Message to Biden Voters: stop the street lingo!

[Harry Bosch]

Biden won. Great news. He gave a great speech last night. One of the best acceptance speeches that I've heard. But I think that as democrats, we need to be circumspect. We performed far less than expected. We were expected to increase our lead in the House, perhaps take the senate, and throttle Trump. We underperformed in all three areas. And we didn't fail to motivate the far left. They came out. But here's the issue: they are a small group. They are far smaller than moderates or the far right. And it's the moderates that we under performed with. Thank Spaghetti Monster that we elected a moderate like Biden. If we had elected anyone to his left, Trump would have been giving that speech last night rather than Biden.

Who should we blame for the underperformance? Representative Abigail Spanberger gave a great speech the other day for who to blame. Her culprit: the far left. She blamed her unexpectedly tight reelection on calls to “defund the police” and “socialism.” She understands that most democrats really don't want to defund the police and replace capitalism. "It's the just the street lingo that we need to use"! But it is killing moderate democrats. Great article:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/06/politics/abigail-spanberger-house-democrats-2020-election/index.html


"The number one concern in things that people brought to me in my [district] that I barely re-won, was defunding the police. And I've heard from colleagues who have said 'Oh, it's the language of the streets. We should respect that.' We're in Congress. We are professionals. We are supposed to talk about things in the way where we mean what we're talking about. If we don't mean we should defund the police, we shouldn't say that." Promoting "socialism" apparently scared the pants off many moderate dems in Texas and Florida. It did not appeal to many Hispanics.

Bottom line here: the US is large and diversified. AOC can win in very liberal NY by advocating far left ideas. But even as charismatic as she is, she would get creamed in moderate Virginia. Spanberger blames progressives "in the House Democratic conference for advocating policies and views that might be popular in their overwhelmingly Democratic districts but that endangered their colleagues in swing seats, where the majority is typically won and lost."

I'm glad that AOC is in my party. However, we can't allow her and the squad to drown out all the other voices in the democratic party. And for god's sakes, let's stop using street lingo and stop scarring moderates away from our party. We are not the republicans. We can't win a general election without overwhelming popular support. Biden barely won the election. Incredibly close. And yet, he will end up with 7 or 8 million more votes. Sorry but it's reality: we must be the party of the big tent. Or we'll be toast in 4 years.

 

[Rhea]

Bottom line here: the US is large and diversified. AOC can win in very liberal NY by advocating far left ideas. But even as charismatic as she is, she would get creamed in moderate Virginia. Spanberger blames progressives "in the House Democratic conference for advocating policies and views that might be popular in their overwhelmingly Democratic districts but that endangered their colleagues in swing seats, where the majority is typically won and lost."

I'm glad that AOC is in my party. However, we can't allow her and the squad to drown out all the other voices in the democratic party. And for god's sakes, let's stop using street lingo and stop scarring moderates away from our party. We are not the republicans. We can't win a general election without overwhelming popular support. Biden barely won the election. Incredibly close. And yet, he will end up with 7 or 8 million more votes. Sorry but it's reality: we must be the party of the big tent. Or we'll be toast in 4 years.

I agree with this. If we don't mean DE-FUND, we should not say de-fund. There are major changes we do agree on, and they are progressive and useful. Let's not keep them from getting done by the hyperbole.

 

[Elixir]

Biden won. Great news. He gave a great speech last night. One of the best acceptance speeches that I've heard. But I think that as democrats, we need to be circumspect. We performed far less than expected. We were expected to increase our lead in the House, perhaps take the senate, and throttle Trump. We underperformed in all three areas. And we didn't fail to motivate the far left. They came out. But here's the issue: they are a small group. They are far smaller than moderates or the far right. And it's the moderates that we under performed with. Thank Spaghetti Monster that we elected a moderate like Biden. If we had elected anyone to his left, Trump would have been giving that speech last night rather than Biden.

