Yes. But …
@E-DUB was wrong to begin with. You convince people with emotion, not with facts.
The angry MAGAt faction was totally driven into their frenzy by carefully chosen emotional propaganda. If any of them they are to be eventually redeemed, it will only come about through equally emotional propaganda going the other way.
All else is folly.
On the OP topic: The Democrats need to pick a message that will resonate with the widest swath possible of the population - across gender, race, religious, and other social lines.
Right now, that message would be: “For many, many Americans, the economy sucks hard on a household level.”
People across the political spectrum, from age 18-80, men or women, white or non-white, educated or not, are being hammered by inflation, student debt, medical debt, predatory insurance companies, rising rent, low wages, bill after bill, groceries that are 70% pricier now than before Covid…across all 50 states.
The Republicans, of course, won’t lift a finger to help. But if Democrats hammered this message repeatedly and nonstop, and presented a clear 10-second long series of sound bites, quotable quips, and aggressive promises that are actionable, they’d crush Republicans coast to coast in elections.
But instead, Democrats have this weird tendency to alienate the very voters they need, while kissing up to the very oppressors they ought to be vilifying. Look at Luigi Mangione vs United Healthcare, for instance. That was a prime opportunity for the Democratic leadership to pounce on how horrible health insurance companies are, but instead they circled the wagons and promised stronger VIP protection for greedy CEOs.
Assuming that’s possible anymore…
There is little political cost to treating people as the enemy if they can’t vote (illegal immigrants), would never vote for you anyway, or are a small minority. That’s just a fact. Complaining about it isn’t going to change anything. There is a big political cost to alienating your own supporters and swing voters (who are mostly disengaged from politics, because those who are engaged already have strong opinions). If you don’t get elected, you can’t work towards any of your goals.
If various minorities are oppressed, who is oppressing them? This stuff is ebbing now, but the idea of implicit racism says that the answer is ‘all white people’. If women are oppressed, it must be because of men, and men need to fix that somehow. If people need to change their views, that implies they are at fault for their current ones. And I don’t know about orgs, but I do see plenty of comments on social media about how X group (especially white men) are the problem. No, it isn’t from a perspective of seeing them as lesser humans, but nor is the OP’s plan to blame CEOs about seeing them as lesser humans. It’s about assigning them blame for the problems in society.
According to Reddit, she said she wants to be a politician who happens to be trans, serving the people she was elected to represent and working on a variety of issues, rather than being defined by this one. Being seen as ‘normal’ in this way is, I think, a positive.
And with Trump in power, there’s not much she can do for trans rights anyway. Stopping existing rights being rolled back is currently more urgent than trying to advance them.
Correct. I have found people are extremely resistant to facts if those facts happen to contradict their worldview. 
This is why the left is always appealing to ‘empathy’ and telling stories designed to elicit sympathy, rather than giving people facts that will be ignored.
Most people believe what those around them believe, and it’s pretty unhealthy not to do so. So if you can convince enough people, you reach a tipping point where your ideas take over. It’s getting to that tipping point that’s hard.
However, that’s completely tangential to the point about political cost that I was putting to you. I was saying that we shouldn’t engage in “both sidesism” and should actually call out egregious words and behaviour. Especially when the situation is as asymmetric as bigotry in the US is right now.
So we can point out the explicit and dogwhistle racism of Trump, Miller etc up to “eating the dogs”, “low-IQ” “DEI hire” about every black person, white replacement theory etc etc.
But the left is somehow doing the same (perhaps worse in your opinion, because I don’t recall you criticising RW bigotry), by implication, because, by pointing out how unfairly a group is being treated, it is implicitly saying that members of the majority are the oppressors (actually, that logic doesn’t follow, but that’s not even the biggest problem with this point).
Will people stop pointing out how trans are disproportionately the victims of violence and now explicitly have fewer rights than other citizens, it’s making me feel bad as a cis man, and is therefore discrimination!
You’re kidding right? Democrats, and every LW channel I’m aware of, are pretty dry with facts over feelings, and I think upthread this was even cited as a reason why Democrats struggle in the messaging war.
Dems talk about crime stats, FOX cherry-picks the most violent migrant crimes they can find, and Trump gets the victims up on stage. Dems talk about policies that will help lower-income workers, and talk about the economic recovery of Biden’s term; republicans cosplay by getting people in hard hats to sit behind them* and highlight a factory that is closing down.
* Which is really smart TBH. Whoever first figured out the optics of putting an audience behind the speaker and making them wear their work attire is a master of manipulation.
Remember, it’s the Democrats that aren’t trying to find common ground with conservatives.
I didn’t go through the entire Klein-McBride transcript, only the first 1/3 or so. At least in that portion, McBride wasn’t talking about finding common ground with Republicans – she was talking about common ground with center-left Democrats.
I only mention this because subsequent posters have gone off on tangents about appealing to Republicans. I think that’s commonly understood to be a step too far in the immediate term, whereas center-left Democrats should be “gettable”.
I don’t think any self described centrists really are. Not really. They are more interested in owning the libs, that’s why they self describe as “centrists” so they can poke and poke and push right-wing viewpoints and when they get the tiniest bit of push back they cry foul because they are “centrists” and just want to see both sides.
