If the position is that they may not have said X, but people inferred X, then I’m pretty much with you.
The only disagreement is the why. Your focus remains on their way of communicating, and I won’t deny that Dems need better orators…
But the bigger problem IMO is just being on the backfoot in the new media environment. When people have listened to endless hours of RW talking points, on local news, cable news and on social media, when you get your 5 mins at the mic it’s almost impossible to turn it around.
Trying to debunk the talking points comes across as touting the economy, or “pointing at graphs and charts”, as I think someone upthread characterized it. Saying you are aware of the difficulties that people face sounds like you concede the talking points plus of course it comes across as insincere anyway when you were the party in power.
So the real war is getting a foothold into podcasts, social media and TV (I know people tend to think of cable news as left-leaning, but I beg to differ: I think US media is outright RW propaganda channels and “trying hard to be centrist” channels). “The message” is a small part of the picture relative to that.
…my position is that the messaging was decided in the backrooms by the consultants, by the think-tanks, by the party leadership. That was distilled into the standard talking points that all of the party largely stuck to. And that messaging fell flat with a lot of voters, who were disillusioned from everything from the economy, to Bidens stance on the war.
Because this here is the problem:
It’s these people who are driving the messaging. And rings hollow. Inauthentic. And at times outright hostile to many in the Democrat base.
I’m not advocating doing any of this stuff.
Mamdani had one of the most effective ground-games since Obama. And my point really is that sure, podcasts, social media, TV are absolutely important, but waiting for the Democrat machine to both recognise that and get behind it is a fools game, because they are fundamentally incapable of doing so.
So going back to my first post again its about two things: conviction, and just do it. Knock on doors. Walk the streets. Go old school. Post funny, positive videos. Fight for something. Give people something to vote for.
Damn right. It doesn’t necessarily have to be the same that Banquet_Bear would campaign for or that I would campaign for, but stand for something and go to the voters and tell them, this is me, this is what I offer.
Anyone can start a podcast. You don’t need the Democratic machine. And anyone can post on social media. Reaching a large audience would be a little harder now that Elon owns Twitter and other social media owners are bending to Trump, but until recently the left had a huge advantage in terms of avoiding censorship. So why is this area dominated by the right? (Or is it really? I have no idea how Tiktok, or Boomer Facebook memes lean.)
That’s really interesting. Shows what they thought were Kamala’s weakest points: most liberal senator/allied with socialists, ie not being more centrist. Immigration, energy, crime. The ‘weird’ section is funny: “oh no, she likes Venn diagrams”. (However, they are right on the plastic straws: not banning them is possibly Trump’s only good policy.)
And… the Republican talking points worked. To all appearances, they helped them win the election. Speaking off the cuff is, perhaps, a high-risk high-reward strategy. People may love it, or you may say something that alienates a key constituency. And that’s especially a danger on the left, since they risk being attacked by their own side if they say the wrong thing, or even use the wrong language.
…which was largely based on a bunch of false talking points, because RW dominates media. It didn’t just happen.
Yep, 100% in my view this was the biggest misstep in terms of the actual messaging. Of course, outright pulling support for Israel would have been suicidal too. Americans weren’t ready for that and still may not be. But what they did – essentially tell people concerned about Gaza to shut up until after the election and then they might be allowed to speak at a DNC – was a major own goal.
But this is the biggest problem and also the topic of this thread. It seems mad to me to cede that crucial ground and just focus on door-knocking and calls (which actually was pretty solid for Harris).
For example: I’m completely disillusioned with the Democrats. But do you think thats based on a bunch of false talking points, or because I don’t think they are capable of stepping up to the moment?
I can assure you it’s the second. And I’m not alone there. Disillusioned means I’m largely disappointed in someone or something, that I’ve lost faith in them. That means for most people, you would have had to have faith in them in the first place.
I need to be careful how I respond here because I’m restricted in what I can say, and don’t want to drag this thread off-topic.
But I can’t stress enough how devastating this calculus was for many people to lose faith in the party. They saw the decision to choose one side for no other reason than they thought it would get them more votes as an outright betrayal. And the complete refusal of Biden & Co to stop funding and supporting the war was being complicit. And the polling suggests it wouldn’t have been as suicidal as you might think. Which again: contributes to the disillusionment. Because this was all known at the time, but the administration and the campaign made the deliberate decision to ignore it.
That’s all I’ll say on this.
I didn’t say “cede ground”.
My argument is that the Democrats are fundamentally incapable of organising this.
