Should Harris have continued with her more Populist messaging?

[BlueSmoke]

None of what you said is some sort of profound revelation. Most working class Americans struggle. And in the "real world" we now know that they vote against their best interests in droves.

None of what you said is some sort of profound revelation. Most working class Americans struggle. And in the "real world" we now know that they vote against their best interests in droves.

Most Americans have a car and they exercise their right to drive it. But what kind of effort do they exert to maintain or know enough to actually work on it if it doesn't start? For instance,my plumber makes no effort to work on his many vehicles although I am pretty sure he is more then capable of doing it. When I ask him about it he says he has to drive for work and pleasure but beyond that he has no interest in going any further. Therefore he has a casual relationship with his vehicles.

Well many Americans have the same casual relationship with voting . Willing to vote (or drive it) but not much further.

Considering for decades, Democrats were more then willing to accept the votes of folks who only have a casual relationship to voting then I'm not going to focus on whether they are voting against their best interest. I am going to focus on better messaging to reach these folks.

 

[Peppers49]

I think we need someone who can direct anger. I know, I know...that is not who we want to be. But it seems now, appealing to the better angels of peoples' natures is not going to work. We need some fire. Make people angry about not having universal health care. Make people angry about issues.

I may just be spouting crap because I'm still too close to what happened. Maybe anger is not the answer, but it sure as hell seems to work for the Pubs.

Don’t necessarily disagree with that. Dems definitely need to stoke more of a fire under voters. The happy go lucky schtick clearly doesn’t work. Just don’t think it needs to look exactly like what Trump is doing trying to blatantly prey on fear and paranoia.

 

[superrific]

I think we need someone who can direct anger. I know, I know...that is not who we want to be. But it seems now, appealing to the better angels of peoples' natures is not going to work. We need some fire. Make people angry about not having universal health care. Make people angry about issues.

I may just be spouting crap because I'm still too close to what happened. Maybe anger is not the answer, but it sure as hell seems to work for the Pubs.

You are correct. This is our new social media world. Anger and outrage is the new currency. Nothing happens any more without them. It's not just the Pubs either.

I think people are going to be angry in about six months when interest rates top 10%.

 

[mpaer]

Don’t necessarily disagree with that. Dems definitely need to stoke more of a fire under voters. The happy go lucky schtick clearly doesn’t work. Just don’t think it needs to look exactly like what Trump is doing trying to blatantly prey on fear and paranoia.

Its the million dollar question-How to stoke the voters

 

[stankeylegjones]

But then what is the answer? Messaging? The Dems need better messaging?
I get it. Economic anxiety for many people is real and it is the most important political issue for them. OK.
Well, the economy does better under Democrats. But these people are not getting that message. Why? Is it that they don't appear to have serious empathy? Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain?" It can't be that. Trump has no empathy. Rather than feeling their pain, he stokes their anger. He says, "you should be pissed off."

For decades and decades conservatives preached that "liberal" is a dirty word. "Liberals" hate America and hate America's values. "Liberals" are the enemy of the American way of life. That messaging goes way back. Fox News and other right wing outlets spread the message even more rapidly over the airwaves. Social media has spread it even more broadly and allowed people to believe that they have "sources" that show this. You can find whatever you want to support your beliefs via the internet and social media.

Personally, I think the Dems should embrace a liberal agenda and call it what it is. Advocate for universal healthcare. Advocate for...name it. Let's do it. But we have to understand that we have to combat decades and decades of right wing messaging.

Yes, I think messaging could have gone a long way into getting Kamala elected. When asked about the economy, she could have championed how well it is doing, while also acknowledging that many folks are struggling to make ends meet. A simple: "Every metric points to this being a strong economy, which is continuing to get stronger through our democratic policies and actions. However, folks aren't going to be able to take those metrics into the grocery store and buy food with them. Nor are they going to be able to pay their bills with them. Many folks are struggling to make ends meet, even in this strong economy. So, we need to implement new policies and more changes so that those folks don't feel the pinch nearly as much. We are going to work for those folks to not worry nearly as much about the end of the month." Then she can go on and explain how she and her government are going to do that.

