Dem Post Mortem

[laughing dog]

More armed militias in Atlanta:

Those pictures of New Black Panthers campaigning for Abrams are real, and they aren’t apologizing

Are the New Black Panthers living rent free in your head?

 

[laughing dog]

Reading through this thread, it occurs to me to ask how many of you actually know a Trump supporter? Not in the sense of "I have a neighbor / coworker / cousin who supports him" but "I have someone who I consider a good friend who I talk to on a regular basis" sort of way.

Of the few who can answer "yes", have you ever asked that person why they support Trump or are you dismayed that your friend is secretly a misogynist / homophobe / racist / transphobe but doesn't show the symptoms?

My brother the Trump supporter is not secretly a misogynist or a bigot.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Reading through this thread, it occurs to me to ask how many of you actually know a Trump supporter? Not in the sense of "I have a neighbor / coworker / cousin who supports him" but "I have someone who I consider a good friend who I talk to on a regular basis" sort of way.

Of the few who can answer "yes", have you ever asked that person why they support Trump or are you dismayed that your friend is secretly a misogynist / homophobe / racist / transphobe but doesn't show the symptoms?

My brother the Trump supporter is not secretly a misogynist or a bigot.

Are you implying that he is open about it, or that he isn't one?

How close are you to your brother? Do you speak often or are you estranged? My qualification was "someone I consider a good friend who I talk to on a regular basis".

 

[bilby]

More armed militias in Atlanta:

Those pictures of New Black Panthers campaigning for Abrams are real, and they aren’t apologizing

Are the New Black Panthers living rent free in your head?

He would ask them to pay rent, but they are armed and scary.

 

[Swammerdami]

For blacks, her whole campaign was "what can the government give you to make you better off." It assumes that handouts are what they want.

Politely, what the fuck are you talking about?

I will have to take Jason's side on this one. (I've crossed out "for blacks" to generalize.) A laundry list of miscellaneous handouts is NOT at all the same as a message of national pride and unity, a call for Americans to embrace progressive Bidenism. The former seems not unlike vote buying, in routine boring fashion. The latter would be an inspirational message America was waiting for. JFK could do it. So could Ronald Reagan. Trump has an "inspirational message" albeit a vile and depraved message.

Instead undecided voters were handed a laundry list of tedium from the blue team:
Abortion rights -- Those to whom this is important are already voting blue.
LGBTQ+ -- Many Americans are bigots. The Ds need to coax the bigots out on Election Day. Instead, shoving their bigotries back in their faces just annoys them into staying home, or even voting Trump.
Transferred Cash, perhaps to the undeserving -- as Jason points out
Non-cash handouts --
And so on --.

Simple straight talk about America's future is what was needed.

 

[bilby]

For blacks, her whole campaign was "what can the government give you to make you better off." It assumes that handouts are what they want.

Politely, what the fuck are you talking about?

I will have to take Jason's side on this one. (I've crossed out "for blacks" to generalize.) A laundry list of miscellaneous handouts is NOT at all the same as a message of national pride and unity, a call for Americans to embrace progressive Bidenism. The former seems not unlike vote buying, in routine boring fashion. The latter would be an inspirational message America was waiting for. JFK could do it. So could Ronald Reagan. Trump has an "inspirational message" albeit a vile and depraved message.

Instead undecided voters were handed a laundry list of tedium from the blue team:
Abortion rights -- Those to whom this is important are already voting blue.
LGBTQ+ -- Many Americans are bigots. The Ds need to coax the bigots out on Election Day. Instead, shoving their bigotries back in their faces just annoys them into staying home, or even voting Trump.
Transferred Cash, perhaps to the undeserving -- as Jason points out
Non-cash handouts --
And so on --.

Simple straight talk about America's future is what was needed.

It seems to be a growing trend on the political left, to adopt a 'small target strategy'. The traditional left wing policies of helping out the poor (at the expense of the rich) have been dropped for fear that increasingly comfortable middle class voters will be turned off by them; Leaving nothing but bland pap.

Current centre-left policy is the political equivalent of the ultra-mild curry that appears on the curry house menu because they are hoping to attract people whose partner wanted to go to McDonalds instead.

