|
Condiv posted:uh dems: if ahca passes, you might have to sell your car or your wedding ring to care for your kid! yeah you might have to do that under ppaca too, but ahca is bad because *REASON NOT INCLUDED IN COMMERCIAL*
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:24 |
|
|
Condiv posted:uh weirdly their campaign strategy wasn't just summed up in a 30 second spot about healthcare. they're gonna poo poo on the gop for proposing terrible policies and also for being incompetent at governing/ineffective. it's the most obvious strategy on the planet. pelosi was already out there doing literally both of those things yesterday Concerned Citizen has issued a correction as of 14:19 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:weirdly their campaign strategy wasn't just summed up in a 30 second spot about healthcare. lol that's a poo poo strategy, it's the exact one they tried in the election! "look at how bad these repubs are! what am I gonna do instead? nevermind that, look at how bad those repubs are!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Condiv posted:lol that's a poo poo strategy, it's the exact one they tried in the election! i mean if you want me to disagree with you that dems need to provide a more positive message, i'm sorry to say i won't. but they're going to leave that for the candidates rather than project that on a party-wide basis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
here's a new campaign slogan for the dems which is as witty as the dems are! "dems rule republicans drool"
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:i mean if you want me to disagree with you that dems need to provide a more positive message, i'm sorry to say i won't. but they're going to leave that for the candidates rather than project that on a party-wide basis. no i'm saying the dems need a message other than republicans suck. also, lol at leaving it to individual dems to get the message out about why republicans suck
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no i'm saying the dems need a message other than republicans suck. also, lol at leaving it to individual dems to get the message out about why republicans suck well that's what i mean. dems should have a message that points to a particular future we want to see, not just protecting the status quo. it's hard to build a party brand around "everything is good, except for the things we didn't fix yet." but they're not going to do that because it's hard to get dems to come together on policy without a sitting president to be the spokesperson for it. it's hard to present "the democratic plan" when you have 10 guys on the left saying the plan doesn't go far enough and 10 guys on the right saying the plan is left-wing garbage
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
the plan needs either more or less bernie
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
fewer bernie?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:well that's what i mean. dems should have a message that points to a particular future we want to see, not just protecting the status quo. it's hard to build a party brand around "everything is good, except for the things we didn't fix yet." but they're not going to do that because it's hard to get dems to come together on policy without a sitting president to be the spokesperson for it. it's hard to present "the democratic plan" when you have 10 guys on the left saying the plan doesn't go far enough and 10 guys on the right saying the plan is left-wing garbage hmm, we just had a sitting president for 8 years. one who refused to be the spokesperson for anything. it sounds to me like the dems need to get a message without a president, cause they're certainly not getting another pres without a message they've already got a senator sending out a clear and strong message, and he's the most popular politician in america! sounds like they've got everything they need, a message and a spokesperson for it, but they refuse to adopt that message in lieu of deafening silence of course, it's because centrists don't like that message, but they had 8 years to forge their own and they sat with their thumbs up their asses Condiv has issued a correction as of 14:35 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Republicans: We'll do whatever the gently caress we want and you can suck our drat dicks and the people will love us. Democrats: When they go low, we go high! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:
well i for one am glad to see that the next 8 years are republican led
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Condiv posted:hmm, we just had a sitting president for 8 years. one who refused to be the spokesperson for anything. it sounds to me like the dems need to get a message without a president, cause they're certainly not getting another pres without a message well that's not true that obama "refused to be a spokesperson for anything," but anyway yes i agree dems need a more concrete message. but their approach is a district-by-district one, tailoring a message to particular geographic and political realities. that's (probably) actually a good approach in the short term for maximizing seats in a given election, but not really great for the party's health overall. but the entire system is setup to incentivize that sort of strategy, since "how did we perform in the election" is the most salient metric that anyone can be held accountable to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:well that's not true that obama "refused to be a spokesperson for anything," but anyway yes i agree dems need a more concrete message. but their approach is a district-by-district one, tailoring a message to particular geographic and political realities. that's (probably) actually a good approach in the short term for maximizing seats in a given election, but not really great for the party's health overall. but the entire system is setup to incentivize that sort of strategy, since "how did we perform in the election" is the most salient metric that anyone can be held accountable to. set up to incentivize this strategy? maximizes wins? since what election? this isn't a new strategy and we've been bleeding seats for 8 years. also, dems are not being held accountable to that most salient metric, since if they were we'd have seen a change in direction instead of dems pretending nothing happened. also, please don't pretend obama used the bully pulpit effectively. as far as presidents go, he was one of the most silent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