I think that would have gone over well, for many.

 

[superrific]

Yes, I think messaging could have gone a long way into getting Kamala elected. When asked about the economy, she could have championed how well it is doing, while also acknowledging that many folks are struggling to make ends meet. A simple: "Every metric points to this being a strong economy, which is continuing to get stronger through our democratic policies and actions. However, folks aren't going to be able to take those metrics into the grocery store and buy food with them. Nor are they going to be able to pay their bills with them. Many folks are struggling to make ends meet, even in this strong economy. So, we need to implement new policies and more changes so that those folks don't feel the pinch nearly as much. We are going to work for those folks to not worry nearly as much about the end of the month." Then she can go on and explain how she and her government are going to do that.

I think that would have gone over well, for many.

Are you kidding me? How is she going to compete with magic tariffs? Obviously people were not looking for solutions. Either they are too uninformed or unintelligent to understand Trump is completely full of shit about everything, in which case explaining economic policy would be pointless, or they just want to burn everything down, leading to the same result.

The solution I see is to do what they do. Pretend that you can do magic. When people say, "no, actually, that won't work" just ignore them and keep repeating the same bullshit over and over.

 

[stankeylegjones]

Are you kidding me? How is she going to compete with magic tariffs? Obviously people were not looking for solutions. Either they are too uninformed or unintelligent to understand Trump is completely full of shit about everything, in which case explaining economic policy would be pointless, or they just want to burn everything down, leading to the same result.

The solution I see is to do what they do. Pretend that you can do magic. When people say, "no, actually, that won't work" just ignore them and keep repeating the same bullshit over and over.

How the fuck can you, again and again, not understand the position that many folks are coming from? Seriously super, how the fuck is that possible? For someone who prides themselves in deep thought, you have been nothing but a lazy thinker since this election. Snoop, paine, and many others have routinely tried to explain this to you, yet you simply don't get it - or pretend not to get it. I know that many are saying it to poke at you, but I do wonder if you could use some time away from the board to check in with yourself and take care of yourself. I mean that with all sincerity.

 

[superrific]

How the fuck can you, again and again, not understand the position that many folks are coming from? Seriously super, how the fuck is that possible? For someone who prides themselves in deep thought, you have been nothing but a lazy thinker since this election. Snoop, paine, and many others have routinely tried to explain this to you, yet you simply don't get it - or pretend not to get it. I know that many are saying it to poke at you, but I do wonder if you could use some time away from the board to check in with yourself and take care of yourself. I mean that with all sincerity.

What do I not get? It's lazy thinking to doubt whether a detailed policy explanation would have moved the needle for people who think "concept of a plan" is going to help them? People who hear him say, "100% tariffs, what the hell, 400% tariffs" and think that sounds great?

If you want to disagree with me about whether the economic anxiety is real -- and keep in mind, I'm drawing on a lot of actual data that was generated the last time we went through this economic anxiety narrative in 2016 -- fine. But I simply do not believe at all that Kamala talking policy like that would have done anything. She would have needed a soundbite. She tried with the price gouging thing. It was not a great idea.

 

[Paine]

Opinion | Democrats Walked Into a Trap Republicans Set for Them

They walked into the trap of defending the very institutions most Americans distrust.

www.nytimes.com

Ben Rhodes hits the the nail on the head.

 

[Paine]

Opinion | Democrats Walked Into a Trap Republicans Set for Them

They walked into the trap of defending the very institutions most Americans distrust.

www.nytimes.com

Ben Rhodes hits the the nail on the head.

“Yet now Mr. Trump has decisively won back the presidency. I would never claim to have all the answers about what went wrong, but I do worry that Democrats walked into the trap of defending the very institutions — the “establishment” — that most Americans distrust. As a party interested in competent technocracy, we lost touch with the anger people feel at government. As a party that prizes data, we seized on indicators of growth and job creation as proof that the economy was booming, even though people felt crushed by rising costs.