They are treating it like it’s a hunt for a start-up. Some of the names mentioned in the article are IMHO grifters, and whatever they eventually come up with will ultimately just be an extension of the Democrat messaging as it is anyway. I’m hearing from the people I follow that these internal squabbles on what direction to take are very intense: and won’t be resolved any time soon. So they know they need to do something, they’ve got the money, they just aren’t doing anything.
And that messaging will not appeal to MAGA, and it will not appeal to the disillusioned, it will only appeal to what the think-tanks consider to be the ideal Democrat voter, which tends to be much more of an “old school Republican” AKA the political donors much more than the working class, more than the progressives, more than the marginalised, more than the traditional Democrat.
So you either have to buy into whatever the Democrats finally settle on after they’ve reviewed the pitch-decks and finalised the funding rounds, or you’ve got to bypass that and do it yourself.
Just look at this Tweet put out by the Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer:
He’s so proud of what he’s done. And it’s completely fucking useless.
Because he also voted to confirm Marco Rubio. It was unanimous. Didn’t even put up a fight. The battles they are picking are completely inconsequential. MAGA are perfectly happy to give up the name of the bill because they still got their bill.
You aren’t ever going to fight this and win. The eco-system relies on the donors to keep funding itself and they are never going to stray too far from what they want.
So my argument here is that you’ve got to bypass the ecosystem.
And that starts with the ground game.
It doesn’t end there, though. With Mamdani for example, he also has a fantastic social media presence and team. He’s sticking on message, even if that means ignoring Democrat talking points which is making many members of the party real mad.
And around that will develop a new ecosystem of podcasts, media and messaging that goes beyond the current stable of podcasters and influencers.
They won’t have the same reach as the billionaire backed eco-systems both the Republicans and Democrats have established. But I think in the post-truth era you need to be thinking smaller, not bigger. America will increasingly get more fragmented. Balkanised. More local.
And it starts with people fighting for what they believe in. I’m still not sure Mamdani will win. Everything is stacked against him.
But I think this is really the only way forward. It won’t happen overnight. It may take over a decade.
What I don’t understand is why you think the economy is different to other issues. Or don’t you? Crime rose, then it fell. Lots of Americans thought crime was still high, should the Dems not have pointed out that it wasn’t? Lots of Americans were worried about the border, should the Dems not have said the number of asylum seekers allowed in had fallen in the months before the election? And lots of Americans were unhappy about inflation. Should the Dems not have pointed out that it had fallen and the economy was doing okay according to most measures?
I’m inclined to agree the Dems are not capable of stepping up right now, though.
I posted the same article earlier in the thread, and no one thinks it will work. Joe Rogan wasn’t started by a think tank.
That’s a jump to a different topic. No-one claimed that gaslighting on one topic means all topics are gaslighting.
The fact is, for the economy Republicans did manage to get a majority of people – who often thought that they personally were doing as well or better under Biden – to believe that the US in general was in a recession or even depression. The polling bore out that people in general had a belief on growth, stock market, jobs etc that was the polar opposite to reality. That didn’t just happen.
Right, that’s pretty much what I said. But you are responding to the bit about how Dems also could not have pulled support for Israel. Do you agree on that point?
It’s easy to talk about how people outraged at a genocide were betrayed by the Dems – we were, and like I say, it’s was their biggest fuckup.
Conceding that they also could not have delivered an outright condemnation of Israel is harder.
You said it was a “fools game” to be focusing on this problem of getting a message out in the new media environment. But it’s the #1 problem right now, and Dems will not win anything while a majority of Americans are gaslit and when they briefly see a Democrat on their TV are shouting out “Liar!”
Irrelevant to the point you were responding to. And that point originally was about disillusioned voters. More specifically, as this seems to have confused you, I’m talking about Democrats that were disillusioned by the Democrats. Because the Democrat messaging wasn’t targeted at MAGA, it wasn’t targeted at progressives, it wasn’t even targeted at traditional Democrats. It was targeted at the so-called “centre”, which really were more like “old-school Republicans” with conservative values on the economy, law and order, and immigration. Because those were also the policies the donor supported. And the donors, in part, set the agenda.
I have no doubt that people who had fallen down the rabbit hole were convinced by MAGA propaganda of things that weren’t true. I’m not disputing that.
But the people who were disillusioned by the democrat messaging were democrats, or left aligned. The messaging didn’t disillusion MAGA voters because they never had faith in the democrats in the first place.
Of course not. That’s why I quoted it.
