. Trump played the successful parasite and stole the Rep machine and used it against them. People wanted a voice and felt they were marginalized and taken for granted. Hillary's children aren't entitled because they are white but because of fabulous wealth and fame. People sitting at home who aren't minorities look at that and think "what is she smoking" when they are wondering if their children will find decent jobs. Don't start talking about history and institutional whatever to these folks. They look at their family and see little encouragement.

It would have been wonderful if Hillary could honestly come out and say something like "I don't care who you are. I don't care if you are the majority or a minority. You are all people with fears for the future. You want your children safe and not worry about the next months bills they can't meet regardless of how frugal they might be. We're all Americans and we all want and need real opportunities for every single person. We need to come together and forgive, to work towards the Great America some speak of, but it's not going to be easy. Platitudes won't do it. Saying that there's opportunity while there isn't except for the already wealthy and powerful and the ones they choose does not make it so.

We need to make our nation whole, not a nation of useless rhetorical nonsense posing as justice for all".

Well along those lines I think.

Unity, not division or else desperate people will make poor choices.

Let's take your idea, tweak it a bit, and broaden it beyond Clinton to the Democrats or maybe even the neoliberal worldview:

This is a twitter thread that I thought perfectly captured what's behind the alienation. It's not super long, 12 tweets or so.
Twitter.com/haircut_hippie/status/858817232792584195

 

[Jaskalas]

And who are you exactly? I ask because you seemed pretty anti Obama, a president who took us in a now progressive direction. Yet, you also appear to be an anti trump and anti Hillary person.

I told you in November. As to your post. If Obama was on the ballot for a third term he would have had my vote.

Yes I opposed Obama / Democrats for a long time. But being engaged here left my arguments exposed and found wanton. Around 2011 stimulus was proving itself and I started considering greater economic issues. Later on Inequality For All ended it, and I conceded on economics while also concluding that Basic Income is inevitability required.

Sanders showed me not all Democrats bow to Wall Street or Neocon foreign policy. Seems like a genuinely honest and caring kind of guy whose message was inclusive. He spoke to economics the way everyone needs to. But Sanders is just a man, and an aging one at that. Progressives need a future with many strong voices to lead the charge. I stand for them.

 

[agent00f]

You dismiss the tone and emotional appeal of the '08 campaign. And policy is limited by those who stand or don't stand with you in Congress / across the nation. Who denies that Obama was obstructed? We're not calling for a Presidential election, we're calling for a party to step up, shape up, and get with the program. It's a national movement, a revolution, that's needed to form a new economic majority.

"We're Capitalists" is the Republican attack on social safety nets. Then why was it spoken by the Democrat Congressional leader?
This is a push for deep and meaningful change. To live up to the promise of '08, the appeal that last won an election.

On second thought, you would do well working for the GOP/Trump to blame everything on democrats. "The degenerates voted for the degenerate king because the other guy wasn't charismatic enough to woo them."

 

[Jhhnn]

Why is the government's trickle down economics better than the private sector's? The government shouldn't be the one to decide fair wages, but it should be the one's being left behind. It's an insane idea to trust the government with large sums of money to ration out based on what politicians think is best.

You need a reality check. From Reagan forward, we've allowed the Job Creators to manage the economy with their free market ways & they're now hogging the pie. The top 1% share of national income has doubled & the top 0.1% share is about half of that. If the income distribution of 1980 had been maintained median families would earn ~40% more.

We can't afford to indulge the Rich nor our fantasies of becoming them nearly as much as we have.

 

[agent00f]

I told you in November. As to your post. If Obama was on the ballot for a third term he would have had my vote.

Yes I opposed Obama / Democrats for a long time. But being engaged here left my arguments exposed and found wanton. Around 2011 stimulus was proving itself and I started considering greater economic issues. Later on Inequality For All ended it, and I conceded on economics while also concluding that Basic Income is inevitability required.

Sanders showed me not all Democrats bow to Wall Street or Neocon foreign policy. Seems like a genuinely honest and caring kind of guy whose message was inclusive. He spoke to economics the way everyone needs to. But Sanders is just a man, and an aging one at that. Progressives need a future with many strong voices to lead the charge. I stand for them.

Seems pretty obvious you just like Obama the political performer, and not the policy which are largely similar to both clintons. That in itself is the most convincing argument that political charisma takes priority over everything else.

I think democrats have forgotten where there strength lies. Republicans strength is in the old, white demographic. This group is pretty easy to get out to vote. The democrats strength is in the youth. Clinton was not able to appeal to the youth. The youth are not scared by terms like socialism. The younger generation is trying to figure out how things are going to work in a world where jobs are being displaced by technology at a rate never seen in the history of the world, and they recognize that capitalism alone is not equipped to deal with this world. Its important to remember that Trump didn't win because of how many votes he received, but rather how few Clinton received. I don't know if Sanders could have won or not. He certainly would have lost other groups compared to Clinton, but there is no doubt that he would have energized the younger voters at a level that Clinton wasn't able to. Clinton's message just didn't resonate with this group. Yes, Sanders had serious issues. I'm also concerned about this isolationist slant America seems to be on economically. But I think the democrats are going to have a challenge reconciling the traditional democratic party with the newer generation coming up. And simply telling these people to get on board or else they're the problem isn't going to solve anything.

