Is this why Dem’s Approval Rating Polls are so bad?

[HeelYeah2012]

The issue Democrats have currently is that the far left candidates (Bernie, etc) would get crushed by independents and people in the middle of the spectrum. And I think the party knows that, which is why they rigged the primary against Bernie in both 2016 & 2020, particularly in 2020 when they cleared the way for Biden.

But then they put up these supposedly “centrist” candidates who still haven’t been willing or able to denounce many of the dumb things people associate with the Democratic Party. Open borders, men playing women’s sports, etc. So it’s easy to paint someone like Harris as part of the loony left if she won’t speak out against men playing women’s sports and other issues where the Democrats are seemingly willing to stake themselves to the “20” side on 80/20 issues.

I really think in 2024 they just got caught up in Trump’s negatives and thought people hated Trump so much it didn’t matter if they stuck to their guns on a few of those weird/unpopular positions.

In 2028, Democrats need to collectively move past their TDS and nominate someone who has an actual vision. Someone who can sell progressive values and ideas to the country. Someone people want to vote “for”, instead of just relying on people to vote against the Republican, who will surely be painted as racist, fascist, etc by the liberal media….but we’ve seen in recent elections the voters who matter can see right through that tactic.

 

[farce©]

Ha, fair enough, fair enough! I rescind my statement. In *some* cases, changing one's username on a message board is for perfectly legitimate reasons.

In lynch's case, he did so because everyone rightfully got tired of his bullshit and he became a pariah because of his pigheadedness. That's cowardly, IMO.

Several regular posters from the ZZL changed their handles when they moved here but they were open about who they were.

Icky (premiumblueblooded) is a good example, as was PurpleNurple (jortsforall) and ZZLPHeels (itsbotime). l am sure there are a few more, someone even put their old ZZL name in their signature for the first few months.

I guess some folks are just embarrassed by their ZZL posting history and refuse to fess up to who they used to be. It’s not too hard to tell with most of them.

 

[CFordUNC]

Several regular posters from the ZZL changed their handles when they moved here but they were open about who they were.

Icky (premiumblueblooded) is a good example, as was PurpleNurple (jortsforall) and ZZLPHeels (itsbotime). l am sure there are a few more, someone even put their old ZZL name in their signature for the first few months.

I guess some folks are just embarrassed by their ZZL posting history and refuse to fess up to who they used to be. It’s not too hard to tell with most of them.

Agreed. Yeah I definitely understand that some folks just wanted to switch up to a fresh new username on this new board after having the same one for years on the other. That’s totally legit, primarily because every one of them had the integrity to be transparent about it. I’ve got respect for that. Lynch, on the other hand, changed his almost a year before the shift from the old board to this new one, because he is a chickenshit and because he knows all of his posts are moronic horseshit. I’ve got no respect for that.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

My point remains.

If you show a swing voter a picture of a person waving an American flag and ask what party they are - 80% would say Republican.

If you show the same voter a picture of someone saying I support the military - 80% would say Republican.

If you hear someone say that fundamentally this country is evil and wicked - 80% would think Democrat.

You can give examples singularly but there’s no doubt I’m right and that’s the problem with the party.

No, you're not right. Your mistake lies in believing that you represent "the middle" when you actually just exemplify the thoughts of a Trumper. I have no doubt that well above 80% of Trumpers actually do believe that only Republicans are patriotic and love America and fly the flag and so on, but they're well to the right of middle. Republicans make up only about a third of the electorate, Democrats another third, and Independents the remaining third. In 2024 it was roughly a fifty-fifty split. I'm quite confident that most Americans don't look at Democrats and see them as America-hating, US flag-hating wicked people. If they did the Democrats would lose every election in a landslide; it wouldn't even be close. The Democrats certainly have their problems, but the fact that people like you think they're America-hating, military-hating bums isn't one of them. Anybody who actually believes that is never, ever going to vote Democratic anyway, no matter what they do or say.

 

[superrific]

Lizared brain receptor. Primary rule of politics. Fear and emotion.

Go on media and run a commercial:

"Trump says it's a 'big, beautiful bill,' but is it? He's going to cut Medicaid and Social Security. Do Trump and Republicans want to kill your grandmother?"