Who should we blame for the underperformance? Representative Abigail Spanberger gave a great speech the other day for who to blame. Her culprit: the far left. She blamed her unexpectedly tight reelection on calls to “defund the police” and “socialism.” She understands that most democrats really don't want to defund the police and replace capitalism. "It's the just the street lingo that we need to use"! But it is killing moderate democrats. Great article:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/06/politics/abigail-spanberger-house-democrats-2020-election/index.html


"The number one concern in things that people brought to me in my [district] that I barely re-won, was defunding the police. And I've heard from colleagues who have said 'Oh, it's the language of the streets. We should respect that.' We're in Congress. We are professionals. We are supposed to talk about things in the way where we mean what we're talking about. If we don't mean we should defund the police, we shouldn't say that." Promoting "socialism" apparently scared the pants off many moderate dems in Texas and Florida. It did not appeal to many Hispanics.

Bottom line here: the US is large and diversified. AOC can win in very liberal NY by advocating far left ideas. But even as charismatic as she is, she would get creamed in moderate Virginia. Spanberger blames progressives "in the House Democratic conference for advocating policies and views that might be popular in their overwhelmingly Democratic districts but that endangered their colleagues in swing seats, where the majority is typically won and lost."

I'm glad that AOC is in my party. However, we can't allow her and the squad to drown out all the other voices in the democratic party. And for god's sakes, let's stop using street lingo and stop scarring moderates away from our party. We are not the republicans. We can't win a general election without overwhelming popular support. Biden barely won the election. Incredibly close. And yet, he will end up with 7 or 8 million more votes. Sorry but it's reality: we must be the party of the big tent. Or we'll be toast in 4 years.

That's a good take IMO. But it's really more about the rhetoric than about actually being leftists, centrist or whatever. I think he could have gotten the anticipated blue tsunami simply by promising ubiquitous COVID testing, and telling the public that it would enable them to hunt down and destroy the Trump Virus. THAT would have been the "big tent" appeal. But NOOOooo ...
Instead he threatened the public with "mask mandates".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Democrats did an incredible job of both over and under performing on Election Day.

Regarding lingo, we need to be smart and use appropriate terms but it isn’t like Dems were calling for Death Panels with the ACA or nationalizing the nation’s production with Biden.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

A message to conservatives: stop being fucking idiots.

 

[rousseau]

Agreed. The best thing you can do for both the U.S. and global community is to figure out how to shift the republican party to a place of sanity, and actually beat them in elections. Let go of unrealistic ideals, figure out how to win, do that.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[SimpleDon]

Bottom line here: the US is large and diversified. AOC can win in very liberal NY by advocating far left ideas. But even as charismatic as she is, she would get creamed in moderate Virginia. Spanberger blames progressives "in the House Democratic conference for advocating policies and views that might be popular in their overwhelmingly Democratic districts but that endangered their colleagues in swing seats, where the majority is typically won and lost."

I'm glad that AOC is in my party. However, we can't allow her and the squad to drown out all the other voices in the democratic party. And for god's sakes, let's stop using street lingo and stop scarring moderates away from our party. We are not the republicans. We can't win a general election without overwhelming popular support. Biden barely won the election. Incredibly close. And yet, he will end up with 7 or 8 million more votes. Sorry but it's reality: we must be the party of the big tent. Or we'll be toast in 4 years.

I agree with this. If we don't mean DE-FUND, we should not say de-fund. There are major changes we do agree on, and they are progressive and useful. Let's not keep them from getting done by the hyperbole.

But we do mean to take money from the police budget to fund solutions that better handle problems like drug addiction and domestic violence. We should stop funding the militarization of the police. What would you call this? The Trumpists are going to lie about and misconstrue any word you use.

Looking at the broader society we need health care for all that doesn't have to pay Wall Street 25% more than single-payer would cost. We need a higher minimum wage to start to eliminate poverty in the richest country in the world. We need to stop the growth of income inequality before it consumes the capitalism that has done so much for us. Trump and his followers call these things socialism.

Do you think that we should abandon these things because they mislabel these things? Is this white male street lingo that we should pay attention to? Are these the far left ideas that we shouldn't advocate?

We haven't even touched on the systemic racism that is the hallmark of Trumpism. Do we not try, once again, to eliminate this? Because it fuels white male grievance politics? Because it is at the core of the current Republican party and its current officeholders?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The Democrats did an incredible job of both over and under performing on Election Day.

Regarding lingo, we need to be smart and use appropriate terms but it isn’t like Dems were calling for Death Panels with the ACA or nationalizing the nation’s production with Biden.

Remember when conservatives complained about death panels, and now they don't give a shit when people die from Covid?

