I am on a bunch of political candidates’ e-mail lists. (I have worked in a number of elections, and apparently my email gets passed along on a regular basis to candidates who have no connection to me at all.)
The emails are almost always concerned at heart with fundraising, but it’s interesting to see what “hook” they use to encourage me to contribute–Koch Brothers running amok, Citizens United needing overturning, Trump-a-Trump-Trump, preserving voting rights, etc., etc., etc.
Yesterday there were two major Supreme Court rulings, as you no doubt know: one striking down a Texas restriction on abortion, the other tossing out a political corruption conviction against Bob McDonnell. Most of my, um, correspondents didn’t mention either of these decisions. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (I live in neither her district nor her city): “We’re just three days away from our major FEC deadline, and we’re $1900 short of our goal”–just one example.
But two candidates DID mention the Supreme Court decision. One was would-be Rep. Brad Schneider (I live in neither his district nor his state), who got his wife to write “I’m sure you’ve heard the great news that the Supreme Court just ruled to protect women’s access to abortion services.” And then went on to ask for $$. No mention of the McDonnell ruling from Brad.
In direct contrast, would-be Rep. Zephyr Teachout (who is running in a district that is not mine, but begins a couple of miles from where I live) took the opposite tack. “The Supreme Court decision,” she wrote, meaning the McDonnell case, “is a direct affront to our democracy and the power of our people.” And then went on to ask for $$. No mention of the Texas decision from Zeph.
Anyway, I found it interesting that two candidates from the same party would choose to emphasize such different aspects of the day’s rulings.
Two questions:
Did you receive any politician emails about either of the cases? (Or are you blessedly politician-email-free? Every now and then I think I should just block them, but never quite get around to doing so.) If so, which one was emphasized?
Which one do you personally find more effective as an attempt to shake dollar bills off the trees from potential donors?
I’m very careful about joining any lists that are going to hand out my personal info, and so far I’ve managed to avoid any political ads in my email.
I’ll go out on a limb here and predict that Schneider is a Democrat and Teachout is a Republican. (I’ve never heard of Schneider and about the only thing I recall about Teachout is her flower-child name.) Schneider’s is a positive appeal (basically, let’s keep moving forward) and Teachout’s is an appeal to fear. Personally, I find the former more compelling, but then I’m not in the Republican echo chamber, so I can’t speak to their motivations.
They are both Democrats; the e-mails were about two different Supreme Court cases. One of these was a clear victory for Democratic policies, and the other one overturned the corruption conviction of a Republican politician (and thus, presumably wasn’t a welcome verdict for most Democrats, although it isn’t really about a policy issue in the way the Texas abortion case is). I think the distinction the OP is making is whether it’s more effective to focus on the case that went well for your party or the one that didn’t.
Thanks, Fretful Porpentine, sorry to others if I was less clear than I should have been.
Schneider, a Democrat from Illinois, chose to focus only on the abortion case in his email (Isn’t it great that we won this one? Now, give me some money so we can ensure more wins like this in the future…).
Teachout, a Democrat from New York, chose to focus only on the McDonnell case in her email (Isn’t it awful that corruption is going on? Now, give me some money so we can make sure corrupt politicians get locked up…).
It may be worth pointing out that Teachout was originally a member of the Working Families Party in NY and was one of the handful of congressional candidates endorsed by Bernie Sanders…so her focus on the pernicious effects of money in politics is very much in character. Still, it was intriguing to me that two candidates from the same party would use different SCOTUS decisions from the same day as fundraising tools.
This post perfectly encapsulates the psychology of a certain class of modern liberals. Teachout’s regarded as a Republican (ie one of the bad guys) not because of ideology but because she isn’t running on a platform of Everything is Awesome despite the fact that the OP explicitly spelled out that she was attacking the Supreme Court for throwing out corruption charges against a Republican governor and using standard Democratic rhetoric about the role of money in politics. Any appeal to fear is illegitimate and there is no difference between a real fear like the plutocratic dominance of American politics or a manufactured one like the impending takeover of the Republic by Communist Muslims. Nevermind that anger and fear have been utilized by every faction in politicking for the simple fact that they speak to real human emotions.
With the moderating out of the way, I’ll say that I get dozens per week. Largely from Organizing for America and Hillary’s PACs. The emphasis is usually on ‘beating’ the other side at fundraising with some mention of whatever the hot button issue of the week is. Trump has provided a LOT of firepower in that area and they’re certainly trying to connect every republican candidate down to dogcatcher to Trump.
I get the most, however, from Ted Strickland’s Senate campaign in Ohio. I campaigned with Ted in 2010 during my run for County Commissioner that year. Nice guy and man, the Governor’s Mansion in Ohio is a nice place. I raised money and made calls - and managed call banks - for myself and Strickland that year. Somewhere I’ve got a picture of him shaking my then-ten-year-old’s hand (she didn’t seem impressed). The Strickland emails focus on ‘winning the Senate’ and did mention the SCOTUS. But not particular rulings but rather the importance of a democratic senate for confirm the next President’s - presumably Hillary - appointments and bitching out the current Senate about confirming Merrick Garland.
You are right in that the term “liberal” isn’t the best since it usually refers to the broad political ideology of the American centre-left but I highly doubt you’d like the alternatives (“bourgeoisism”?). Anyways, what I’m referring to isn’t to your position on minimum wage or gay marriage but rather your way of viewing the world and your method of thinking in political discussions which is literally the perfect epitomie of that of America’s elites. And by elites I mean both the centre-left and centre-right: David Brooks and Andy Borowitz have much more in common with each other then the former does with Pat Buchanan or the latter with Slavoj Zizek.
Since I’ve made no statements on either gay marriage or a raised minimum wage, you’d have a hard time classifying them to begin with. It might be reasonable to extrapolate my thoughts on gay marriage from the fact that I’ve shown a strong egalitarian streak, but not so on minimum wage. I’m ambivalent about that because I tend to take a long view. In the short term it sounds like a great idea…more chickens in every pot. But macroeconomically it’s not nearly so simple. You’re looking at practically guaranteed inflation, and very probable increase in the movement of jobs overseas. If you thought manufacturing jobs were leaking before…
You mistake anti-conservatism for liberalism. Not the same thing in the slightest. I’ve seen the Buchanan-types at work, and I don’t like it. Of course, my being a longtime atheist doesn’t predispose me to sympathize with their religious core, but it’s more than that. For most of my adult life I’ve been watching conservatives overwhelmingly being the group against change, and using the standard diversionary tactics to oppose it. Most of the ‘change’ that they’ve offered is regressive.
At my core, my beliefs are far more libertarian than liberal, but it’s informed libertarianism, (hopefully) without the loony extremes that the big ‘L’ party espouses. Even then, though, there are differences. I don’t believe in free trade, mostly because of having seen the effects of lack of- or de-regulation. Add to that a strong sense of pragmatism and a general respect for reason and logic, and you begin to get an idea of where I’m at.
I don’t see how that harmonizes with the elites, although I do think Borowitz is funny as hell, and I pretty much reject the conservative elite. But that doesn’t mean I necessarily welcome or agree with the left. Is my belief in incremental over radical change supposed to equal Establishment? Or is it the fact that I argue for an Establishment candidate? All I see in your whole ‘elites’ question is an assertion without supporting evidence.