Have a damn grandmother-looking woman with fear in her eyes.

This really isn't difficult. Democrats and liberals are just such good-faith and, frankly, pussy actors that they won't do it.

Oh they will. Just not now. The bill hasn't even been passed yet. Start hitting the Pubs with it after labor day in places like Virginia where there are state races. Then next year they will hammer it.

Winning news cycles in June 2025 means nothing.

 

[CFordUNC]

No, you're not right. Your mistake lies in believing that you represent "the middle" when you actually just exemplify the thoughts of a Trumper. I have no doubt that well above 80% of Trumpers actually do believe that only Republicans are patriotic and love America and fly the flag and so on, but they're well to the right of middle. Republicans make up only about a third of the electorate, Democrats another third, and Independents the remaining third. In 2024 it was roughly a fifty-fifty split. I'm quite confident that most Americans don't look at Democrats and see them as America-hating, US flag-hating wicked people. If they did the Democrats would lose every election in a landslide; it wouldn't even be close. The Democrats certainly have their problems, but the fact that people like you think they're America-hating, military-hating bums isn't one of them. Anybody who actually believes that is never, ever going to vote Democratic anyway, no matter what they do or say.

Yeah, the Democrats as "America-hating, God-loathing, military-reviling" ingrates is one of the oldest, dumbest, and laziest right-wing tropes in existence. It's so imbecilic and so demonstrably false that it's ordinarily not even worthy of a response, but I'll never pass up an opportunity to let dumb shitbirds like lynch know that they're idiots.

 

[HintonJamesHeel]

No, you're not right. Your mistake lies in believing that you represent "the middle" when you actually just exemplify the thoughts of a Trumper. I have no doubt that well above 80% of Trumpers actually do believe that only Republicans are patriotic and love America and fly the flag and so on, but they're well to the right of middle. Republicans make up only about a third of the electorate, Democrats another third, and Independents the remaining third. In 2024 it was roughly a fifty-fifty split. I'm quite confident that most Americans don't look at Democrats and see them as America-hating, US flag-hating wicked people. If they did the Democrats would lose every election in a landslide; it wouldn't even be close. The Democrats certainly have their problems, but the fact that people like you think they're America-hating, military-hating bums isn't one of them. Anybody who actually believes that is never, ever going to vote Democratic anyway, no matter what they do or say.

Who Flies the Flag? Not Always Who You Might Think

For many Americans, demonstrating patriotism means showing the flag; overall, 62% say they do so. Notably, significantly more Northeasterners and Midwesterners fly the flag than do residents of the South or the West.

www.pewresearch.org

Who Flies the Flag? Display flag at home, office or on car?

Republicans 73-26
Democrats 55-45

There is lots of data of similar divide. Data is pretty cool.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

Who Flies the Flag? Not Always Who You Might Think

For many Americans, demonstrating patriotism means showing the flag; overall, 62% say they do so. Notably, significantly more Northeasterners and Midwesterners fly the flag than do residents of the South or the West.

www.pewresearch.org

Who Flies the Flag? Display flag at home, office or on car?

Republicans 73-26
Democrats 55-45

There is lots of data of similar divide. Data is pretty cool.

LOL. So flying the flag means that Republicans are more patriotic? Please. And that doesn't disprove what I said - if Democrats had the terrible image you claim then they would never win elections, and would lose every election in a landslide. All you've done by posting this is to prove that you're a Trumper. And the fact that a clear majority of Democrats do fly the flag would seem to undermine your point that they don't. A 73% to 55% difference isn't nearly as great as you seem to think it is. I'd be curious to know how many of those flag-waving Republicans also fly the Confederate flag. But keep posting stuff like this as some kind of "gotcha" that Republicans are more patriotic and love America more than Democrats do. It's quite revealing of how you think and what your priorities are.

 

[HintonJamesHeel]

LOL. So flying the flag means that Republicans are more patriotic? Please. And that doesn't disprove what I said - if Democrats had the terrible image you claim then they would never win elections, and would lose every election in a landslide. All you've done by posting this is to prove that you're a Trumper. And the fact that a clear majority of Democrats do fly the flag would seem to undermine your point that they don't. But keep posting stuff like this as some kind of proof that Republicans are more patriotic and love America more than Democrats do. It's quite revealing of how you think and what your priorities are.

