What about the larger issue? Did down ticket Democrats do more poorly than Joe Biden because people simply rejected Trump but weren't a fan of lefties? Does the party need to remain neo-liberal, triangulating Republicans on issues like welfare (you wanna cut welfare? we'll cut it FIRST!) or should the party recognize that progressive politics is a plus, not a minus? If Biden selects a Wall Street exec as his Treasury Secretary and we continue to focus on making the economy safe for Goldman Sachs again, I fear the future. The rest, to me, is marketing. I feel like the big takeaway is you can compete and win everywhere, even Georgia, but the rules are stacked against the Dems.
I know. I finished the piece unfinished, in a sense. In part, because I don't know that we can figure out yet what happened last Tuesday until the races are decided, and we get a lot of data that we don't currently have. Also, I think that the marketing is hugely important. As you know, it's something I don't thinks gives nearly enough attention to, while it's all Republicans do. Republicans have learned over the decades that tarring us as socialists works. And now they have actual socialists running our party , or at least one wing of it.
But yes, if we're going to compete in Georgia and Arizona, and if we truly care about the actual base of our party, black voters, then we might want to worry a bit more about socialism. The base of our party is who AOC thinks it is.
You're right of course. Marketing really does matter. All the policy in the world won't matter if you can't sell it. And we don't have enough data yet to really analyze the election beyond the shocking fact that so many people turned out for an incompetent, indifferent President and supported Republicans up and down the line rather than a 2018 Blue Wave. It's easy to say the answer is "It's complicated." But surely it is complicated. Progressive policies -- pro worker, pro union, pro $15 an hour, etc -- are hugely popular. And at the same time "defund the police" and "socialism" aren't so helpful, for the moment. But I'm second-guessing myself. I want to explain away the losses and keep urging really strong progressive policies. I find very little to disagree with AOC on in terms of policy and assume we'd be much better off if she and Stacey Abrams were in charge. But am I kidding myself? Let us know when you figure it out! :)
Knowing you, I'm surprised that you agree with her on a lot of policy. I recommend everyone read thru the congressional resolution that spells out the details of the Green New Deal. Most of it has nothing to do with climate change. She's done an amazing job spinning it as a climate change bill, and the defining climate change bill, when it's actually something else entirely.
I wouldn't say 99% are not about climate change, but you're right. It's good branding! Good marketing; exactly what Republicans have been good at and Dems have not. Who can be against a New Deal, much less a Green New Deal? :) Do you like Biden's climate change plans?
And I'd be open to education on her. But here's Wikipedia on her major issues: Ocasio-Cortez supports progressive policies such as single-payer Medicare for All, tuition-free public college and trade school,[172] a federal job guarantee,[173] the cancellation of all $1.6 trillion of outstanding student debt,[174] guaranteed family leave,[175] abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,[176] ending the privatization of prisons, enacting gun-control policies,[177] and energy policy relying on 100% renewables. Yes to all, though I'm fine w Biden protecting and improving ObamaCare and including a public option as we slowly get there in the next two decades to Medicare For All.
Same complaint the dixiecrats had when FDR shunned the KKK at the 1932 convention/ election and again during Civil Rights movement and after the Boy mayor of Minneapolis ( H. Humpry) read strom thurmond out of the party in 1952 convention.
Oh no can't show support for people of color it will hurt us with the bigots in the south. Just tell "those" people to wait another century, or more, for equal rights. After all equal rights for "those" people is less important then offending the delicate fee fees of our ignorant bigoted base.
I’m not suggesting we don’t show support for them, I am however suggesting that we use language that actually helps us win. You’ll see the same argument made in my other pieces. I’m not disagreeing necessarily with certain proposals, I am disagreeing with the way certain people are attempting to sell those proposals to the public at large. In the end, I don’t think a lot of these advocates have a strategy for victory. They’re just yelling and peddling whatever slogan feels good at the moment. That’s not how you win.
So how does berating them for their language help?
How does expressing concern for offending bigots feelings help?
How does accepting, and promoting, thuglican framing of issues help?
In many ways it is the radical use of language that helps move the Overton window so the moderates can sell out victory with a milquetoat "compromise".
Franckly I could care less about offending a magaidiots feelings. they will never come around even when they are in a breadline.
There was a study a number of years ago that asked cultist's (you know people who beleive in some magic man in the sky) that if faced with absolute proof of their delusions and myths being disproven what would their prefered result be.
The answer wa overwhelmingly they prefered to destroy the world and all life rather then face a day without their fantasical mental comfort blanket of delusions.
So it is with the wing nuts. Any attempt to appeal to their non existent reason is doomed to failure and just viewed as as sign of weaknes by those who dare offer logic in face of blind adherence to myths.
So it is with those who support a militerized occupation force of police rather then true "Peace" officers. Their fear of the "others" and need to have a violent official agency to ensure the suppression of those "others" is more important then any arguement, reason or logic that may be used to try to wean them from their ignorant bigotry.
