I don't understand what voters Trump could've picked up between 2016 and 2020

Politics & Elections
341

No.

Huh, that’s not even related to what I said.

But, to the point, yes, Sinclair has grown, substantially in size and in reach, owning more stations, where they can control what the local news says, what they report, even give them scripts that they must read verbatim, as well as channels upon which they can add their bias.

When you turn on your 6 o’clock news, you are expecting to have local news presented to you by local anchors and journalists. You are not expecting partisan slant. So, when that partisan slant appears, even the more cynical among us will not necessarily notice it.

This is further exacerbated by social media. People share stories, some of them even true but still biased, that further drive them towards radicalization.

Actually, looking at it, it seems that most of them have been run by Republicans.

In any case, a small town doesn’t have the resources to retrain their populace, that is something that really needs resources from at least the state, and preferably the federal government.

Usually what happens with these towns is that they lose their primary economic driver, lots of people go on unemployment and welfare. They do their best to scrape by, they usually have a substantial uptick in drug abuse, domestic violence, and crime. The kids that can make it out do so, and leave, and these little places are left to rot, their populations and their economies dwindling.

Since you seem to think that giving them other options is a bad thing, what are your suggestions for these towns? Do we just lie to them and tell them that we will get that plant to reopen and give them back their jobs, or do we find a way to give them the resources to explore other options?

342

Do they? I’ll take your word for it.

How do we insert that information into their stream? Do we send people undercover to work at Fox and Sinclair?

It usually is not the wonks, but the PR people who script the message. The problem is is that the wonks are the ones who are running things on the Dem side, and the PR people are running things on the Republican side.

It’s all well and good to have your advertising influenced by your PR people, but when your policy is being dictated by the PR people, you’ve already lost the fight before you even started.

Yes, we are losing them. We are losing people who don’t want to understand things, who only look to attack, who believe and tell lies.

If we are outnumbered by those sorts of people, we have already lost. Becoming those sorts of people will only put us on the winning side, it won’t let us win on any of the things that we currently consider to be important.

No, Portuguese is still a language. It’s not that they are just speaking a different language, they are speaking gibberish. You can still relate cause and effect in Portuguese, math still works in Portuguese.

A much more apt analogy is reasoning with toddlers. You know how to reason with a toddler? Answer is you can’t. You can bribe them or punish them, that’s about all the communication that they are capable of understanding. Other than that, you have to wait until they grow up.

Republicans have gotten really good at offering that candy to the hyperactive 2 year old that is screaming in the middle of the grocery store. They know it won’t quiet them down, but they also know that it will keep them from ever growing up to understand that the vegetable isle is not a punishment.

343

What I meant was, how could they have voted for Hilary last time if they are in such a media bubble? But sounds like the echo chamber may be got… echoier in the meantime.

I don’t think it’s a bad thing. It would make much more sense to start by testing retraining schemes on people who have already lost their jobs. And it would be a lot more attractive to the oil workers if the Democrats could point to areas where it worked and have testimonials from people it helped. Otherwise why should they believe it’ll work, or even happen?

Yes, I was thinking state level. One of the states could try creating a program to retrain people, to see how well it works and what works best. Not everything has to be done by the federal government.

Articles to be shared on social media, YouTube videos, WhatsApp Memes… easy.

Apt choice, since Brazil elected a President who’s just like a less orange version of Trump. Latin Americans love populists even more than US Americans. The Dems just need their own version of Lula in order to compete.

344

Lula? He’s been out of office for over 10 years. Bolsonaro is the Trump clone.

345

Yes, but he was running against Bolsonaro and polling way ahead until they put him in jail. Maybe the Dems need to fight fire with fire, or populism with populism…

346

Two sections (as a starting point, if you’re interested): ‘counter-messaging’ and ‘engagement:’

Manafort shared internal polling data with the Russians – data that, IIRC, was used to buy micro-targeted ads on platforms like Facebook.

In the most critical swing states.

And didn’t they spend like … nothing to do it ?

This was, paradoxically, high-tech guerrilla warfare.

Go where the propaganda lives. Fight back.

To the rest of your reply … I think you and I generally agree far more than we disagree, but …

There are a few here who sound like they’re preaching appeasement, but I don’t think they are. I think they’re preaching a smarter approach that’s bound to result in more effective messaging.

I think they’re advocating for finding a lingua franca and using it.

I think the issue of ‘Portuguese’ vs. raising small children is a bit of hair-splitting, because …

If the arguments from the other side are as reductive, inflammatory, simplistic, and lacking in substance as I imply – citing that ‘socialism’ meme I posted – then you really do have to meet your audience where they live.

That doesn’t mean that the Democrats stop providing policy position papers to their PR folk for messaging and start creating FB memes comparable, but antithetical, to the ‘socialism’ meme above.

It’s additive. It’s incremental. It’s what else they need to be doing that – AFAICT – they aren’t doing (well) now.

They need to counter narratives if they want to chip into the (vaster than I’d care to believe) audience who speaks such a rudimentary language of clicks and grunts.

I think Biden beat the worst president in US history, but not by much.

Knowing that 72+ million Americans still support the CFSG means it’s time to revisit strategy … definitely before '24, and hopefully before '22.