I never said any of that lol. I said the issue with the party is the if you see somone with a flag, most assume they are Republican. If someone says the country is fundamentally flawed, most assume they are Democrat. Perceptions. That’s what wins elections. No one cares that Democrats are on the right side of almost everything policy wise. They look angry and don’t like it here. Elections are decided by 2-3%. Voters aren’t usually that informed.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

I never said any of that lol. I said the issue with the party is the if you see somone with a flag, most assume they are Republican. If someone says the country is fundamentally flawed, most assume they are Democrat. Perceptions. That’s what wins elections. No one cares that Democrats are on the right side of almost everything policy wise. They look angry and don’t like it here. Elections are decided by 2-3%. Voters aren’t usually that informed.

You've clearly seemed to imply it by posting that data and arguing that Democrats have that image, and you clearly seem to agree with it. And I'm well aware that was your original argument, yet the data you just posted doesn't prove your point. A majority of voters do not see Democrats as unpatriotic, America-hating, flag-hating people. If they did Democrats would get clobbered in every election. The voters who believe that Democrats are unpatriotic aren't the 2 or 3 percent of swing voters you're talking about, they're already committed Trumpers who will never vote Democratic. Those swing voters aren't voting Republican because Democrats don't fly the flag enough and don't wear pro-military t-shirts enough and yell "Americuh!" enough for them.

 

[Zoo_View]

Perhaps, but I think we're largely considering these things on the grounds conservatives have established for us.

Hillary was basically just a Reaganist. As most all Democrats have been since his era.

Democrats need to reconfigure American media. Without doing so, they don't stand a chance any longer, barring some great debacle from Trump and Republicans (which is, admittedly likely, because they're dumb as shit.) Despite their great stupidity, most Americans saw how he mismanaged Covid and was a general dumbass. And, because of their great stupidity, they decided it best to put him back into power, despite attempting a coup and fact that inflation was a worldwide problem we had handled the best of all.

But Democrats can't wait on dumbass Americans figuring it out on their own this time around. They need to be proactive.

Holy shit!

You regard Hillary as a “Reaganist?”

That’s a left-wing, far left, loony leftist opinion.

That’s loony as shit.

 

[superrific]

if you see somone with a flag, most assume they are Republican.

Definitely true if they are humping it.

 

[Callatoroy]

The issue Democrats have currently is that the far left candidates (Bernie, etc) would get crushed by independents and people in the middle of the spectrum. And I think the party knows that, which is why they rigged the primary against Bernie in both 2016 & 2020, particularly in 2020 when they cleared the way for Biden.

But then they put up these supposedly “centrist” candidates who still haven’t been willing or able to denounce many of the dumb things people associate with the Democratic Party. Open borders, men playing women’s sports, etc. So it’s easy to paint someone like Harris as part of the loony left if she won’t speak out against men playing women’s sports and other issues where the Democrats are seemingly willing to stake themselves to the “20” side on 80/20 issues.

I really think in 2024 they just got caught up in Trump’s negatives and thought people hated Trump so much it didn’t matter if they stuck to their guns on a few of those weird/unpopular positions.

In 2028, Democrats need to collectively move past their TDS and nominate someone who has an actual vision. Someone who can sell progressive values and ideas to the country. Someone people want to vote “for”, instead of just relying on people to vote against the Republican, who will surely be painted as racist, fascist, etc by the liberal media….but we’ve seen in recent elections the voters who matter can see right through that tactic.

The country doesn’t want “progressive” ideas. That’s aoc, newscum, omar, crocket, Bernie, Harris, Warren, etc. what they want is Jeff Jacksons but that isn’t nutty enough for the lunatics here.

 

[Centerpiece]

Holy shit!

You regard Hillary as a “Reaganist?”

That’s a left-wing, far left, loony leftist opinion.

That’s loony as shit.

He’s said he’s drinking and smoking at the moment.
So there is that…I type some looney shit too in those instances.