These people have not only been thrown out, they still hold power and influence. https://twitter.com/sarahcasiano/status/844537287375572994 And that's example 1,000,000 why anything the dem establishment or their sycophants, including the ones in this thread, says should be met with distrust and disdain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
lol, donna brazile staying prominent is a big sign to progressives telling them the party will not cater to them ever the dems will cheat and lie as necessary to avoid embracing leftism
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
Condiv posted:here's a new campaign slogan for the dems which is as witty as the dems are! All this slogan does is remind me that dems rule nothing and have zero power. So they'll probably go with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Condiv posted:set up to incentivize this strategy? maximizes wins? since what election? this isn't a new strategy and we've been bleeding seats for 8 years. the dem campaign apparatus is setup around the principles that 1. partisan preferences are sticky, 2. the same seats/states are usually competitive every cycle, and 3. largely the same people tend to turnout to vote. there's a standard suite of tools used - paid media, earned media, digital, field, etc - and within that narrow scope, the dccc/dscc tend to do a decent to good job. the gop largely follows the same pattern. but those tools are marginal when it comes to moving the needle. and if one of those principles is wrong, the effects can be unpredictable. (i.e. 2016) it's a strategy to win races that are likely to be close, but it does not do a good job at shaping the overall electoral landscape that produces winnable races. because this approach requires a lot of money, and since the party funding every race is not feasible, it means the dccc's #1 criterion when recruiting candidates is fundraising ability. most candidates that fundraise well look pretty similar to each other - business or non-profit background, somewhat polished, connected, moderate-to-liberal views. so the party is in a bit of a rut when it comes to messaging. it would be nice if everyone could come together for a message around a common proposal, but the reality is that any proposal that could get enough elected dems to coalesce around it without a president or presidential candidate would be banal and ineffective. quote:also, please don't pretend obama used the bully pulpit effectively. as far as presidents go, he was one of the most silent. i mean this is just objectively not true. it only seems that way because his presidency was overshadowed by the presidential election in 2015-2016, but that is common at the end of a 2 term presidency. regardless, it's not 1939, the bully pulpit doesn't mean the same thing it used to mean. the president has extraordinary power to elevate issues, but it's very hard to push a message when 1 minute of speaking produces 30 minutes of muddled analysis on any given subject. Concerned Citizen has issued a correction as of 15:11 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:well that's what i mean. dems should have a message that points to a particular future we want to see, not just protecting the status quo. it's hard to build a party brand around "everything is good, except for the things we didn't fix yet." but they're not going to do that because it's hard to get dems to come together on policy without a sitting president to be the spokesperson for it. it's hard to present "the democratic plan" when you have 10 guys on the left saying the plan doesn't go far enough and 10 guys on the right saying the plan is left-wing garbage  "It's haaard to set a message!" Well then get the gently caress out of politics
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:
it's not hard to set a message, it's definitely hard to set a compelling national message that plays in every competitive district in the country. which is why the party tends to go district-by-district.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:it's not hard to set a message, it's definitely hard to set a compelling national message that plays in every competitive district in the country. which is why the party tends to go district-by-district. Setting a national message is their loving job if they want to lead a national party. So far, this district-by-district poo poo has resulted in Dems losing ground everywhere. It's time they re-evaluate that, and maybe not put some weaksause fund-babby up against Marco Rubio next time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:weirdly their campaign strategy wasn't just summed up in a 30 second spot about healthcare. No they're not Dude the Dems have failed everything they ever set out to do 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:it's not hard to set a message, it's definitely hard to set a compelling national message that plays in every competitive district in the country. which is why the party tends to go district-by-district. but there's a lot of low-hanging fruit that would play well everywhere that the dems never go for, is the problem. the whole issue with the district-by-district strategy is that the democrats get lost in the weeds of trying to appeal on very specific issues to very specific people instead of having huge central issues at the center of the message and then addressing smaller concerns on a district-by-district basis. as a result, the democratic party as a whole stands for nothing. people vote based on self-interest but also ideology; the bad dems are dedicated to the fiction of "ideology? we don't have one!" so voters are left with nothing but self-interest. which is effective, but also can be overridden by ideology.