 

[Rhea]

I agree with this. If we don't mean DE-FUND, we should not say de-fund. There are major changes we do agree on, and they are progressive and useful. Let's not keep them from getting done by the hyperbole.

But we do mean to take money from the police budget to fund solutions that better handle problems like drug addiction and domestic violence. We should stop funding the militarization of the police. What would you call this? The Trumpists are going to lie about and misconstrue any word you use.

I guess I hear "de-fund" and it evokes removing ALL funding. So it seems like hyperbole. I do agree with reduced militarization of police forces - yes. I do agree that we spend a lot of money on that, yes. I do agree we need to either re-direct that moneyu to social services or have a social services division in the PD. Yes. It's just that the word "defund" doesn't describe that accurately to me or to the people I need to convince.

Looking at the broader society we need health care for all that doesn't have to pay Wall Street 25% more than single-payer would cost. We need a higher minimum wage to start to eliminate poverty in the richest country in the world. We need to stop the growth of income inequality before it consumes the capitalism that has done so much for us. Trump and his followers call these things socialism.

Do you think that we should abandon these things because they mislabel these things? Is this white male street lingo that we should pay attention to? Are these the far left ideas that we shouldn't advocate?

I don't want to abandon any of those things. I want to have my eyes open on what language moves them forward and what causes people to put on brakes. So I want to stay away from the word socialism which means a very broad thing and use specific terms to say exactly what I want to change, knowing that "socialism" is a scary word to them. It's like asking red-hats if they support Obamacare, asking them if they support the affordable care act and asking them if they support the individual features of the act. One end works, one end makes them scream in fear.

We haven't even touched on the systemic racism that is the hallmark of Trumpism. Do we not try, once again, to eliminate this? Because it fuels white male grievance politics? Because it is at the core of the current Republican party and its current officeholders?

We try to eliminate this. We try to do it by knowing what we want to achieve and watching the feedback on our attempts to achieve it to see if it's working of if we need different language to get through.

I feel that if someone is not understanding you, and you realize that it's because they speak Swahili, don't just start shouting louder in Croatian, because that will not help your cause. Assuming your cause it to get them to understand your point and not that your cause is to show them you think Croatian is how everyone should communicate.


MY goal - is to make change. Not to make change my way.

 

[Politesse]

If "appealing to the middle" works so well, why didn't it? Biden was and is the centrist candidate.

We ran Biden, and he won by a slim margin, and you conclude that fear of socialism was the reason why.

If we'd run Bernie, and he won by a slim margin, you would conclude that fear of socialism was the reason why.

If we'd run Biden, and he lost in a landslide, you would conclude that fear of socialism was the reason why.

If we'd run Bernie, and he lost in a landslide, you would conclude that fear of socialism was the reason why.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Fear of socialism is actually why we got Trump. In other words, it's because people are stupid that we got Trump.

 

[Harry Bosch]

If "appealing to the middle" works so well, why didn't it? Biden was and is the centrist candidate.

We ran Biden, and he won by a slim margin, and you conclude that fear of socialism was the reason why.

If we'd run Bernie, and he won by a slim margin, you would conclude that fear of socialism was the reason why.

If we'd run Biden, and he lost in a landslide, you would conclude that fear of socialism was the reason why.

If we'd run Bernie, and he lost in a landslide, you would conclude that fear of socialism was the reason why.

Slim margin? At the end, he'll win by probably 7 to 8 million votes. That's not slim. Whereas many democrats in conservative areas flat out lost.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Bottom line here: the US is large and diversified. AOC can win in very liberal NY by advocating far left ideas. But even as charismatic as she is, she would get creamed in moderate Virginia. Spanberger blames progressives "in the House Democratic conference for advocating policies and views that might be popular in their overwhelmingly Democratic districts but that endangered their colleagues in swing seats, where the majority is typically won and lost."

I'm glad that AOC is in my party. However, we can't allow her and the squad to drown out all the other voices in the democratic party. And for god's sakes, let's stop using street lingo and stop scarring moderates away from our party. We are not the republicans. We can't win a general election without overwhelming popular support. Biden barely won the election. Incredibly close. And yet, he will end up with 7 or 8 million more votes. Sorry but it's reality: we must be the party of the big tent. Or we'll be toast in 4 years.

I agree with this. If we don't mean DE-FUND, we should not say de-fund. There are major changes we do agree on, and they are progressive and useful. Let's not keep them from getting done by the hyperbole.