 

[HeelYeah2012]

The country doesn’t want “progressive” ideas. That’s aoc, newscum, omar, crocket, Bernie, Harris, Warren, etc. what they want is Jeff Jacksons but that isn’t nutty enough for the lunatics here.

I think we agree. I think Jeff Jackson can sell progressive ideas way better than Kamala Harris can, even if he isn’t as far left as her. He’s the type of leader they need but they didn’t even let him run for US Senate.

 

[CFordUNC]

The country doesn’t want “progressive” ideas. That’s aoc, newscum, omar, crocket, Bernie, Harris, Warren, etc. what they want is Jeff Jacksons but that isn’t nutty enough for the lunatics here.

Naw man, with all due respect, I think this post misses the mark in several ways.

First of all, it’s not accurate to say that the “country doesn’t want progressive ideas” because a broad majority (between 65% and 90%, respective of policy proposal) of polled Americans support progressive economic policies such as: raising the minimum wage, expanding Social Security benefits, increasing tax rates on the wealthiest/highest income earners and corporations, expanded Medicare or even Medicare for All, allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, universal paid maternity leave, government subsidies for childcare, and tuition-free college. All of those are considered progressive policies, and all of them have strong bipartisan support among both Democratic voters and Republican voters, many of those even having support of 80%+ polled Americans. I can hunt down actual links to the polling data if you’d like, I just kind of aggregated them here from memory. But here is a link to a good read that kind of summarizes it:
Essentially, progressive economic policy ideas win broad support across the voter ideology spectrum.

I also don’t think it’s accurate to say that a Jeff Jackson “isn’t nutty enough for the lunatics here.” I bet if you started a poll asking this board whether they’d support Jeff Jackson or a candidate like Jeff Jackson for president, you’d get nearly 100% in favor. The reason for that is because the membership of this board is largely comprised of centrists, moderates, slightly left of center, liberals, and disaffected former Republicans. Sure, there are absolutely a handful of folks here who are bonafide hardcore lefties- no denying that at all- but they are in a small minority.

Interesting note about Jeff Jackson, though (and keep in mind that I think Jackson would be a spectacular U.S. Senator or President). It’s interesting to me that Jackson has such support from among the conservative posters on this board, and it’s kind of a “case in point” of what I was talking about above in regard to a broad majority of Americans supporting progressive economic policy. Jackson is rated a 12 (out of 100) on the conservative ideological scale (based on stated policy positions, bill sponsorships/co-sponsorships, and voting record) by the Heritage Foundation. My FIL, who is a staunch Reaganesque conservative, served in the NC Senate alongside Jackson from 2014-2019 and said that while you’d be hard-pressed to find a nicer, kinder human than Jackson, you’d also be hard-pressed to find someone significantly more progressively liberal than Jeff. Obviously that’s one single anecdote that’s not without bias, but just think it’s interesting in the context of this conversation.

Edited to add: Take a look at Jackson’s policy positions, compiled here on the policies tab. He is absolutely as liberal as liberals come, so the fact that he has stated support from conservative posters on this board (and others that I visit, such as a conservative subreddit) is a great indicator to me that it’s not the policy proposals of the Democratic Party that are the “problem” for Americans, it’s the chosen messengers.

 

[HeelYeah2012]

Yep, Jackson is a progressive dude. He just happens to also be a good messenger who has common sense and who can connect with people.

He’s a good leader and the type of person that people want in Washington fighting for our interests back home. That’s important regardless of policy positions.

 

[CFordUNC]

If Democrats ever get the messaging thing down (yeah yeah, I know…and if your aunt had balls she’d be your uncle), I’m not sure Republicans would win many national elections ever again. As it stands, the Democrats manage to fumble their way into a win every 4-8 years or so after Republicans hold the federal government and run it into the shitter, explode the national debt, send our troops off to die on foreign soil, cause an economic recession, or some combination of the above. But if the Dems ever figure out how to actually talk like, and talk to, the average American or even just the average voter, they’d win almost every national election moving forward. Americans are clear that they “want” progressive-style economic policy, and that they don’t necessarily always want progressive-style social policy.

