I think so much of what mainstream Democrats don’t fully get is it’s not the policies themselves that are even the problem. It’s the sensation that every politician is speaking to them through a series of focus tested buzzwords learned at a “how do you talk to normal humans” presentation.
People CRAVE authenticity. It’s a terrible example from the least authentic person on the planet in Donald Trump but it explains his rise. Republicans are just as guilty of this themselves, and for reference see 8 glorious months of the JEB! campaign. Every Republican was following the traditional talking points of selling tax cuts to farmers and Trump was just over here being as racist as they wanted to be out loud so they loved him.
Kamala’s best moments were where she could be authentically herself and let her goofy personality out. The “coconut tree” and the like. This was before she got much of the consultant brain smoothed into her campaign. Her worst moments were the dipshit final month where “Liz Cheney likes me!” It turns out wasn’t a winning message regardless of how much the Bulwark disagreed.
Not to further glaze Mamdani, as he doesn’t need my help right now, but you have an actual democratic socialist Muslim born in Africa. Everything Obama was scaremongered as being he actually is. And yet, he’s probably the most popular working politician in America right now exclusively because he’s authentic and he talks to people like they are human beings
Do we really need to dumb it down to the level where tfg's followers can understand it, though? I want my politicians to be smarter than me, and frankly, that shouldn't be too great an ask.
"The problem for Democrats is they sound too much like Ben Stein from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off..." OH, that's who Ken Martin reminds of me, as he script-stumbles over why they won't release the "autopsy"!
My advice would be a bit different—sure, talk normal (and if you need advice on how to talk normal than maybe you’re not the best candidate) but better than that—entertain. I dint mean throw in a laugh line or two in your sober speech, I mean make the whole damn thing an entertaining spectacle that even people uninterested in politics will want to witness. More like WWE, less like a lecture. If you entertain them, people will like you even if they don’t know where you stand on issues. And if you can do it while projecting strength, you’ll clean up.
Yes, the entertainment point is key, as Trump was a good entertainer in ways that HRC and Harris weren’t. (Biden once was capable of this but was no longer.)
Yup—it’s what stands out about Trump’s campaign ability. He primarily goes up there to entertain, while other pols (particularly his opponents) think their job is to inform. The thing is, no one is really informed by a politician anyway (they get unsurprising soundbites bites that tell us nothing, or white papers that no one reads) and to them entertainment is an afterthought.
I wish just one Democrat would understand that this is the game that works now, and they have to let go of the old ways.
One of the big problems is mainstream Dems not wanting change but "a return to normal," so they can comtinue having two cars, 3 vacations and one kid or 1 vacation and three kids at their single family home.
There is no interest in reform and lifting the poor.
The Biden economy was doing well and much better than other nation's economies in recovering from the pandemic effects. Wages were up, unemployment was down.
That the gains were not being distributed equitably is the result of forty-five prior years of conservative economic policies and you can't exactly explain this situation to voters in a three second long talking point nor fix it in four years with a slim majority in Congress or a divided Congress.
And then you have a liar screaming that he can fix everything day one and enough people are dumb enough to believe him because he played a successful businessman on TV while his own business track record is a string of failures and con jobs, but Americans can't be bothered to do five minutes of research before voting for a man to be supreme leader for four years.
Idealistic me would say we need to tell people what our goals are and run honest, competent governments that benefit folks and make their lives easier.
Now, cynical me would that idealist that people are stupid and forgetful and tell Democrats to fucking lie. Truth obviously doesn't matter to most people, so just lie. Lie early, lie often. Boldly. Tell people the sky is green. Make the media print that some people disagree and say it's blue. Over and over again. Sell these motherfuckers the biggest lies and if they found out you're lying, lie and say you never said that and they're stupid for thinking you did.
Of course, there are negative consequences to this further erosion of the idea of truth. But that's where America is at now.
"Americans can't be bothered to do five minutes of research before voting for a man to be supreme leader for four years."
I agree, but that's just something we have to take into account when choosing candidates and candidates have to take into account when planning campaigns. Planning for it will always work out better than trying to fight it.