But we do mean to take money from the police budget to fund solutions that better handle problems like drug addiction and domestic violence. We should stop funding the militarization of the police. What would you call this? The Trumpists are going to lie about and misconstrue any word you use.

Looking at the broader society we need health care for all that doesn't have to pay Wall Street 25% more than single-payer would cost. We need a higher minimum wage to start to eliminate poverty in the richest country in the world. We need to stop the growth of income inequality before it consumes the capitalism that has done so much for us. Trump and his followers call these things socialism.

Do you think that we should abandon these things because they mislabel these things? Is this white male street lingo that we should pay attention to? Are these the far left ideas that we shouldn't advocate?

We haven't even touched on the systemic racism that is the hallmark of Trumpism. Do we not try, once again, to eliminate this? Because it fuels white male grievance politics? Because it is at the core of the current Republican party and its current officeholders?

I might have mislabeled my title a little. But my larger issue is to agree with Spanberger that what works in liberal NY may not work in more conservative districts.

Regarding defunding the police: it sounds like you are lucky and live in an area where the mental health care is good. I can tell you that in many areas, it's an absolute crime. Far far worse than bad police. Mental health is dramatically underfunded. I've seen studies that estimate that up to 30% of homeless are mentally ill people who haven't been properly protected and treated. And these are often from families with good health care. The problem is the laws are bad. And there aren't nearly enough mental health professionals. The thought that we don't need the police to respond to domestic calls anymore, and just send in all these mental health care workers is just not feasible. Even if it were, how about we repair the existing system now before we get bright ideas and send scarce mental health care workers into potentially dangerous situations.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm glad that AOC is in my party. However, we can't allow her and the squad to drown out all the other voices in the democratic party. And for god's sakes, let's stop using street lingo and stop scarring moderates away from our party. We are not the republicans. We can't win a general election without overwhelming popular support. Biden barely won the election. Incredibly close. And yet, he will end up with 7 or 8 million more votes. Sorry but it's reality: we must be the party of the big tent. Or we'll be toast in 4 years.

I think it would be better for the country if they weren't in Washington. They provide so much ammunition for those who want to portray the Democrats as crazy that they drive people to the party of crazy.

 

[Politesse]

I'm glad that AOC is in my party. However, we can't allow her and the squad to drown out all the other voices in the democratic party. And for god's sakes, let's stop using street lingo and stop scarring moderates away from our party. We are not the republicans. We can't win a general election without overwhelming popular support. Biden barely won the election. Incredibly close. And yet, he will end up with 7 or 8 million more votes. Sorry but it's reality: we must be the party of the big tent. Or we'll be toast in 4 years.

I think it would be better for the country if they weren't in Washington. They provide so much ammunition for those who want to portray the Democrats as crazy that they drive people to the party of crazy.

"I wasn't going to join the Nazis, but the threat of free healthcare just pushed me right over the edge."

If that sentence makes sense to you, it's not a mythical moderate middle that's afraid of social progress. It's you.

I strongly suspect that once the Republicans are gone for good, the DNC will take their former place as the home for political conservatives in the US, set against a true Progressive wing.

 

[abaddon]

Who should we blame for the underperformance?

The eternal question on the "liberal" democrat's mind. Who should we blame for what a bunch of milquetoast stick-in-the-mud old farts that we are?

 

[laughing dog]

If "appealing to the middle" works so well, why didn't it? Biden was and is the centrist candidate.

And he won. It worked well.

I
We ran Biden, and he won by a slim margin, and you conclude that fear of socialism was the reason why.

If we'd run Bernie, and he won by a slim margin, you would conclude that fear of socialism was the reason why.

If we'd run Biden, and he lost in a landslide, you would conclude that fear of socialism was the reason why.

If we'd run Bernie, and he lost in a landslide, you would conclude that fear of socialism was the reason why.

Is there a point there? After all, none of those alleged conclusions is contradictory - it is possible that fear of "socialism" did help the GOP garner votes and detract votes from Democrats. To be honest, IMO anyone who thinks Democrats are real socialists will probably believe anything.

In my view, there is a deep cultural divide here that has little to do with economics. Some of it is what I call the last gasp of white people who are "losing" the demographic trends and fear the outcomes. Some of it is that Democrats used to be seen as the party of the low educated and working class and the rural areas instead of the elite and urban areas.

