Reading the threads here over the last few weeks about the “problems” the democrats have, its pretty easy to see that infact America is getting exactly the president, the representatives and the policies that you want and deserve as a country.
You have all the levers in place to remove the dangerous toddler, but you are letting him fuck over the rest of the war, commit war crimes and be a dangerous, untrustworthy meglomanic like a comic book villian. The only reason its continuing is because too many of you like and agree with him.
This is not a problem that any democratic party communication strategy can solve, rather you all should just wallow in the cess pool that USA has devolved to, and the rest of the world has to hope you dont drag us down with you.
If USA didnt already have nukes you would be placed on a dangerous and unstable watchlist and the rest of us would be putting sanctions on you to prevent you from getting them.
It is sad to see you progessing so far along the road to becoming a theocracy where there is no rule of law
Since both Reagan and Trump reserved Supreme Court seats to women, whatever you think of opposition to reverse discrimination, it isn’t a particularly Republican position. So there is room for Democrats to take a position on discrimination that is more to the Varl_Hobe center without it being Republican.
With the weird and partial Trump exception, politicians like to please. If Josh Shapiro were to make a speech in Philadelphia, he would say how he is going to bring more good jobs to Philadelphia. If he goes to Pittsburgh, he’ll pledge to bring more good jobs there. And if he gives a speech to a group of Black lawyers, he’s going to be tempted to pledge his quite limited judicial appointment power to next appoint a Black judge. That’s what I would resist.
As for speaking to a group restricted to white males, Shapiro (and other Democrats) wisely avoid addressing them.
When you try to address it, you legitimize it. The moment you take action to say “hey we’re not actually against white males”, it makes people wonder, why is this impression sticking in the first place? Then the people who create the false impression can say “look, they’re trying to overcome it, this proves it’s a real problem, but they’re still not doing enough to fix it.”
That’s the kicker, no matter what you do to counter the impression, the grievance-mongers can always ignore it and raise the bar. It’s never enough, and it just reinforces the perception.
The root of the impression is that white male grievance just isn’t centered or prioritized by the Democratic party. The only way to fix it is to center white male grievance. Anything else is a half-measure, so you may as well just fight the fight you want to fight, instead of the enemy’s fight.
I don’t actually think this is true. “Fighting back against lies” often has the effect of giving those lies more air time, and actually spreading them. There have been studies showing this is how it works.
That’s why i think that what you do when the Republicans smear you with lies is to deny them without repeating them (“that’s not true”) and immediately change the subject. Talk about issues where the Democrats hold the popular position. Or where you, the candidate, do. Reduce tariffs. Create more jobs. Make health care available. Protect abortion rights.
Call that judo if you like, but i think it’s how you win elections.
Yes. Partly because emotional appeals matters more than logical debate in terms of persuading people, partly because most discussion formats just don’t support a comprehensive, logical debate very well (no room, for one), and most of all because trying to debate logically and fairly with dishonest and irrational people is a losing game.
Anyone with experience with trolls online ought to know that.
"It sounds like this company is in an ideal position, with two equally qualified candidates to select for promotion regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc. This is the world Democrats want to create, and I trust that a company will make a decision here that is fair and benefits the most people.
“Unfortunately, the scenario does not always describe the world we live in – decades of research shows that minority candidates are disproportionately passed over for opportunities. It is this reality that needs to continue to be addressed, and this is what [list Democratic policy proposals] aim to do.”
I mean, this is honest, right? Nobody wants companies to explicitly choose a less qualified candidate, nobody wants white men to lose opportunities that they deserve. Democrats just want equal opportunity for all, which is sadly not the reality we live in.
So then the question becomes – what do you do with white male voters who reject reality? Who don’t believe that minorities are disproportionately passed over for opportunities? Who believe that the decades of science doesn’t reveal some truth about our world, but rather some “liberal agenda?” I don’t think they’re reachable.
eta: 30 years ago, Republicans might have said something like, “We agree that there’s a problem here, we just don’t think it’s the government’s role to fix it.” Maybe some people believed that, but the problem is that the white nationalists, the racists, sexists, bigots, etc, they all latched onto this excuse and began arguing in bad faith. Too many people in the Republican party either don’t agree with the science, or tacitly acknowledge it and are glad about it.
And all of those people would have a problem with the Republican response to that question because the correct answer, for them, is “No Black, woman or otherwise, is ‘equally qualified’ with a Whiteman.”
The only way the Democrats can reach the folks that think the Democrats are the “Anti-White Male” party is if the Democrats return to their postbellum “roots”.
I Agree, I would add that while MAGAs would ignore what fairness is all about, in reality, the economy would be better if it was more equitable, and it would (counter intuitively for the MAGA mind) benefit them too.
IMHO, many MAGAs will not be reachable, but just a few that would make a difference in the next elections are more likely to be discouraged to vote as even they can notice how they were made fools by the ones that claimed to support them.