They’re not interested in ever being “got” they want to be pursued though
As to who should be gettable, how about ticket-splitters.
There are a lot of articles I see googling that say ticket splitting has become rare. But I’m not finding any statistics on the actual percent of split tickets. Instead, I see articles on specific splits, such as Trump for President and Gallego for Senate. But this doesn’t tell us how many voters are, say, voting for Republicans nationally but select a Democrat for purely local offices.
This past November, there were ten offices on my ballot. I voted for seven Democrats and three Republicans. Now, those three Republicans were running for the least important offices. And I was generally more sure of the Democrats I voted for than the Republicans. Still, the Republicans should regard people like me as gettable (and moderate their views to do so), just as the Democrats should regard Republican-registered ticket splitters as gettable.
On a board where not one person will admit to supporting Trump? Sure, MAGA Republicans are much worse than the Dems. I don’t see how calling them out here will do anything, though. There’s no one to persuade from their position, no one whose mind isn’t already made up.
No. That’s not what I meant. The left treats conservatives as the enemy, frequently centrists too, or anyone not far left enough for their liking: the people who agree with them 90%. That’s what I was comparing to the right-wing demonizing of groups. In both cases there’s an ingroup vs outgroup dynamic, it’s just that for the left, the outgroup is defined by ideological views, and especially the things they label (sometimes fairly, sometimes not) as ‘bigotry’.
As for the ‘oppressor’ groups, I said they are treated as the enemy to an extent: obviously plenty of people on the social justicey left are white, straight, and/or male and whatever else; these groups are not treated equivalently to how the right treats their designated scapegoats, but the left definitely makes a distinction and it isn’t in their favour.
And although intellectually I believe the right is worse, I’m not emotionally invested in the same way. I haven’t had the experience of being excommunicated from the right, so I don’t feel the same bitterness towards them or desire to criticise them.
No. I’m talking about stuff like this - a sympathetic article giving the experience of a deported immigrant:
And this article opposing cash bail that starts with a sympathetic story about someone unfairly imprisoned for a month and a half:
Not sure where you got that idea. I don’t think anyone was suggesting trying to appeal to Republicans. The main point was to stop driving away your own supporters by insisting on all-or-nothing agreement, and stop being the ‘preachy’ party that wants to reform voters instead of reforming the government.
I’m sitting in a bar. Fox is on the TV.
100% of this thread is wasted breath. The alternate reality they are pushing is hermetic. And very very seductive.
The left cannot win in reality when the right lives in a comfortable fantasyland of their own creation.
Until the disinformation is stopped, all else is sterile navel-gazing and crying in the wilderness. Figure out how to take them and their ilk off the air and off the internet.
Then, and only then, will you have any hope of collecting more than 30ish percent of the votes.
It’s bad now and getting worse rapidly.
I voted for Trump.
No I’m talking about posts like Boudicca’s that I replied to today, and like crowmanyclouds’ Post #306 just upthread. Those posts were (IMHO) missing McBride’s point – or at least her point as I understood it reading 1/3 of the way through the Klein-McBride transcript upthread.
To reiterate: McBride wasn’t talking about appealing to Republicans (EDIT: and on this, DemonTree is correct). McBride was instead talking about appealing to center-left Democrats, or thereabouts.
McBride’s point still stands if you prefer to remove anyone near the center from the analysis. Better couched as “Anyone near the progressive-liberal boundary should be gettable”?
(Is there such a thing as “cafeteria progressives”? Legitimately progessive on issue X, liberal on issue Y, center on issue Z?)
Ultimately whether she was talking about Republicans or centrist or conservative Democrats, the end result is the same. She is showing herself to be another empty seat that will do nothing but appease people who don’t want actual change for the better but would rather suck up to moneyed interests and serve as a milquetoast token to cis people to further her own interests at the expense of the rest of us.
We need far less politicians like McBride and far more like Mamdani. He is someone who I could actually trust to fight for my rights.
Of course there are. Lotta the contortions within the big-tent Left are that everyone is a cafeteria leftist.
Which leads to hundreds of distinct combos from just a few policy topics. Couple that with loud litmus tests and the result is paralysis by cacophony.
What is “her own interests” you refer to?
Her district has become pretty solidly Democratic without there being much risk of being primaried. So it seems to me she has the political luxury of being able to say what she thinks.
…I think McBride’s point highlights everything wrong with the Democrats messaging.
from Erin in the Morning:
I think the position of “believing in trans rights UNLESS those rights are not polling well” shows a complete and utter lack of conviction.
And that matters.
Some more:
McBride has a platform and significantly more ability than most trans people to be able to push back. Instead, she chose not to make a fuss. Which in turn makes it harder for people with less privilege than her.
Which brings in another issue: people using the fact that McBride is transgender (I couldn’t find anywhere that showed she identifies as transsexual, a rather archaic and outdated term where I live, and isn’t used any more) as a shield to their opinions. You and others are doing that here. Sometimes brown people like me get it wrong about racism. Just because one person from a marginalised community has an opinion it doesn’t mean its universal.