 

[laughing dog]

Simple straight talk about America's future is what was needed.

From what I saw, Ms. Harris did that. Didn't help her win.

 

[Politesse]

For blacks, her whole campaign was "what can the government give you to make you better off." It assumes that handouts are what they want.

Politely, what the fuck are you talking about?

I will have to take Jason's side on this one. (I've crossed out "for blacks" to generalize.) A laundry list of miscellaneous handouts is NOT at all the same as a message of national pride and unity, a call for Americans to embrace progressive Bidenism. The former seems not unlike vote buying, in routine boring fashion. The latter would be an inspirational message America was waiting for. JFK could do it. So could Ronald Reagan. Trump has an "inspirational message" albeit a vile and depraved message.

Instead undecided voters were handed a laundry list of tedium from the blue team:
Abortion rights -- Those to whom this is important are already voting blue.
LGBTQ+ -- Many Americans are bigots. The Ds need to coax the bigots out on Election Day. Instead, shoving their bigotries back in their faces just annoys them into staying home, or even voting Trump.
Transferred Cash, perhaps to the undeserving -- as Jason points out
Non-cash handouts --
And so on --.

Simple straight talk about America's future is what was needed.

It seems to be a growing trend on the political left, to adopt a 'small target strategy'. The traditional left wing policies of helping out the poor (at the expense of the rich) have been dropped for fear that increasingly comfortable middle class voters will be turned off by them; Leaving nothing but bland pap.

Current centre-left policy is the political equivalent of the ultra-mild curry that appears on the curry house menu because they are hoping to attract people whose partner wanted to go to McDonalds instead.

Growing trend? Hardly new. I live in a "blue state", and can testify that such scrap throwing has been the heart of Democratic "governance" since Clinton at least. Bread and circuses, but they forget the bread at least half the time and just toss the crust.

 

[Politesse]

Simple straight talk about America's future is what was needed.

How is a party with no particular plan supposed to talk "straight" about the future?

 

[bigfield]

Simple straight talk about America's future is what was needed.

How is a party with no particular plan supposed to talk "straight" about the future?

Straight talk from each of the parties:

GOP: we're going to make billionaires richer, and we'll hurt some people you don't like, but for most of you it'll be the same old shit.

Dems: we're going to make billionaires richer, and we'll help some people you don't like, but for most of you it'll be the same old shit.

 

[Tigers!]

They need more lying and slander?

Are you saying they did lie and slander?

No, but I figured you wanted the dems to campaign more like republicans.

A campaign that was better than it was and resulted in Trump losing would have been sufficient. But that did not happen, sadly.

 

[Tigers!]

Simple straight talk about America's future is what was needed.

How is a party with no particular plan supposed to talk "straight" about the future?

Straight talk from each of the parties:

GOP: we're going to make billionaires richer, and we'll hurt some people you don't like, but for most of you it'll be the same old shit.

Dems: we're going to make billionaires richer, and we'll help some people you don't like, but for most of you it'll be the same old shit.

I going to go out on a limb and suggest you didn't think much of either campaign.
(just like me).

 

[Politesse]

They barely bothered to campaign at all, despite wasting billions of dollars at the attempt.

 

[Swammerdami]

Simple straight talk about America's future is what was needed.

From what I saw, Ms. Harris did that. Didn't help her win.

Now, decades later, one can find YouTubes showing inspiring talk from JFK or Reagan. (Their speeches might have relied on useless generalities, but they did inspire.) Can you point to such a speech by Harris?

The biggest argument for voting Harris was the utter unsuitability of Trump, and his support for fascism. Was this argument made appropriately? Of course it was blared out on MSNBC, but were undecided voters watching that channel?

I don't know whether to blame/credit the candidates or the speechwriters or party leaders more generally.

 

[bigfield]

Simple straight talk about America's future is what was needed.

How is a party with no particular plan supposed to talk "straight" about the future?

Straight talk from each of the parties:

GOP: we're going to make billionaires richer, and we'll hurt some people you don't like, but for most of you it'll be the same old shit.

Dems: we're going to make billionaires richer, and we'll help some people you don't like, but for most of you it'll be the same old shit.