Again: I’m under moderator instructions on this topic. So my reply will be very specific and focus on responding directly to your question and nothing else. There are four components at play here: firstly, doing the right thing. You either try to do good in the world: or you are complicit. My argument from the start of the thread is that in order to fight the rise of authoritarianism, you need to stand up for what you believe in. That authentic messaging is needed, to stop listening to the focus groups and the consultants and the think tanks and do what you think is right. There are a few times in history where you have to decide if you stand with humanity, or you turn a blind eye. Many democrat voters consider the Democrats chose wrongly here.
And secondly: it didn’t work, did it? The democrats never wavered in their support. And they lost the election. We don’t know what would have happened if Biden and co had chosen different policies. But what they did choose to do didn’t win them the election.
Thirdly: I’ve shared some of the polling. And that polling suggests a different approach would have been popular. And at the margins: it may have made a difference. We will never know.
Fourthly, Mamdani remains extremely popular despite taking a stance that puts him at odds with party leadership, and conclusively won the Democrat primary. Whether or not he can get elected mayor remains to be seen. But it was a stance that didn’t hurt him with democrats that voted in the primary.
I cannot concede this.
No. No no no no no. I didn’t say this at all. This is what I said.
Bolding mine. I’m talking specifically about the Democrat machine that is currently looking at pitch decks from companies and (IMHO) grifters masquerading as “influencers” and “podcasters” trying to decide which ones to fund and support. Its a fools game waiting for them to lead the way.
Unfortunately, they’ve got all of the money and resources. So you’ve got one of two options: either you wait for them to get themselves sorted (and in my humble opinion, that will never happen) or you bypass that and do it yourself.
And that means adopting the Mamdani approach. Which means authentic messaging founded on conviction and belief, an expansive ground game, and strong social media.
I’m not arguing that “podcasts” aren’t useful in the new environment. Of course they will be. Its just without the backing of the establishment-democrats along with the funding and ecosystem that goes with it: that little podcast hosted by John and Louise with tinny sound broadcast out of their basement isn’t going to go very far.
The alt-right own all of the TV stations, own all of the newspapers, they own or control all of the social media companies and tweak the algorithms to suit their agenda.
There are surveillance cameras everywhere. On street corners, drones, even your doorbell. Alexa is probably listening to you. Your face has been scanned because you got on a plane last year, and now that Palantir have a contract with the US government to compile data from its citizens they’ll be able to track you down in your sleep.
They’ve just finished building what looks like effectively a concentration camp called “Alligator Alcatraz”.
You are already living in the Dystopia. This is Max Headroom. 20 minutes into the future.
The #1 problem is NOT "when they briefly see a Democrat on their TV are shouting out “Liar!”
The problem is ever being able to win another election at all.
They’ve been planning this for decades. The takeover of all of the media and social media outlets wasn’t an accident.
And it’s here now. This is what living in a dystopia feels like. Where the government funds murder and mayhem abroad. Where the police are funded more than other countries small armies. People are disappeared off the streets. And where many of us just go about our daily business, trying to ignore or pretend that none of this is happening.
You don’t have the time to wait around for the Democrats to get up to speed. Because they won’t. The Democrats are not coming to save you.
And that’s my point.
We are beyond the Rubicon.
The Democrats are focused on “messaging”. The Republicans/MAGA/alt-right are focused on propaganda.
And they are delivering propaganda at industrial rates, using all of the tools at their disposal. You can’t combat that going on a podcast.
And I’m not arguing that you shouldn’t be going on podcasts. I’m arguing, “what are you even waiting for? Just get on the podcasts already.” That should be one of the basics that every Democrat with a voice should be doing all the time. Get out there and get heard. It should be on your daily to-do list, “get out of bed. wash teeth. eat breakfast. go on Joe Rogan.” It should be routine.
It’s just that this will only have so much utility. What makes the difference? Especially when the alt-right have near total control over the media/social media sphere?
Getting out and talking to people.
That guy who briefly sees a Democrat on their TV and shouts out “Liar” might be much less likely to do that if he’s talking to him face to face. (Although I’ll concede that there will be a few who may pull out a gun)
Just watch this video from Mamdani. It’s on Instagram sorry.
Just listen to the answers. These people voted for Trump. They are about as far away from the stereotypical MAGA shouting at their TV as you can get. You can turn them around.
Short of making it illegal to talk to people on the street there is nothing the MAGA propaganda machine can do to combat this. It flies under the radar.