"Which is why the cynic in me says to lie to them"
Yeah, I'm with you on that too...I owe no respect to any motherfucker who disrespected ME by not bothering to vote, If they don't care enough to pay attention I don't care enough to tell them the truth, If they cared aboutt the truth they'd have fucking paid attention
I think a lot of elected Democrats are not really coming to grips as to why a lot of Americans are happy to engage with sadopopulism. And obviously Rahm Emanuel is not giving advice in good faith. Because when you engage in sadopopulism it's OK to lie. It's akin to "lying for Jesus." And under Murc's Law, Democrats aren't allowed to lie. That has consequences.
You aren't going to message your way out of someone vowing to eliminate immigrants, and also spreading blood libel about them (like "Haitians are eating the dogs, they're eating the cats.").
I guess now that this is happening, Democrats apparently have moved on from crowing about how sick Newsom's dunks are, so that's refreshing. Seems he's not gotten any headlines lately.
Considering Harris had just over 100 days to campaign, she came very close to winning, which is still losing. Where she went wrong was listening to the paid political consultants and the focus groups, who I am convinced are all repubs. She stopped being herself, and Waltz stopped being himself (and also dropped the "weird" label for repubs). Still, something broke through for many. Would more time have helped? I don't know, but when you think that trump had been campaigning for four years, and Harris only a little over three months, trump's win was pathetic.
Another thing that hurt her, and you have mentioned it - her defense of Biden's policies. I get what some have said about that - she didn't want to be disloyal, and that is admirable, BUT she could have defended Biden (things were better), but stated that the work isn't done yet. She could have acknowledged that too many people were still hurting, and what she would do about that.
Lastly, there is evidence that the algorithms on social media were deliberately made to favor trump and the repubs. I don't know what Harris or anyone else can do about that. But when you consider that, trump's win is even more pathetic. Still, he did win, but what pissed me off is how so many fell for that "landslide win" and "mandate" crap that he spewed after his teeny tiny win. Dem leaders fell for it too, and many of our institutions that should have known better fell for it as well.
Sorry, this has gotten a bit off topic, Dems need to be themselves. Not everybody is gonna the angry, but lovable Grandpa (Sanders) or the intelligent, relatable former bartender (AOC). Elizabeth Warren was a professor, and that still comes through when she explains stuff, but she is being herself, and that wins people over. Rough around the edges oyster farmer Graham Platner isn't trying to be someone he's not, so has a chance to win in Maine. All four are different, and I like all four of them. Annie Andrews and Brandon Brown are being themselves, and I like both, so don't know which one I will vote for in the primary next month, but whichever one wins will have my vote in November.
I'd add Talarico and Mamdani to that list of relatables...Hell, even as an atheist I was ready to go to church with Talarico after hearing him speak. Anyone who can assuage my general aversion to religion to make their case is a REAL communicator...I've listened to a LOT of his speaking gigs and kept wondering "When is he gonna fuck this up? When is he gonna say that religious thing that is a deal killer?"
Agree about Talarico and Mamdani. Plenty of Dems are relatable, yet they are all different. What makes them relatable is being themselves, not what the consultants and the focus groups tell them to be.
yeah, the observation on their 'differentness' from each other is one I've commented on before as well...THAT'S how you reach the most people...I really noticed it when Talarico and Crockett were running in the primary...I like them BOTH and they re SO different from each other...that was a real eye opener for me
"consultants and the focus groups, who I am convinced are all repubs"
You and me both...I've pointed this out before...It's SUCH an obvious opportunity for a Trojan Horse move... OF COULSE republicans are going to take advantage of that opening. The political consultant class are fucking snake oil salesmen...Dems being like someone who calls the psychic network and goes to weekly Tarot readings before choosing what to eat for breakfast..While you DO need strategists, you only need consultants if you lack the political and social skill/instincts that you NEED to be an effective leader.. or even WORSE, if you lack actual principles and beliefs...And CLEARLY these consultants are giving shit advice or we'd be WINNING more...Know who wins? People who don't fucking listen to consultants
One thing that is clear when any of those four speak is that they *do not talk down to people*. They treat the non-wealthy, non-college voters as if they are deserving of respect as they are, not as backwoods bigots who need to get into the 21st century, and I don't think any of them are faking it. "Authenticity" is a buzzword these days but it really does matter; in fact, I'd argue it's a big reason for Trump's initial popularity-there was a lot of crossover between his candidacy and Bernie Sanders back in the dark days of 2016, after all. It's also a big reason would-be MAGA standard bearers Vance & Rubio will never be president-both of them are phonier than a three dollar bill and everyone knows it.