I going to go out on a limb and suggest you didn't think much of either campaign.
(just like me).

That's right, but each for different reasons.

I thought the GOP campaign was appalling on moral grounds (both their politics and their policy are evil), but it was clearly persuasive.

The Democrats cannot use the populist tactics employed by Maga. They've positioned themselves as a moderate/centrist party. Their policy platform is basically to maintain the status quo but with some minor tweaks. Such a party has no broad message to campaign on besides, "things are mostly fine, how about another four more years of this?"

 

[ZiprHead]

Reading through this thread, it occurs to me to ask how many of you actually know a Trump supporter? Not in the sense of "I have a neighbor / coworker / cousin who supports him" but "I have someone who I consider a good friend who I talk to on a regular basis" sort of way.

I have several. Including in my family. The biggest commonality among them is that they pay almost no attention to journalism. They get their "news" from social media and campaign advertising. Nothing else.

Of the few who can answer "yes", have you ever asked that person why they support Trump or are you dismayed that your friend is secretly a misogynist / homophobe / racist / transphobe but doesn't show the symptoms?

Yes, it does dismay me when they use words like fag, nigger, sand nigger, and spic.

 

[ZiprHead]

They barely bothered to campaign at all, despite wasting billions of dollars at the attempt.

Where do you get this from?

The Harris campaign was doing multiple rallies daily in swing states. You couldn't walk by a tv without seeing a campaign ad.

The bottom line is people preferred the Trump bullshit over the Harris truth.

 

[Jarhyn]

They get their "news" from social media and campaign advertising. Nothing else.

And then often enough, BRAG that they only get their news from such sources.

 

[ZiprHead]

Simple straight talk about America's future is what was needed.

From what I saw, Ms. Harris did that. Didn't help her win.

Now, decades later, one can find YouTubes showing inspiring talk from JFK or Reagan. (Their speeches might have relied on useless generalities, but they did inspire.) Can you point to such a speech by Harris?

I notice both the inspiring people are men. Can you point out a speech by any woman you thought to be inspiring? Or were they "shrill" or "cackling"?

The biggest argument for voting Harris was the utter unsuitability of Trump, and his support for fascism. Was this argument made appropriately? Of course it was blared out on MSNBC, but were undecided voters watching that channel?

I don't know whether to blame/credit the candidates or the speechwriters or party leaders more generally.

The Harris campaign had a solid platform that would have been good for the country. The majority of the voters preferred misogyny and lies.

 

[Jarhyn]

They barely bothered to campaign at all, despite wasting billions of dollars at the attempt.

Where do you get this from?

The Harris campaign was doing multiple rallies daily in swing states. You couldn't walk by a tv without seeing a campaign ad.

The bottom line is people preferred the Trump bullshit over the Harris truth.

Politesse isn't exactly wrong. The Harris campaign spent a lot of money convincing those who needed no convincing.

When I was a little kid, I had a misconception that being more "busy" in my action would get more done. The thing I didn't understand at the time was the concept of wasted motion. I didn't know that I could do more while still accomplishing less of my goal.

Much of the issue here is that various conservative interests, and especially "covert" conservative interests such as the NYT, have an interest in forcing the Dems into "wasted effort", while giving "free effect" to the conservatives.

Is there an event that paints the Dems well or the conservatives badly? Publish stories about "congress"; the Dems have their victory diluted, and the conservatives have their sins piled on "government". In the inverse situation of shameful Dems or successful conservatives? Name them so that Dems are shamed and Cons are famed! Hire an editorial staff who will engineer headlines and influence the lowest information voters with the only thing they care about.

Rinse and repeat for an entire election cycle, and suddenly it doesn't matter how much spending is done on advertisements and announcements people actively avoid and ignore!

Social media? Twitter is literally owned by Musk, who has a finger on every scale in favor of Trump. Sinclair media owns an absurd number of local broadcasters across the nation.

The problem is that an ad can't compete with a firehose of scheduled content that says the opposite of what an ad does.

It wouldn't matter if the Dems spent 10 times as much, because those who own our media apparatus have a vested interest in countering and burying that message.