What about the larger issue? Did down ticket Democrats do more poorly than Joe Biden because people simply rejected Trump but weren't a fan of lefties? Does the party need to remain neo-liberal, triangulating Republicans on issues like welfare (you wanna cut welfare? we'll cut it FIRST!) or should the party recognize that progressive politics is a plus, not a minus? If Biden selects a Wall Street exec as his Treasury Secretary and we continue to focus on making the economy safe for Goldman Sachs again, I fear the future. The rest, to me, is marketing. I feel like the big takeaway is you can compete and win everywhere, even Georgia, but the rules are stacked against the Dems.
I know. I finished the piece unfinished, in a sense. In part, because I don't know that we can figure out yet what happened last Tuesday until the races are decided, and we get a lot of data that we don't currently have. Also, I think that the marketing is hugely important. As you know, it's something I don't thinks gives nearly enough attention to, while it's all Republicans do. Republicans have learned over the decades that tarring us as socialists works. And now they have actual socialists running our party , or at least one wing of it.
But yes, if we're going to compete in Georgia and Arizona, and if we truly care about the actual base of our party, black voters, then we might want to worry a bit more about socialism. The base of our party is who AOC thinks it is.
You're right of course. Marketing really does matter. All the policy in the world won't matter if you can't sell it. And we don't have enough data yet to really analyze the election beyond the shocking fact that so many people turned out for an incompetent, indifferent President and supported Republicans up and down the line rather than a 2018 Blue Wave. It's easy to say the answer is "It's complicated." But surely it is complicated. Progressive policies -- pro worker, pro union, pro $15 an hour, etc -- are hugely popular. And at the same time "defund the police" and "socialism" aren't so helpful, for the moment. But I'm second-guessing myself. I want to explain away the losses and keep urging really strong progressive policies. I find very little to disagree with AOC on in terms of policy and assume we'd be much better off if she and Stacey Abrams were in charge. But am I kidding myself? Let us know when you figure it out! :)
Knowing you, I'm surprised that you agree with her on a lot of policy. I recommend everyone read thru the congressional resolution that spells out the details of the Green New Deal. Most of it has nothing to do with climate change. She's done an amazing job spinning it as a climate change bill, and the defining climate change bill, when it's actually something else entirely.
I wouldn't say 99% are not about climate change, but you're right. It's good branding! Good marketing; exactly what Republicans have been good at and Dems have not. Who can be against a New Deal, much less a Green New Deal? :) Do you like Biden's climate change plans?
And I'd be open to education on her. But here's Wikipedia on her major issues: Ocasio-Cortez supports progressive policies such as single-payer Medicare for All, tuition-free public college and trade school,[172] a federal job guarantee,[173] the cancellation of all $1.6 trillion of outstanding student debt,[174] guaranteed family leave,[175] abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,[176] ending the privatization of prisons, enacting gun-control policies,[177] and energy policy relying on 100% renewables. Yes to all, though I'm fine w Biden protecting and improving ObamaCare and including a public option as we slowly get there in the next two decades to Medicare For All.
Same complaint the dixiecrats had when FDR shunned the KKK at the 1932 convention/ election and again during Civil Rights movement and after the Boy mayor of Minneapolis ( H. Humpry) read strom thurmond out of the party in 1952 convention.
Oh no can't show support for people of color it will hurt us with the bigots in the south. Just tell "those" people to wait another century, or more, for equal rights. After all equal rights for "those" people is less important then offending the delicate fee fees of our ignorant bigoted base.
Same arguement.
Same false choice.
Same fighting the arc of history.
All for naught.
Appeasement does not work.
I’m not suggesting we don’t show support for them, I am however suggesting that we use language that actually helps us win. You’ll see the same argument made in my other pieces. I’m not disagreeing necessarily with certain proposals, I am disagreeing with the way certain people are attempting to sell those proposals to the public at large. In the end, I don’t think a lot of these advocates have a strategy for victory. They’re just yelling and peddling whatever slogan feels good at the moment. That’s not how you win.
So how does berating them for their language help?
How does expressing concern for offending bigots feelings help?
How does accepting, and promoting, thuglican framing of issues help?
In many ways it is the radical use of language that helps move the Overton window so the moderates can sell out victory with a milquetoat "compromise".
Franckly I could care less about offending a magaidiots feelings. they will never come around even when they are in a breadline.
There was a study a number of years ago that asked cultist's (you know people who beleive in some magic man in the sky) that if faced with absolute proof of their delusions and myths being disproven what would their prefered result be.
The answer wa overwhelmingly they prefered to destroy the world and all life rather then face a day without their fantasical mental comfort blanket of delusions.
So it is with the wing nuts. Any attempt to appeal to their non existent reason is doomed to failure and just viewed as as sign of weaknes by those who dare offer logic in face of blind adherence to myths.
So it is with those who support a militerized occupation force of police rather then true "Peace" officers. Their fear of the "others" and need to have a violent official agency to ensure the suppression of those "others" is more important then any arguement, reason or logic that may be used to try to wean them from their ignorant bigotry.