I couldn't agree more. The lecturing is the killer. Politics is persuasion, not remediation. Democratic messaging now sounds like an HR training module delivered by someone who clearly thinks the audience is straight out of Deliverance, or worse. People don’t want to be managed or coerced into agreeing with the "correct" position, even on issues they may be inclined to agree with you. They want to feel understood. Even popular policies become unpopular when they’re wrapped in condescension (I don't actually think throwing the word "shit" around is a substitute for real empathy or understanding either).
I don't know. It's interesting. AOC and Bernie played to big crowds in RW areas. Platner seems to have plenty of people paying attention. Maybe everyone is just sick and tired of corporate Democrats helping Republicans with "bi-partisan" legislation; tired of the noise we've heard for 40 plus years while "normal" Americans continue to lose ground.
Several decades of being controlled opposition followed by repeatedly capitulating in the most pathetic way possible during Trump's reigns have a way of souring public opinion.
I think that has something to do with it, yes. But I also think that Democratic politicians and messaging are simply not very popular across vast swarths of the country, which is a problem if the party is really interested in building a lasting coalition that doesn't mind using power.
I think so much of what mainstream Democrats don’t fully get is it’s not the policies themselves that are even the problem. It’s the sensation that every politician is speaking to them through a series of focus tested buzzwords learned at a “how do you talk to normal humans” presentation.
People CRAVE authenticity. It’s a terrible example from the least authentic person on the planet in Donald Trump but it explains his rise. Republicans are just as guilty of this themselves, and for reference see 8 glorious months of the JEB! campaign. Every Republican was following the traditional talking points of selling tax cuts to farmers and Trump was just over here being as racist as they wanted to be out loud so they loved him.
Kamala’s best moments were where she could be authentically herself and let her goofy personality out. The “coconut tree” and the like. This was before she got much of the consultant brain smoothed into her campaign. Her worst moments were the dipshit final month where “Liz Cheney likes me!” It turns out wasn’t a winning message regardless of how much the Bulwark disagreed.
Not to further glaze Mamdani, as he doesn’t need my help right now, but you have an actual democratic socialist Muslim born in Africa. Everything Obama was scaremongered as being he actually is. And yet, he’s probably the most popular working politician in America right now exclusively because he’s authentic and he talks to people like they are human beings
Do we really need to dumb it down to the level where tfg's followers can understand it, though? I want my politicians to be smarter than me, and frankly, that shouldn't be too great an ask.
"The problem for Democrats is they sound too much like Ben Stein from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off..." OH, that's who Ken Martin reminds of me, as he script-stumbles over why they won't release the "autopsy"!
My advice would be a bit different—sure, talk normal (and if you need advice on how to talk normal than maybe you’re not the best candidate) but better than that—entertain. I dint mean throw in a laugh line or two in your sober speech, I mean make the whole damn thing an entertaining spectacle that even people uninterested in politics will want to witness. More like WWE, less like a lecture. If you entertain them, people will like you even if they don’t know where you stand on issues. And if you can do it while projecting strength, you’ll clean up.
Mamdani was aces at that
Yes, the entertainment point is key, as Trump was a good entertainer in ways that HRC and Harris weren’t. (Biden once was capable of this but was no longer.)
Yup—it’s what stands out about Trump’s campaign ability. He primarily goes up there to entertain, while other pols (particularly his opponents) think their job is to inform. The thing is, no one is really informed by a politician anyway (they get unsurprising soundbites bites that tell us nothing, or white papers that no one reads) and to them entertainment is an afterthought.
I wish just one Democrat would understand that this is the game that works now, and they have to let go of the old ways.
AOC's chat with David Axelrod: This is the Way
One of the big problems is mainstream Dems not wanting change but "a return to normal," so they can comtinue having two cars, 3 vacations and one kid or 1 vacation and three kids at their single family home.