As a party motivated by social justice, we let revulsion at white Christian nationalism bait us into identity politics on their terms — whether it was debates about transgender athletes, the busing of migrants to cities, or shaming racist MAGA personalities who can’t be shamed. As a party committed to American leadership of a “rules-based international order,” we defended a national security enterprise that has failed repeatedly in the 21st century, and made ourselves hypocrites through unconditional military support for Israel’s bombardment of civilians in Gaza.”

 

[superrific]

Opinion | Democrats Walked Into a Trap Republicans Set for Them

They walked into the trap of defending the very institutions most Americans distrust.

www.nytimes.com

Ben Rhodes hits the the nail on the head.

I agree with the following and have been worried about it for quite a while.

"As a party motivated by social justice, we let revulsion at white Christian nationalism bait us into identity politics on their terms — whether it was debates about transgender athletes, the busing of migrants to cities, or shaming racist MAGA personalities who can’t be shamed"

The embrace of trans rights was a trap.

 

[stankeylegjones]

What do I not get? It's lazy thinking to doubt whether a detailed policy explanation would have moved the needle for people who think "concept of a plan" is going to help them? People who hear him say, "100% tariffs, what the hell, 400% tariffs" and think that sounds great?

If you want to disagree with me about whether the economic anxiety is real -- and keep in mind, I'm drawing on a lot of actual data that was generated the last time we went through this economic anxiety narrative in 2016 -- fine. But I simply do not believe at all that Kamala talking policy like that would have done anything. She would have needed a soundbite. She tried with the price gouging thing. It was not a great idea.

Your position, as stated by you, is that the reason Kamala didn't win is because she is a woman. That is lazy thinking. You are not even trying to look into any kind of other reasons. You've made up your mind, and refuse to actually think it through. You might disagree with me, but I define that as lazy thinking. If you honestly don't think it would have made a positive impact for her to acknowledge the struggles that many folks are going through, while championing the strength of the economy (on a global level) then I'm not sure what to say. I would bet that she would, given the chance to go back and do it all again. I mean, fuck, how many times have you read since the election how personal finances/economy played a major role in their reason for voting as they did? Chalking up all of those votes for Trump to misogyny is lazy thinking. If you truly care, then do a little work diving into it. But, I'm not sure you do. I think you're either trolling or just really do need some time to heal.

 

[Paine]

I agree with the following and have been worried about it for quite a while.

"As a party motivated by social justice, we let revulsion at white Christian nationalism bait us into identity politics on their terms — whether it was debates about transgender athletes, the busing of migrants to cities, or shaming racist MAGA personalities who can’t be shamed"

The embrace of trans rights was a trap.

I get what you’re trying to say, but we should be clear: trans people were not why we lost this election. They don’t need to be blamed or demonized more than they already are. Whatever the future of the Democratic Party is will and should embrace the rights and humanity of trans people.

 

[superrific]

Your position, as stated by you, is that the reason Kamala didn't win is because she is a woman. That is lazy thinking. You are not even trying to look into any kind of other reasons. You've made up your mind, and refuse to actually think it through. You might disagree with me, but I define that as lazy thinking. If you honestly don't think it would have made a positive impact for her to acknowledge the struggles that many folks are going through, while championing the strength of the economy (on a global level) then I'm not sure what to say. I would bet that she would, given the chance to go back and do it all again. I mean, fuck, how many times have you read since the election how personal finances/economy played a major role in their reason for voting as they did? Chalking up all of those votes for Trump to misogyny is lazy thinking. If you truly care, then do a little work diving into it. But, I'm not sure you do. I think you're either trolling or just really do need some time to heal.

That was not my position ever. It's one reason Kamala didn't win. But the main reason is racism and authoritarian personalities.

