How’s that been working out for Dems? That’s the exact approach they’ve taken and have gotten humiliated at the ballot box. This isn’t about how far left they court, it’s about bold policy that actually helps the middle if they want their vote. Instead it’s vague platitudes and “we’re not as bad as the Republicans” without anything to back it up. So while it gets them points in opinion polls, it doesn’t translate to votes
I didn’t say it was working. I’m not defending it, but it made sense on paper.
To be fair, I think the Dems could have run Jesus himself and would have still lost. There was literally no good candidate on the face of the earth that would have placated progressives whilst also being someone moderates would have considered. And you need both to win.
e: propaganda hasn’t only worked on the right – it’s also gone a long way to dividing the left into near-irrelevancy.
Because most dems run campaigns like they are some frankenstein’s monster milquetoast anthropomorphic polling group. Have conviction, have some fucking opinions.
Yes, because courting Dems is like herding cats. Leftists turn their noses up at a moderate, and moderates spook at the slightest whiff of leftism. Yet the right congeals like old yoghurt around whatever rotting mass says the right buzzwords.
I’m not sure we’re on the same page. I’m not claiming she needed to move further left, I’m saying that using words to court the middle rather than policy doesn’t excite anyone and doesn’t get them to come out and vote. So doing talk show rounds, getting endorsements, etc at best move opinion polls but don’t impact votes and at worst only appeals to politicos who were already going to vote for her while turning off others
using words to court the middle rather than policy.
Not sure what this means, since words are what you have when running for office. It’s not like she was president before (unlike the other guy, who we did have policy to look at, and still that wasn’t enough).
No, you have policy proposals which she came in with very few (maternity leave, child tax credit, and removing the filibuster were the big ones) that addressed the economic security that the middle loves. She instead focused on culture wars, pointing the finger at Republicans in the Senate, and refusing to distance herself from Biden. Nothing in her proposals was exciting for the middle class and while her platitudes played well in opinion polls, 6.2 million less people came out to vote for her compared to 4 years prior. That’s a lack of excitement - people viewed her as more of the same rather than something new and promising
They carefully calculated those public policy proposals based on polling. But again, they’re basing all that on what it looks like their voting base wants. But the dem voting base is all over the place.
Do you think they looked at all the best demographics and polling they could get and said ‘nah, let’s go a different way lol’?
The issue here is you want something very different from non-rightist B, who wants something very different from (and maybe diametrically opposed to) non-rightist C, and so on. And I’m not saying ‘dem’ or ‘leftist’ here because those terms piss off someone on your own side.
There was no way to make any of that work, and thinking there was, that it was their strategy or the candidate, misses the point. ANY non right candidate will lose again if this issue isn’t understood.
I know I’ll get hate for this, but politics is often about playing a safe numbers game, and courting leftists is like herding cats.
If you want to start winning elections, maybe be less like a herd of cats. Stop sniping at compatriots and form coalitions.
How’s that been working out for Dems? That’s the exact approach they’ve taken and have gotten humiliated at the ballot box. This isn’t about how far left they court, it’s about bold policy that actually helps the middle if they want their vote. Instead it’s vague platitudes and “we’re not as bad as the Republicans” without anything to back it up. So while it gets them points in opinion polls, it doesn’t translate to votes
I didn’t say it was working. I’m not defending it, but it made sense on paper.
To be fair, I think the Dems could have run Jesus himself and would have still lost. There was literally no good candidate on the face of the earth that would have placated progressives whilst also being someone moderates would have considered. And you need both to win.
e: propaganda hasn’t only worked on the right – it’s also gone a long way to dividing the left into near-irrelevancy.
Even when dems lose it’s by a fraction of a percent which is also how many votes progressives get.
Because most dems run campaigns like they are some frankenstein’s monster milquetoast anthropomorphic polling group. Have conviction, have some fucking opinions.
Yes, because courting Dems is like herding cats. Leftists turn their noses up at a moderate, and moderates spook at the slightest whiff of leftism. Yet the right congeals like old yoghurt around whatever rotting mass says the right buzzwords.
And this is why we need to get big money out of politics. Smaller parties stand very little chance against these billionaire backed behemoths.
I’m not sure we’re on the same page. I’m not claiming she needed to move further left, I’m saying that using words to court the middle rather than policy doesn’t excite anyone and doesn’t get them to come out and vote. So doing talk show rounds, getting endorsements, etc at best move opinion polls but don’t impact votes and at worst only appeals to politicos who were already going to vote for her while turning off others
Not sure what this means, since words are what you have when running for office. It’s not like she was president before (unlike the other guy, who we did have policy to look at, and still that wasn’t enough).
No, you have policy proposals which she came in with very few (maternity leave, child tax credit, and removing the filibuster were the big ones) that addressed the economic security that the middle loves. She instead focused on culture wars, pointing the finger at Republicans in the Senate, and refusing to distance herself from Biden. Nothing in her proposals was exciting for the middle class and while her platitudes played well in opinion polls, 6.2 million less people came out to vote for her compared to 4 years prior. That’s a lack of excitement - people viewed her as more of the same rather than something new and promising
They carefully calculated those public policy proposals based on polling. But again, they’re basing all that on what it looks like their voting base wants. But the dem voting base is all over the place.
Do you think they looked at all the best demographics and polling they could get and said ‘nah, let’s go a different way lol’?
The issue here is you want something very different from non-rightist B, who wants something very different from (and maybe diametrically opposed to) non-rightist C, and so on. And I’m not saying ‘dem’ or ‘leftist’ here because those terms piss off someone on your own side.
There was no way to make any of that work, and thinking there was, that it was their strategy or the candidate, misses the point. ANY non right candidate will lose again if this issue isn’t understood.