You’re funny Bricker :). Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
“right now” is a very significant qualifier.
There’s a lot of discussion about how long term demographic trends don’t bode well for the Republicans. I don’t think it’s quite as bad as some people make it (in particular as some current minorities may turn “white” over time), but it’s definitely an issue.
I suppose it depends on what the parties morph into, but while I can’t being myself to vote Trump, I can certainly stomach voting for other current Republicans. Now, if new Republican candidates emerge that are Trumpesque, I might begin to call myself independent.
“White privilege” for everybody? Can we create an economy that will add another 30% of the population to the upper middle class? All gonna be stockbrokers with MBAs? Amway distributors? Pay baristas and bicycle messengers $80K/yr?
Better stick to the tried and true, pick one. Tell the Latinos that they would be in great shape if it weren’t for all the African-American welfare queens and moochers. Might as well throw in Sharia law, what the heck…
Wait! Better still, an infrastructure program dedicated to building and expanding more gated communities! You can always hire half the poor to protect you from the other half!
Problem is, Paul Ryan isn’t getting it done as the other leader of the Republican Party. The health care bill is pure nonsense, he still hasn’t fleshed out his budget plan that he’s been selling for 7 years now, and he still hasn’t figured out how to work with Democrats.
All the Democrats have to do to win my vote at this point is be authentic and smart. They’ve already got the latter down pat, now they just have to stop viewing voters as idiots to be bamboozled while they do what’s good for them and they might have something.
Does Ossoff’s wife know about his fiancée, Alisha, who’s also in school?
They did and do. And here’s why:
The advantage of moral bankruptcy is that it makes campaigning a lot easier. John Mace said above that the Democrats needed to present simpler and easier messages to the public like the Republicans do. You know what’s simple and easy? Lies. Take the issue of coal jobs. Clinton had policies, she gave speeches setting out the economic realities, and no one remembered. Trump turned up and said “I’m going to get all your jobs back” and won the miners over. Never mind that he can’t get their jobs back nor that it’s patently obvious that he isn’t going to do anything beyond allowing mine owners to pollute their water supply and drastically reduce safety levels in the minds - it was a simple, easy lie people wanted to believe and so they voted Trump.
The right-wing also have a more effective propaganda machine than the left, with decades of experience of corralling their audience into ever smaller bubbles by convincing them that every other information source is lying to them, and by continuously misrepresenting the views, actions and statements of the other side (e.g. “What difference does it make?” or “You didn’t build that.”). More lies. Lies repeated over and over until people stop questioning them.
The Republican efforts to reduce Democratic voter turnout have been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, and a number of the board conservatives have indicated that they’re perfectly happy with them as long as they’re technically legal. Amidst all the advice to the Democrats about how they can appeal to more right-ish voters, the question about why the Republicans need to resort to suppressing Democratic voters instead of developing policies that appeal to more left-ish voters rarely seems to get asked.
The Democrats are certainly not squeaky-clean in this regard by any means (particularly not historically), but let’s not pretend that the current Republican dominance is all down to a good honest all-American support for their policies - particularly right now while they’re busy rushing a hastily- and largely secretly-drafted healthcare bill through the Senate which will have catastrophic - and in some cases lethal - consequences for millions of Americans. It’s down principally to tribalism - and to lies. Maybe those are what the Democrats need more of in order to level the playing field.
You know who else has a more effective propaganda machine than the left? Putin.
Even if you already suspect most of this, this article is chilling.
I have no idea why you think none of that rings true. I live here, “one district over”, and talk to GA-6 residents every freaking day at work. The caveat of moving back only if elected struck a chord in many voters, as did the outside money. If not for the three “little details” I mentioned, I think a Dem could have won that seat. GA-6 demographics have changed and continue to change radically, toward the Dem’s wheelhouse. It will go blue sooner rather than later.
The reason you should look at the “little details” is because Dems spent $30MM to win this seat and didn’t. They wouldn’t have spent that money if they didn’t think they had a good chance at winning. That certainly deserves more of a post mortem than “Oh, well, we didn’t really expect that seat anyway”.
Maybe it doesn’t deserve it though. I would contend it was only close because of Trump. I’ll certainly defer to a resident’s impression of the campaigns but I have trouble believing even a great candidate would have pulled over that last 4% for the win.
Just to be clear, I did not say “like the Republicans do” and I was not suggesting that the Democrats lie*. Keep in mind that I was offering one suggestion as a counter to what seemed to me like such an esoteric idea that it was completely out of touch with reality. There could very well be other, good strategies, too. The Democrats, on the whole, have a better plan for this country and I’d like to see them win more races. It just seems like they can’t stop themselves from being the party that must solve every social injustice that anyone can possibly dream up instead of focusing most of their energy on the things that matter most to the bulk of the American people.
*You probably don’t think I was suggesting Democrats lie, either, but someone could easily read that and think I did.
You can always join the libertarians. We have pie.
-
- Our pie is very large, but the size of your slice will be based on an algorithm involving your parents’ household income, genetics, a 20-sided die, and how far you can run flat-out at this altitude before your hands start to shake.
Err…I’m sorry, but it doesn’t appear your bakery was licensed. Ima hafta take that pie.
Ok, that’s funny 
IMO the Democrats have an inherent advantage, in that the plus aspect of their major platform is upfront and immediate and the downside is more complex and long-term. So it’s more appealing to the simple-minded, which is the vast majority of the electorate.
Essentially, saying “the government” will give everyone “free stuff”, while pretending that either no one will pay for it or a few zillionaire hedge fund managers will, is always going to be very appealing to a lot of people. Having to argue things about the long term impact on the economy or moral hazards (murky subjects, at best) is a much tougher sell. That’s why the Republicans have to fall back on their own simplistic and somewhat distorted slogans as well, with uneven results.
[ETA: that’s not to say anyone who agrees with the Democratic economic platform has to be simple-minded. Far from it. But just that it has a lot of appeal to the simple-minded, whatever its merits.]
Except even the “simple-minded” are naturally wary of someone offering them free stuff. TANSTAAFL principle is fairly well ingrained in human psyche. Not enough to prevent Nigerian princes from making a profit, maybe, but enough to curb the Democrats’ appeal.
People are used to the idea of “the government” having a lot of money and distributing benefits to the citizens.
It needs to be articulated that some of the “free stuff” is paid for through increased revenue. You pay for daycare subsidies from the taxes collected from working mothers. You pay for tuition subsidies from the taxes collected from college graduates who are making more money with degrees than they would without, etc, etc.
Yeah, it doesn’t always work that way in practice, but the theory doesn’t even get put out there enough.
One near-unbeatable political strategy is to 1) Promise a chunk of the electorate something that they want, and 2) Promise that a group of people* that they dislike will be paying for it.*
With Evergreen State College types, offer them free college education, and tell them that Wall Street fat cats will pay for it. Kryptonite.