And I think nothing can be off the table.

347

Exactly. The election result isn’t something to celebrate. It’s alarming.

348

That part’s alarming. But Biden winning even though so many Americans are driven by some combination of delusion and vitriolic hatred is a good thing. If someone had told us, in advance, that there were at least 10 million Americans who didn’t vote for Trump in '16 but did this time, then there’s no way we would have had any confidence that Biden would win.

349

I guess we have different ideas of what is encouraging. You were a former submarine nuclear engineering officer, right? I’m sure there must be some sort of a nuclear analogy where the hazard, even if contained, would still lead to a serious inquiry. That’s the kind of attitude the Democrats should be having, not “we avoided a Chernobyl by a margin of 3 percent, so it’s all good.”

350

Where did I ever say “it’s all good”? It’s not. It’s very bad. But in this very bad circumstance, we still won. We should build on the successes and seek to learn from the failures. And since we won the presidency, we should do our best to enact good policy.

351

The Guardian covers Trump’s increase in popularity in Iowa

“I do believe this Trump moment is long. He’s changed politics. It’s kind of like Ronald Reagan but this has become more of a movement. Nobody was hanging Reagan flags,” he said.

… But Trump increasingly won over voters in the heartland as he cast his objections to the wearing of masks and the closing of businesses to enforce social distancing as matters of personal independence and economic survival.

…

Leading Democrats denounced the violence but hedged on wider issues of police reform which, seen from rural Iowa, gave weight to Republican claims that radicals would wield power in a Biden presidency.

But long before that Trump solidified at least some of his support after an outpouring of anger from some liberals who blamed Clinton’s loss on prejudiced white voters in rural America.

“People felt slighted by them calling us racist hicks and talking about the backwards midwest out in the sticks,” said Schlecht.
…

“I know he says those things and it’s wrong,” said a businesswoman who twice voted for Obama and then took a chance on Trump because she thought he would be good for the economy. “I wish he would stop tweeting. But it’s not enough to stop me voting for him again. If anything, I feel more alienated from the Democrats over the past year. They’ve gone off the reservation. I don’t recognise them any more.”

…

Trump, on the other hand, has successfully portrayed himself to many midwestern voters as listening to their concerns and acting on them.

352

Well, that statement pretty much flags her racism right there.

353

It is speaking in tongues.

354

Could you list a few of these? And bear in mind that Democratic Socialism is not Social Democracy, so the European states do not count. Not a single one, including the Nordic countries, are run by Democratic Socialists.

355

Looks like the root of your question is semantic.

I’m more than okay using the term “social democracy” instead of “democratic socialism” if it’s more accurate.

I’ll just invite you to browse, for example, this site to understand our rankings against other countries:

https://www.nationmaster.com/

356

There is a huge difference between social democracy and democratic socialism. It’s like the difference between conservatism and fascism. If I said there were lots of successful fascist countries, and when pressed for an example I mentioned Brazil or Britain, you’d think I was being incoherent.

To repeat: Democratic Socialists are hard socialists who believe in bringing down capitalism and replacing it with worker-controlled industry, somehow. Social Democrats are capitalists who just want a slightly bigger percentage of the profits of capitalism to be redistributed to the needy without breaking the capitalist system.

Which one are you supporting? And which model do you think the Democratic Socialists of America want to achieve?

357

I’m referring to social democracies. I was using the wrong term.

358

Well, that may be the disconnect with your family. For example, the meme of the people on the boat was NOT directed at social democracies. No one is trying to escape Sweden by boat. The countries that are being referenced by that meme are places like Cuba, Venezuela, the old Societ Union, China, and Vietnam before it liberalized.

This is a serious messaging problem Democrats have. Within their ranks are maybe 10-20% hard socialists who think the Venezuela/Cuba model is fine if only the right people tried it. The rest of the Democrats want to downplay this for obviius reasons (it’s batahit crazy and electoral poison), so they claim that they just want a better safety net. So you wind ip with a lot of people talking past each other and refusing tomaccept what the other side clearly believes, and it adds incoherence to party strategy and allows their political rivals to use whichever interpretation is the most politically damaging.

But Democrata won’t come out with full-throated denunciations of real Socialism, because the shell game they play keeps the ‘base’ activated while not completely turning off the moderates who are okay with Social Democracy but not full-on socialism or Communism.

The Republicans have the same problem with their base.

359

Cite for that 10-20% figure? AFAICT it doesn’t seem to square with the tiny number of Democratic elected officials and activists who are actually advocating policies realistically comparable to those of Venezuela and Cuba.

Now, if you’re just using the phrase “think the Venezuela/Cuba model is fine” as a loose paraphrase for “are willing to vote for something that bears the ‘socialism’ label as long as they agree with its general substance”, then your estimate is massively lowballed. People who fall in that category in fact comprise 76% of Democrats, not to mention 45% of Independents and even 17% of Republicans.

360

That’s a rather arbitrary, and artificially disjoint, classification scheme that doesn’t take into account the reality of the many people who might self-identify with one of those two labels, while actually desiring a system that falls somewhere in the very broad middle between the definitions you’ve chosen to give for them.