Unfortunately for Democrats, they can’t seem to figure out how to actually help average people recognize that Democratic economic policy aims are a true rising tide that lifts all boats (or a life preserver extended to a person drowning), and that Republican economic policy aims are a boot on the top of the head of a drowning person. I’d challenge anyone to name one singular Republican economic policy proposal that directly improves the lives of lower class and middle class Americans where the opposite Democratic policy proposal does the inverse. Conversely, I’d challenge anyone to name one singular Republican economic policy proposal that helps the lower class and middle class at the expense of the upper class.

When Republicans hold the federal government, lower class and middle class Americans lose their social safety net. They pay more in taxes. They get their veterans benefits cut. They get disability benefits cut. They get SNAP benefits cut. They lose worker protections. They lose breakfast and lunch for lower-income schoolchildren. They lose affordable childcare. They lose health insurance coverage. They lose all of the above so that the top 1% of the 1%, and the top multi-billion dollar corporations, get their taxes cut.

The fact that Democrats have some inexplicable party-wide failure of imagination in being able to succinctly successfully articulate the above to the average American is why the electoral beatings will continue until morale improves (or until this cycle of Republican leadership inevitably leads to economic recession, whichever comes first).

Edited to add: I say all of the above as someone for whom many Republican economic policies are a financial benefit. I’m not trying to reflexively bash the Republican Party for the sake of doing so, but rather trying to point out that when it comes to actually boosting the lower and middle classes (which comprise the large majority of electorate), it’s not even a contest which party’s policy aims are a hundred fold more beneficial and which party’s aims are directly punitive.

 

[HeelYeah2012]

If Democrats ever get the messaging thing down (yeah yeah, I know…and if your aunt had balls she’d be your uncle), I’m not sure Republicans would win many national elections ever again. As it stands, the Democrats manage to fumble their way into a win every 4-8 years or so after Republicans hold the federal government and run it into the shitter, explode the national debt, send our troops off to die on foreign soil, cause an economic recession, or some combination of the above. But if the Dems ever figure out how to actually talk like, and talk to, the average American or even just the average voter, they’d win almost every national election moving forward. Americans are clear that they “want” progressive-style economic policy, and that they don’t necessarily always want progressive-style social policy.

Unfortunately for Democrats, they can’t seem to figure out how to actually help average people recognize that Democratic economic policy aims are a true rising tide that lifts all boats (or a life preserver extended to a person drowning), and that Republican economic policy aims are a boot on the top of the head of a drowning person. I’d challenge anyone to name one singular Republican economic policy proposal that directly improves the lives of lower class and middle class Americans where the opposite Democratic policy proposal does the inverse. Conversely, I’d challenge anyone to name one singular Republican economic policy proposal that helps the lower class and middle class at the expense of the upper class.

When Republicans hold the federal government, lower class and middle class Americans lose their social safety net. They pay more in taxes. They get their veterans benefits cut. They get disability benefits cut. They get SNAP benefits cut. They lose worker protections. They lose breakfast and lunch for lower-income schoolchildren. They lose affordable childcare. They lose health insurance coverage. They lose all of the above so that the top 1% of the 1%, and the top multi-billion dollar corporations, get their taxes cut.

The fact that Democrats have some inexplicable party-wide failure of imagination in being able to succinctly successfully articulate the above to the average American is why the electoral beatings will continue until morale improves (or until this cycle of Republican leadership inevitably leads to economic recession, whichever comes first).

While I somewhat agree, the platform of each party is malleable. Both parties will continue to tweak their platform to attract roughly 50% of the vote.

So in your hypothetical, if Dems all of a sudden “figured out” the messaging, there are issues (like abortion) where Republicans would have to moderate their stance in order to continue to be a viable party that can win national elections.

As an example in the other direction, Dems may not fight so hard going forward for transgender sports rights if they keep getting their rear ends handed to them on that issue like they did in 2024.

Just saying I don’t really think it’s possible for either side to achieve long-term dominance when the other side can just change its positions to be more appealing to the middle.

 

[Paine]

As the most “loony left” person on the board, I would support Jeff Jackson. I’d want him to tie his ability to message with at least one broadly popular, progressive proposal though, because I think that would help drive his message in a national election. Something like universal healthcare or universal childcare would be a good centerpiece for a Jackson campaign, IMO.