And this is the problem with how Democrat messaging in a nutshell. It needs to start with a recognition about what the target demographic for this sort of messaging really is. It’s mostly just old-school Republicans in everything but name. The never-Trumpers. The people who abandoned MAGA but never really abandoned their conservative values.
It’s why Cindy McCain was bought in to help the campaign. It’s why uncommitted weren’t allowed to speak at the convention…and why the word 'transgender" was only ever said once during that same convention. It’s why they campaigned on tougher immigration, giving MORE money to the police, It’s why they cheerfully support “cop cities” and why people like Newsom happily poses for photos while he cleans out homeless encampments.
And ultimately, it’s why the Democrats are “failing” at the messaging game. Because they aren’t really failing. The target is “old-school Republicans” because that’s where the money is. They are reaching exactly who they want and the Democrat establishment: politicians, lobbyists, consultants and pundits are making bank.
What is needed is a major shift in paradigm. Because I can’t stress this enough:
The Democrats are not going to save you.
They aren’t going to fix their messaging. It either needs to be disrupted: and Mamdani provided a masterclass on how to do that, or it needs to be bypassed all together.
People need to focus on two things:
Firstly: conviction.
Forget focus groups. Ignore polling. Tell the consultants to bugger off. Stand up for what you believe. Mamdani shows this when he didn’t back down on “globalize the intifada” even though every single consultant would have told him to do so. Or his answer to the completely ridiculous question at the debates “what their first foreign trip would be as mayor.”
Say what you believe. Fight for what you think is right. Have some conviction. This really isn’t difficult stuff. But unbelievably, the Democrats struggle with this.
And secondly: just do it.
What are you waiting for? This thread was started in March. Has anything changed substantially since then?
No, the pundits are still insisting upon themselves. We are still more concerned about “getting it exactly right” instead of just getting out there and getting it done.
And by “getting it done”, that means recognising that the Democrats are fundamentally incapable of rising to the moment. And while I admire those that are still fighting within the party in an attempt to make change, I think that ultimately the Democratic machine needs to be bypassed in order to have any impact. Funding is the biggest issue. Because both the Democrats and the alt-right have got a LOT of money to throw around.
So does just about every politician, except maybe if they are lucky enough to represent a district that coincidentally is fully aligned with their views.
Barack Obama was the most liberal U.S. Senator by some interest group ratings, but he struggled with gay marriage – until public opinion decreed that he didn’t have to.
Abraham Lincoln struggled with banning slavery in states where it already existed – until he didn’t have to.
I just read the first volume of a biography of Charles Sumner, who probably was the most progressive U.S. Senator of the 1850’s and 1860’s. Coming from Massachusetts, he didn’t have to compromise on slavery – EXCEPT during the succession crisis, when northern white public opinion swung overwhelmingly in favor of reassuring southern states that they could permanently keep slavery if they stayed in the union. So Sumner temporarily switched over to be an intermediate position after years of being famed for his inflexibility.
Just the way it goes if you have to please the public.
Yes politicians can get out ahead of public opinion – a little, and not on everything.
…this thread is about Democrats.
And my point is that NOT fighting for what you believe, instead just dutifully repeating talking points that were drafted by some liberal think-tank, is why the Democrats are struggling with their messaging.
You miss the point.
Trans people being able to use the bathroom that aligns with how they identify was the default. Yes: that wan’t universal. Yes: trans people still got attacked for using the “wrong” bathroom. But it wasn’t an issue that was impacting elections.
Then before the last election, MAGA spend millions attacking trans people and trans rights. Sports and bathrooms became front page news. The messaging from MAGA was united: because it was all coming from the same place.
And that pushed the window. It influenced the polling.
So in response to a multi-million hate campaign did the Democrats push back?
Nope.
Instead, it became “gosh darn it! People are hating trans people right now. Time to jump on the bandwagon.”
It’s a very obvious and simple strategy from MAGA and the (establishment) Democrats fall for it nearly every single time.
When MAGA inevitably goes after gay marriage and mixed marriages, should the Democrats follow the polling here as well? I think it’s likely we see the language of compromise here as well. “It doesn’t have to be marriage. Civil Union is just fine.”
They are taking away rights and norms that already existed. It isn’t the same as what happened with gay marriage.
You either take a stand or you don’t. What we are seeing right now, in the context of working with a fledgling authoritarian regime, is appeasement and complicity.
And here’s the thing. This isn’t a magic fix. It obviously isn’t going to always work, especially in the short term, because there is a disparity in both funding and with the disinfo eco-system. MAGA and the alt-right own almost all of the social media companies, almost all of the media, they control the algorithms, they’ve mastered propaganda at scale and people in opposition to this are never ever going to be able to compete.
So when a person standing up for what they believe in fails, that isn’t an indictment of “standing up for what you believe in.” It doesn’t mean abandon your principles. Compromise your values.
Because you either stand for something or you don’t. I’m picking MAGA and the alt-right will dominate for over a decade. Things will get much much worse before they start to get better. I’ll be dead by then.
But that doesn’t mean we should stop fighting.