A hidden force is quietly pushing up costs for everything from your summer vacation to your weekly grocery bills: a weaker U.S. dollar.
The dollar has fallen about 10% against other major currencies since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, a pullback potentially playing a role in Americans’ concerns about affordability.
“It’s kind of a hidden tax,” says economist Thomas Savidge of the conservative-leaning American Institute for Economic Research. “What your dollar is going to be able to buy is going to shrink.”
It benefits the (almost all white) rich in the US who invest globally, while they tell the mostly white supporters that they are “America first”; however, a good number of MAGAs are beginning to notice that they are chumps.
Promote the Democrat’s commitment to stability and the rule-of-law.
Highlight that every recent Pub president has entered us into wars and/or financial crisis – highlight Dems provide the stability to pull us out.
Advertise the big tent of the Dem party and how the constructive disagreements means no Dem administration or Congress gets a blank check. Compare it to the current meek House. Contrast that with the complete uncertainty we have under recent Pub administrations.
Commit to a path for citizenship for undocumented workers, but clarify that it has to come after securing the borders.
One key issue is to address stock market performance under Dems vs. Pubs and emphasize stable, sustained growth is better for the people while wild ups and downs are better for the insiders.
etc.
I don’t think these are at odds with the current Dem platform of leveling the playing field for everyone. Stability, law, following conventions are necessary as the underpinning.
As others have said better, I wouldn’t fight the Pubs arguments – just offer an alternative, attractive option to peel some away. The rest aren’t coming over anyway. It would be like trying to win over all the pro-lifers to a pro-choice party; it’s a non-starter.
Also we have to acknowledge and accept that the majority of people’s perception of a party’s platform comes from non-politicians: social media; family, friends, coworkers; podcasts, streaming, radio, tv.
A political genius would craft an official platform in such a way that it would suffer less distortion when rebroadcast by others.
There’s a need to distinguish between voters who believe that discrimination against minorities and women rarely occurs, and the belief that preferential policies can make the problem better:
Would principled opposition to reverse (and, of course, forward) discrimination result in the Democrats gaining the votes of members of men’s rights groups? No. But reading your post makes me wonder if I’m one of the people who are out of touch with reality. Maybe the last sentence is a bit unfair since you can’t really address it outside of the pit, where I never go. But, personally, as someone who votes Democratic about 90 percent of the time, I’m among the reachable.
The way to combat it is to attack the dishonest media, attack corrupt politicians, attack billionaires and corporations, etc. It’s to, rightly, shift the focus away from these bullshit issues that are and always have been driven by wealthy and corporate interests who want to divide people to keep them from uniting against the true enemy (billionaires and corporate interests).
Attack, attack, attack. Tell the media “fuck you, I’m not answering this bullshit question, and here’s why…”
The challenge indeed is to find a way to communicate “lifting the working class” that bypasses the zero-sum status anxiety, rather than just dismissing the demographic as irredeemable. If the only “remedy” offered is to wait for these voters to stop being “THAT way,” then there is no remedy.
Does anyone have a practical rhetorical or platform shift that addresses this friction without requiring the voters to undergo a moral conversion first?
That’s not from a “Democrat centrist”, that’s right wing slander.
The Civil War wasn’t enough so by all appearances there is no remedy for the bigots. All that can be done is to recognize them as enemies, overpower them, and marginalize them. Persuasion doesn’t work.
I don’t know exactly what the remedy is, but if I were in charge, I would put an absolute moratorium on communications strategies that segment the audience. No more stuff like the “[Insert demographic group] for Harris” Zoom calls that were a particularly cringe feature of the 2024 campaign, no more websites chock-full of sub-pages about what the candidate will do for X, Y, and Z demographics. Fairly or not, people are ALWAYS going to interpret those as “the candidate cares more about some other group than they do about me.” And for God’s sake, talk in terms of fairness and equal opportunity for all, not “dismantling privilege” or anything else that is going to make people go into a defensive crouch because they feel like you want to take something away from them.
I did an AI search to find the name of a current DA with an actual admitted policy of racial discrimination in prosecution decisions. I failed to find one. If one does arise, other politicians should complain about that one individual. But I think criticizing discrimination that doesn’t exist, besides being an ugly appeal to racism, will not impress the persuadable sort of centrist voter.
Much the same is true of quotas. I’d be against gender or racial preferential hiring, promotion, or admissions, regardless of whether there was a quota. But I just don’t think reverse discrimination quotas exist. So attacking them would again be an ugly appeal to racial hostility.
As for DEI, this could mean a lot. Is a museum with exhibits on slavery DEI? Is it DEI for the federal government to fund Howard University (which is funded similarly to state supported universities outside D.C.)? I’m in favor of both slavery exhibits and funding Howard, but it is hard to deny that those are opinions DEI adjacent. Considerations like this, and the general GOP approach to DEI-bashing, make me highly uncomfortable with ZosterSandstorm’s framing.
The more I think about your earlier approach, that I previously considered too legalistic, the better it sounds to me.