There is no interest in reform and lifting the poor.
Yup. Class solidarity, methinks.
The Biden economy was doing well and much better than other nation's economies in recovering from the pandemic effects. Wages were up, unemployment was down.
That the gains were not being distributed equitably is the result of forty-five prior years of conservative economic policies and you can't exactly explain this situation to voters in a three second long talking point nor fix it in four years with a slim majority in Congress or a divided Congress.
And then you have a liar screaming that he can fix everything day one and enough people are dumb enough to believe him because he played a successful businessman on TV while his own business track record is a string of failures and con jobs, but Americans can't be bothered to do five minutes of research before voting for a man to be supreme leader for four years.
Idealistic me would say we need to tell people what our goals are and run honest, competent governments that benefit folks and make their lives easier.
Now, cynical me would that idealist that people are stupid and forgetful and tell Democrats to fucking lie. Truth obviously doesn't matter to most people, so just lie. Lie early, lie often. Boldly. Tell people the sky is green. Make the media print that some people disagree and say it's blue. Over and over again. Sell these motherfuckers the biggest lies and if they found out you're lying, lie and say you never said that and they're stupid for thinking you did.
Of course, there are negative consequences to this further erosion of the idea of truth. But that's where America is at now.
"Americans can't be bothered to do five minutes of research before voting for a man to be supreme leader for four years."
I agree, but that's just something we have to take into account when choosing candidates and candidates have to take into account when planning campaigns. Planning for it will always work out better than trying to fight it.
Which is why the cynic in me says to lie to them. Most of them won't bother to fact check.
Also think Doctors need to start calling vaccines "natural immune boosting super drugs".
Post-truth world is "fun".
I guess I just see things a little differently.
"Which is why the cynic in me says to lie to them"
Yeah, I'm with you on that too...I owe no respect to any motherfucker who disrespected ME by not bothering to vote, If they don't care enough to pay attention I don't care enough to tell them the truth, If they cared aboutt the truth they'd have fucking paid attention
Yup. And if they get mad about it later they can chug horse paste.
I think a lot of elected Democrats are not really coming to grips as to why a lot of Americans are happy to engage with sadopopulism. And obviously Rahm Emanuel is not giving advice in good faith. Because when you engage in sadopopulism it's OK to lie. It's akin to "lying for Jesus." And under Murc's Law, Democrats aren't allowed to lie. That has consequences.
You aren't going to message your way out of someone vowing to eliminate immigrants, and also spreading blood libel about them (like "Haitians are eating the dogs, they're eating the cats.").
I guess now that this is happening, Democrats apparently have moved on from crowing about how sick Newsom's dunks are, so that's refreshing. Seems he's not gotten any headlines lately.
Considering Harris had just over 100 days to campaign, she came very close to winning, which is still losing. Where she went wrong was listening to the paid political consultants and the focus groups, who I am convinced are all repubs. She stopped being herself, and Waltz stopped being himself (and also dropped the "weird" label for repubs). Still, something broke through for many. Would more time have helped? I don't know, but when you think that trump had been campaigning for four years, and Harris only a little over three months, trump's win was pathetic.
Another thing that hurt her, and you have mentioned it - her defense of Biden's policies. I get what some have said about that - she didn't want to be disloyal, and that is admirable, BUT she could have defended Biden (things were better), but stated that the work isn't done yet. She could have acknowledged that too many people were still hurting, and what she would do about that.
Lastly, there is evidence that the algorithms on social media were deliberately made to favor trump and the repubs. I don't know what Harris or anyone else can do about that. But when you consider that, trump's win is even more pathetic. Still, he did win, but what pissed me off is how so many fell for that "landslide win" and "mandate" crap that he spewed after his teeny tiny win. Dem leaders fell for it too, and many of our institutions that should have known better fell for it as well.