If you think I'm being lazy about this, you might consider how much social science I've read on this topic. Trump support in 2016 and 2020 was most predicted among individuals by racial animus, and geographically by counties that are becoming less white. I saw something on election night showing that Trump again ran strongest in those areas (though that might be in part because some of those non-white people decided to vote for him). I can't find that since.

I've read extensively about the connection between authoritarian personality traits and right-wing politics. Have you?

I've also looked into the "economic anxiety" argument put forth to explain 2016. It was bullshit all along. The people who voted for Trump in 2016 were not struggling. They were disproportionately people who were relatively well-off, living as the top 10% in poor areas. For instance, read this paper:

https://scholarship.depauw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=politicalscience_facpubs

There are many others. Tom Edsall at the NYT devoted plenty of his columns to this topic. If you don't know who he is or what he does, look it up. He's basically an aggregator of economics and social science research.

And finally, the economic anxiety argument doesn't match what we just saw in the campaign. If Trump was trying to appeal to economic factors instead of racial grievances, why was he talking about people coming here from Congo? Why was he demonizing productive Haitians? Why was he talking about gene pools and Great Replacement theory? Almost nothing he was actually talking about pertained to economic issues.

We've seen poll after poll in which Americans would say: my finances are good, but the economy is terrible.

Americans' economic pessimism contains a strange paradox: They're feeling great about their own personal finances

Americans’ confidence in their own finances is as strong as their pessimism about the rest of the economy.

fortune.com

https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/americans-are-actually-pretty-happy-with-their-finances

So who are those 17-25% of people who say their personal finances are good but the economy is terrible? Who do you think they voted for?

Now, tell me I'm being lazy.

 

[stankeylegjones]

That was not my position ever. It's one reason Kamala didn't win. But the main reason is racism and authoritarian personalities.

If you think I'm being lazy about this, you might consider how much social science I've read on this topic. Trump support in 2016 and 2020 was most predicted among individuals by racial animus, and geographically by counties that are becoming less white. I saw something on election night showing that Trump again ran strongest in those areas (though that might be in part because some of those non-white people decided to vote for him). I can't find that since.

I've read extensively about the connection between authoritarian personality traits and right-wing politics. Have you?

I've also looked into the "economic anxiety" argument put forth to explain 2016. It was bullshit all along. The people who voted for Trump in 2016 were not struggling. They were disproportionately people who were relatively well-off, living as the top 10% in poor areas. For instance, read this paper:

https://scholarship.depauw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=politicalscience_facpubs

There are many others. Tom Edsall at the NYT devoted plenty of his columns to this topic. If you don't know who he is or what he does, look it up. He's basically an aggregator of economics and social science research.

And finally, the economic anxiety argument doesn't match what we just saw in the campaign. If Trump was trying to appeal to economic factors instead of racial grievances, why was he talking about people coming here from Congo? Why was he demonizing productive Haitians? Why was he talking about gene pools and Great Replacement theory? Almost nothing he was actually talking about pertained to economic issues.

We've seen poll after poll in which Americans would say: my finances are good, but the economy is terrible.

Americans' economic pessimism contains a strange paradox: They're feeling great about their own personal finances

Americans’ confidence in their own finances is as strong as their pessimism about the rest of the economy.

fortune.com

https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/americans-are-actually-pretty-happy-with-their-finances

So who are those 17-25% of people who say their personal finances are good but the economy is terrible? Who do you think they voted for?

Now, tell me I'm being lazy.

Okay, you are clearly not being honest now. I stopped reading after your first sentence. You stated, clearly, that Kamala lost because she is a woman. I pointed that out as being lazy thinking. If you want to have a convo then be honest. If you don't think it is why she lost, anymore, then own it and say that you've changed your opinion.

 

[superrific]

Okay, you are clearly not being honest now. I stopped reading after your first sentence. You stated, clearly, that Kamala lost because she is a woman. I pointed that out as being lazy thinking. If you want to have a convo then be honest. If you don't think it is why she lost, anymore, then own it and say that you've changed your opinion.