And a good ground game gives you something else: there was almost zero talk about voter suppression at all at the last election. Not from the Democrats, not from the media, not here on these boards. Arguably this is a bigger problem than messaging, and while I had a handle on the scale of the problem in 2020 I had no idea what happened in 2024. So I went to have a look and…wow
This, IMHO is the biggest issue. A good ground game not only helps with messaging but it can have an impact here. Not with the legal challenges, but providing motivation (and possibly transportation where its legal) for people to overcome challenges to get out and vote.
My position if that you need to fight every battle. Have conviction. Believe in something. Just get out there and do it. And have a good ground game.
Ah, I wasn’t prepared for a “nuh-uh”.
Looking back at post 387, it still looks like a whatabout to me though.
No, I was talking about a majority of people (well, adults), because I was talking about the polling. So yes, a majority of polled people believed false talking points about the economy.
But your point was a deflection from mine, because apparently you don’t want to concede that people believed BS on the economy and other critical issues.
And I am going to leave it there @Banquet_Bear.
Please stop quoting me only to make a point that’s nothing to do with addressing what I am saying. Nobody is stopping you making whatever points you want to make.
…I was going to ask the same as you. Because you will concede that I never said “it was a “fools game” to be focusing on this problem of getting a message out in the new media environment”, won’t you? I never even said anything like that.
(emphasis added)
I’m guessing the distinction that you will try to make now is that you were only saying that waiting for the democrats to embrace the new media environment is the “fools game”. But if that wasn’t an attempt to caricature my position, then why even say it?
Nobody was saying “Let’s wait for the Democrats”.
…that’s literally what I said. And it wasn’t about “embracing the new media environment” because podcasts, social media, TV are not new. It was about being up to the task to just lead the fight.
It wasn’t.
The thread is about what the Democrats should do. My argument is that it’s no use waiting for the Democrat machine to do anything because they are fundamentally incapable of doing what’s needed to combat the rise of authoritarianism. It was a dig at the Democrats, not you.
But why are you quoting me and saying it’s no use waiting?
I am suggesting what the democrats should do – actually compete in the new media environment.
…because the “real war” isn’t getting a foothold into podcasts, social media and TV. The Democrats are so far behind, and they are worried about the wrong things, and even if they do make headway into the space the messaging will be all wrong.
My contention is that the Democrats are incapable of doing what you suggest. They aren’t doing it now, there is no plan on how to do it, so you can either wait for them to do it or get started bypassing them.
Podcasting, media and messaging is not the “new media environment.”
The new media environment is the aspiring authoritarian alt-right regime that has control of the house, the senate, the executive, the courts, the police, the feds and the army, ALSO has at their disposal the most advanced propaganda machine in the history of mankind.
You two are talking past each other a bit because there are at least two ways to interpret “the Democrats”:
The Democratic Party machine: the DNC, big donors, entrenched high-level Democratic politicians, advisers emeritus (like James Carville), etc. considered as a collective apparatus.
Some number of individual Democratic politicians, activists, media members**, voters, etc. that happen to identify with the Democratic Party but do not necessarily count on the explicit support of the overarching “machine”.
*** thinking more “Substackers” and less “NYT staff writers”.*
Whatever the strategy, one thing guaranteed to fail is doomerism. Optimism is necessary but not sufficient for positive change, without exception. I agree that this Democratic party is unlikely to “save” us, but tomorrow’s or next year’s party could be very different. Anyone spouting nothing but gloom and doom should be mocked or ignored.
Sure it is; and the only counter-argument you’ve given to this is to say it’s unachievable in your opinion. That’s not an argument for why it’s not the most important ground to win.
It’s the topic of the thread through. And up thread you’ve alluded to a clear out of democratic leadership and complete reform of how the party campaigns and communicates; did I try to shut you down and say it’s not possible?
Or let’s put it this way: you don’t think existing democrats are capable of embracing new media. Great, you’ve made that point many times. Some of us would still like to talk about goals for new media.
…and I’ve been clear to make that distinction in all of my posts.
And I’m not practicing “doomerism.” I’ve given an actionable, realistic plan based on what people are successfully doing right now.
I’ve given more arguments than that. For starters podcasts .for example, only ever reach a certain audience. You need a much bigger and expansive strategy. Its one that includes podcasts, etc.
I don’t think that is possible. If you had said it wasn’t possible I would have agreed with you.
By all means, shut me down on that.
But I’m not stopping you?
You keep responding to me. So I keep answering you. If you stop quote-responding to me, I’ll stop quote responding to you. I thought you wanted this discussion. If you don’t want it, its easy enough to disenage.
(However, they are right on the plastic straws: not banning them is possibly Trump’s only good policy.)