 

[J842P]

Two things.

One, the problem with "defund the police" is that there are people who mean that literally. That is from the prison abolition movement that these sorts of slogans spring, so it is no surprise that this is what people think it means. When you have to go into a multi-sentence explanation about how a slogan doesn't mean what it plainly says then it is a bad slogan

Here, I can come up with a better slogan for free: "demilitarize the police".

Second, no one is running as a "socialist" in the United States, either explicitly or implicitly through their platform. The Republicans will always call their opponents socialist. This will always happen. The left (this does not mean Democrats, Democrats are a center-right party, they aren't left) runs on particular policies, most of which garner a majority support.

Third (another one for free), going after "moderate" Republicans is a bad strategy. 93% of Republicans voted for Trump, up from 90% in 2016. The Lincoln Project played the Democrats like a fiddle.

 

[Politesse]

Two things.

One, the problem with "defund the police" is that there are people who mean that literally. That is from the prison abolition movement that these sorts of slogans spring, so it is no surprise that this is what people think it means. When you have to go into a multi-sentence explanation about how a slogan doesn't mean what it plainly says then it is a bad slogan

Here, I can come up with a better slogan for free: "demilitarize the police".

Second, no one is running as a "socialist" in the United States, either explicitly or implicitly through their platform. The Republicans will always call their opponents socialist. This will always happen. The left (this does not mean Democrats, Democrats are a center-right party, they aren't left) runs on particular policies, most of which garner a majority support.

Third (another one for free), going after "moderate" Republicans is a bad strategy. 93% of Republicans voted for Trump, up from 90% in 2016. The Lincoln Project played the Democrats like a fiddle.

Actually, 30 people ran explicitly as Democratic-Socialists in this years election... and 28 of them won their seats.

The Lincoln Project failed so utterly it seems to have somehow backfired, not that anyone involved will ever admit it. "It's those damn Progressives who made us fail to win over a single Republican vote!"

It's true that the Defund movement was ill-named, and that middle-class whites want very different things from it than do the minority activists who launched the movement. I have no doubt whatsoever that the folks who initiated the project wanted to see far fewer police on the street, if any at all, in the future. But such movements are always hijacked by white interests trying to push it into a more palatable "police reform" movement the DNC will be more comfortable with. This is America after all. The Democrats may pander to minorities once every two years, but fundamentally they will side with the interests and desires of their white majority no matter what happens next.

 

[J842P]

Two things.

One, the problem with "defund the police" is that there are people who mean that literally. That is from the prison abolition movement that these sorts of slogans spring, so it is no surprise that this is what people think it means. When you have to go into a multi-sentence explanation about how a slogan doesn't mean what it plainly says then it is a bad slogan

Here, I can come up with a better slogan for free: "demilitarize the police".

Second, no one is running as a "socialist" in the United States, either explicitly or implicitly through their platform. The Republicans will always call their opponents socialist. This will always happen. The left (this does not mean Democrats, Democrats are a center-right party, they aren't left) runs on particular policies, most of which garner a majority support.

Third (another one for free), going after "moderate" Republicans is a bad strategy. 93% of Republicans voted for Trump, up from 90% in 2016. The Lincoln Project played the Democrats like a fiddle.

Actually, 30 people ran explicitly as Democratic-Socialists in this years election... and 28 of them won their seats.

Ok, you are right.

The Lincoln Project failed so utterly it seems to have somehow backfired, not that anyone involved will ever admit it. "It's those damn Progressives who made us fail to win over a single Republican vote!"

It's true that the Defund movement was ill-named, and that middle-class whites want very different things from it than do the minority activists who launched the movement. I have no doubt whatsoever that the folks who initiated the project wanted to see far fewer police on the street, if any at all, in the future. But such movements are always hijacked by white interests trying to push it into a more palatable "police reform" movement the DNC will be more comfortable with. This is America after all. The Democrats may pander to minorities once every two years, but fundamentally they will side with the interests and desires of their white majority no matter what happens next.

In the opinion polling I've seen, most people, regardless of race, oppose it. Minorities don't support abolishing the police.The only people who believe that are the typical sorts who love telling minorities what they think. The majority of people, including black people, don't want to see a smaller police presence in their communities, which is directly opposed to the police/prison abolition movements.