Where did I state that? If you have been reading any of my posts, you'll see a lot more references to the racism than the gender issue. But again, if you look at the data, HRC's gender played probably a decisive role in that election. It's too early to know that about Kamala, as the margin was different, but I think it cost her a point at least.

And if you're going to call me lazy, at least put in enough effort to read what I wrote. I mean, come on. Who's lazy?

 

[stankeylegjones]

Where did I state that? If you have been reading any of my posts, you'll see a lot more references to the racism than the gender issue. But again, if you look at the data, HRC's gender played probably a decisive role in that election. It's too early to know that about Kamala, as the margin was different, but I think it cost her a point at least.

And if you're going to call me lazy, at least put in enough effort to read what I wrote. I mean, come on. Who's lazy?

I did read what you wrote. And, by the way, there's nothing preventing both of us from lazy thinking. I can easily point your laziness out, while still having blinders to my own. Spin it however you want. A few of us have tried to get you to see it through the eyes of someone scrapping to get by. You can't, or refuse to. I think you could use some time away from the board to heal. You insist on staying. So, I'll clear my conscious by not engaging with you, for a while. Finally, I do hope you take my advice. It has helped me to get away. All the best to you super. I have enjoyed reading your posts since the creation of this board, and I'm looking forward to reading them again when you get to feeling better. If I can do anything to help, please don't hesitate to dm me.

 

[superrific]

I did read what you wrote. And, by the way, there's nothing preventing both of us from lazy thinking. I can easily point your laziness out, while still having blinders to my own. Spin it however you want. A few of us have tried to get you to see it through the eyes of someone scrapping to get by. You can't, or refuse to. I think you could use some time away from the board to heal. You insist on staying. So, I'll clear my conscious by not engaging with you, for a while. Finally, I do hope you take my advice. It has helped me to get away. All the best to you super. I have enjoyed reading your posts since the creation of this board, and I'm looking forward to reading them again when you get to feeling better. If I can do anything to help, please don't hesitate to dm me.

1. You said you stopped reading after the first sentence.
2. I don't think we are disagreeing about the experience of scraping to get by. I just don't think most of those people voted for Trump, nor for that reason.
3. I've been wanting to leave but also wanting to stay. If I'm not posting here, then there isn't a great outlet for my frustrations. But when I do post here, it makes the shit I'm trying to avoid front and center. It's a dilemma. I wasn't going to post today but I was so frustrated by the incident at my kids' school that I thought I would vent a little and four hours later here I am. Gotta go now. Maybe for a little while, as you suggest and I've also mentioned.

 

[stankeylegjones]

1. You said you stopped reading after the first sentence.
2. I don't think we are disagreeing about the experience of scraping to get by. I just don't think most of those people voted for Trump, nor for that reason.
3. I've been wanting to leave but also wanting to stay. If I'm not posting here, then there isn't a great outlet for my frustrations. But when I do post here, it makes the shit I'm trying to avoid front and center. It's a dilemma. I wasn't going to post today but I was so frustrated by the incident at my kids' school that I thought I would vent a little and four hours later here I am. Gotta go now. Maybe for a little while, as you suggest and I've also mentioned.

Super, I understand, but not fully because each one of us has our own hurt, anger, sadness, disbelief, disgust, etc., from the election. Just like you can't fully understand what I am going through. However, even in these dark times, not being able to fully understand the pain someone else is going through, we can support each other. I know that I disagree with your stance on the results, and I will continue to disagree with it, but there is a lot of time for us to debate, after we heal. I am offering my support to you, as best I can at the moment. Just reach out if you need it. I hope that I can do the same.

 

[CallMeTyler]

Tried to find an abridged version of this clip but the whole thing is worth a watch. Guy has always been on the nose with the things we’re all saying in this thread.

Can Bernie's message, and by extension, a more progressive "every man" Democratic appeal get through modern media/online channels and their excessive noise? I'm not so convinced but I'd like to believe it can.

I'm hopeful the party pivots to the younger, progressive message in the midterms.