Generally agreeable that connecting with future gens is key for long term success, but seems pretty obvious the lower edu/iq demographic that Clinton lost with isn't the upcoming one.

 

[ivwshane]

On second thought, you would do well working for the GOP/Trump to blame everything on democrats. "The degenerates voted for the degenerate king because the other guy wasn't charismatic enough to woo them."

As his development continues, he will come to understand the difference between theory and reality. He will come to understand that while progressive policies are virtuous and just, their implementation is easier said than done. He will also come to understand that the reality of the matter is that our government was set up to be slow moving and that if he really supports such policies then he is more likely to achieve them through bits and pieces over time rather than all at once through some revolution.


I have this faith in him because if he was able to get to where he is now (politically), then he has the means for political/policy introspection.

Anyone who can admit they were wrong or that the facts didn't play out how they thought they did, gets a kudos from me.

So while he may still be playing the "both sides" game, he's come a lot further than most.

 

[Moonbeam]

I told you in November. As to your post. If Obama was on the ballot for a third term he would have had my vote.

Yes I opposed Obama / Democrats for a long time. But being engaged here left my arguments exposed and found wanton. Around 2011 stimulus was proving itself and I started considering greater economic issues. Later on Inequality For All ended it, and I conceded on economics while also concluding that Basic Income is inevitability required.

Sanders showed me not all Democrats bow to Wall Street or Neocon foreign policy. Seems like a genuinely honest and caring kind of guy whose message was inclusive. He spoke to economics the way everyone needs to. But Sanders is just a man, and an aging one at that. Progressives need a future with many strong voices to lead the charge. I stand for them.

I think you are talking to a bunch of liberal brain defectives. They are like the liberal who becomes a conservative when he helps a homeless person with a few bucks and watches him head straight for the liquor store. They have a really immature emotional need to feel appreciated for what they do and haven't the strength to tolerate any signs their methodology fails to bring change. They have no real faith in what the profess to believe. They are tantrum babies who flip out when things don't go their way. All of that is hidden when things are going their way. They have no real faith in hope so they can't offer any. Perhaps you have noticed that hope can happen when you die to what doesn't work.

 

[agent00f]

Lemme see. Conservatives are people who wanted Bernie, think Trump and the Republicans are idiots, and despise how they are running things. Speaking of blind I post comments that show I detest Trump just about every day in some way. Notice the pro Trump threads I start? Oops, they must have been magically deleted except for your eyes only. But you sure seem to be a Dem and behaving badly towards people who don't support Trump but didn't like Hillary. I dare you to make less sense.

"I'm not conservative, but here's why liberals are the Real problem" said no liberal ever.

As his development continues, he will come to understand the difference between theory and reality. He will come to understand that while progressive policies are virtuous and just, their implementation is easier said than done. He will also come to understand that the reality of the matter is that our government was set up to be slow moving and that if he really supports such policies then he is more likely to achieve them through bits and pieces over time rather than all at once through some revolution.


I have this faith in him because if he was able to get to where he is now (politically), then he has the means for political/policy introspection.

Anyone who can admit they were wrong or that the facts didn't play out how they thought they did, gets a kudos from me.

So while he may still be playing the "both sides" game, he's come a lot further than most.

As a practical matter given the amount of years it's taken him to realize conservative econ propaganda is fake, I'm frankly not expecting human lifespan to be long enough to figure out the underlying ethnic status resentment or the list of enlighten ideals.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Let's take your idea, tweak it a bit, and broaden it beyond Clinton to the Democrats or maybe even the neoliberal worldview:

This is a twitter thread that I thought perfectly captured what's behind the alienation. It's not super long, 12 tweets or so.
Twitter.com/haircut_hippie/status/858817232792584195

I'll have a look, thanks!

 

[agent00f]

I think you are talking to a bunch of liberal brain defectives. They are like the liberal who becomes a conservative when he helps a homeless person with a few bucks and watches him head straight for the liquor store. They have a really immature emotional need to feel appreciated for what they do and haven't the strength to tolerate any signs their methodology fails to bring change. They have no real faith in what the profess to believe. They are tantrum babies who flip out when things don't go their way. All of that is hidden when things are going their way. They have no real faith in hope so they can't offer any. Perhaps you have noticed that hope can happen when you die to what doesn't work.

^ Pretty good example of this supposed liberal of little faith who's quick to turn on people when things don't go his way.

 

[mect]

Generally agreeable that connecting with future gens is key for long term success, but seems pretty obvious the lower edu/iq demographic that Clinton lost with isn't the upcoming one.

Clinton didn't lose because of the percentages of who voted for Trump vs Clinton. Clinton lost because of a lack of voter turnout. The younger generation, even though Clinton won the percentage war, didn't turn out like they did in the past couple of elections.