Sorry, this has gotten a bit off topic, Dems need to be themselves. Not everybody is gonna the angry, but lovable Grandpa (Sanders) or the intelligent, relatable former bartender (AOC). Elizabeth Warren was a professor, and that still comes through when she explains stuff, but she is being herself, and that wins people over. Rough around the edges oyster farmer Graham Platner isn't trying to be someone he's not, so has a chance to win in Maine. All four are different, and I like all four of them. Annie Andrews and Brandon Brown are being themselves, and I like both, so don't know which one I will vote for in the primary next month, but whichever one wins will have my vote in November.
I'd add Talarico and Mamdani to that list of relatables...Hell, even as an atheist I was ready to go to church with Talarico after hearing him speak. Anyone who can assuage my general aversion to religion to make their case is a REAL communicator...I've listened to a LOT of his speaking gigs and kept wondering "When is he gonna fuck this up? When is he gonna say that religious thing that is a deal killer?"
He never has...
Agree about Talarico and Mamdani. Plenty of Dems are relatable, yet they are all different. What makes them relatable is being themselves, not what the consultants and the focus groups tell them to be.
yeah, the observation on their 'differentness' from each other is one I've commented on before as well...THAT'S how you reach the most people...I really noticed it when Talarico and Crockett were running in the primary...I like them BOTH and they re SO different from each other...that was a real eye opener for me
He's saying plenty of religious things, just using them for different purposes.
true that...for purposes actually required by the religion itself! A real rarity
"consultants and the focus groups, who I am convinced are all repubs"
You and me both...I've pointed this out before...It's SUCH an obvious opportunity for a Trojan Horse move... OF COULSE republicans are going to take advantage of that opening. The political consultant class are fucking snake oil salesmen...Dems being like someone who calls the psychic network and goes to weekly Tarot readings before choosing what to eat for breakfast..While you DO need strategists, you only need consultants if you lack the political and social skill/instincts that you NEED to be an effective leader.. or even WORSE, if you lack actual principles and beliefs...And CLEARLY these consultants are giving shit advice or we'd be WINNING more...Know who wins? People who don't fucking listen to consultants
Another thing about consultants...they will work for whoever hires them...They HAVE no loyalty or principals
One thing that is clear when any of those four speak is that they *do not talk down to people*. They treat the non-wealthy, non-college voters as if they are deserving of respect as they are, not as backwoods bigots who need to get into the 21st century, and I don't think any of them are faking it. "Authenticity" is a buzzword these days but it really does matter; in fact, I'd argue it's a big reason for Trump's initial popularity-there was a lot of crossover between his candidacy and Bernie Sanders back in the dark days of 2016, after all. It's also a big reason would-be MAGA standard bearers Vance & Rubio will never be president-both of them are phonier than a three dollar bill and everyone knows it.
They can't speak plainly because they have no intentions of following through.
Tax the rich.
Feed the poor.
Stop the bombing.
There is simplicity, do that.
If dems are concerned about messaging, just copy Mamdani
Copy him? They couldn't even bring themselves to endorse him despite being their party's nominee.
Right?!
They would actually have to follow through, though
yep...It's just better if you really MEAN and CRAE about the things you say...Authenticity can't be faked
I couldn't agree more. The lecturing is the killer. Politics is persuasion, not remediation. Democratic messaging now sounds like an HR training module delivered by someone who clearly thinks the audience is straight out of Deliverance, or worse. People don’t want to be managed or coerced into agreeing with the "correct" position, even on issues they may be inclined to agree with you. They want to feel understood. Even popular policies become unpopular when they’re wrapped in condescension (I don't actually think throwing the word "shit" around is a substitute for real empathy or understanding either).
I don't know. It's interesting. AOC and Bernie played to big crowds in RW areas. Platner seems to have plenty of people paying attention. Maybe everyone is just sick and tired of corporate Democrats helping Republicans with "bi-partisan" legislation; tired of the noise we've heard for 40 plus years while "normal" Americans continue to lose ground.
And still, the GOP generically remains *more popular* with voters than the Democrats, Trump notwithstanding.
Several decades of being controlled opposition followed by repeatedly capitulating in the most pathetic way possible during Trump's reigns have a way of souring public opinion.
I think that has something to do with it, yes. But I also think that Democratic politicians and messaging are simply not very popular across vast swarths of the country, which is a problem if the party is really interested in building a lasting coalition that doesn't mind using power.