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:Setting a national message is their loving job if they want to lead a national party. well that's the issue, isn't it? no one really leads the national party in a year without a president. creating a national message requires consensus that isn't going to happen except around boring, non-controversial issues. so we're going to get grab bags of policies that poll well instead. and that's not really great, but without radical transformation of the party it probably won't change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:No they're not But CC can assure us that they really thought they were being smart when they did it!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
"We can't do our job because we're bad at it"
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:well that's the issue, isn't it? no one really leads the national party in a year without a president. creating a national message requires consensus that isn't going to happen except around boring, non-controversial issues. so we're going to get grab bags of policies that poll well instead. and that's not really great, but without radical transformation of the party it probably won't change. Good thing the DNC is doing everything in their power to resist even minor changes! Literally the only thing Obama has done related to politics since leaving the presidency is to make sure Perez was installed as DNC chair to make sure a spooky progressive didn't get it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/844553163738927105
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
The Brown Menace posted:"We can't do our job because we're bad at it" hosed up but true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/844554782794829824
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:but there's a lot of low-hanging fruit that would play well everywhere that the dems never go for, is the problem. the whole issue with the district-by-district strategy is that the democrats get lost in the weeds of trying to appeal on very specific issues to very specific people instead of having huge central issues at the center of the message and then addressing smaller concerns on a district-by-district basis. as a result, the democratic party as a whole stands for nothing. people vote based on self-interest but also ideology; the bad dems are dedicated to the fiction of "ideology? we don't have one!" so voters are left with nothing but self-interest. which is effective, but also can be overridden by ideology. well first, most people don't vote on ideology. most people don't even have an ideology. but yes, you're right that the dem party stands for nothing. i mean, anyone can be a member of the democratic party and they can't be kicked out. alan dershowitz says he a dem, even if he agrees with the dem party on exactly nothing. if trump became a democrat tomorrow, no one could tell him he wasn't. in some aspect this is unavoidable, and in some ways the party could do a much better job of branding itself. right now, it doesn't do that well and i agree with those criticisms of the party. anyway, a lot of stuff is "low-hanging fruit" that polls well everywhere, and dems have tried it. see this nyt story from dec 2013: quote:WASHINGTON — Democratic Party leaders, bruised by months of attacks on the new health care program, have found an issue they believe can lift their fortunes both locally and nationally in 2014: an increase in the minimum wage. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/30/us/politics/democrats-turn-to-minimum-wage-as-2014-strategy.html and so they did - raise the minimum wage ads all over the place. everyone liked it, everywhere. we used it everywhere. but it turns out that things that are well-liked doesn't always move voters. the composition of the message isn't really as important as the entire story that's being driven, and it's hard to create a story on a national basis when you have a lot of people in your own party who will be forced by either their personal beliefs or electoral considerations to run away from parts of that story. our apparatus is really good at driving specific messages within a narrow context, but it has struggled to perform in races that need very different approaches to be winnable. we tend to have cookie-cutter approaches that simply alter the composition of issues per district that we use and slap them on bland candidates that are similar to all the other candidates we run. it's not really a great approach even if it's effective in specific contexts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
haaaaahahahahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
lol that owns
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
lmao
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Resume checkmark achieved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Am I missing something or are they not even pretending to say what those achievements are?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
why can't "full communism now" be played everywhere everyone wants full communism now
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:well first, most people don't vote on ideology. most people don't even have an ideology. but yes, you're right that the dem party stands for nothing. i mean, anyone can be a member of the democratic party and they can't be kicked out. alan dershowitz says he a dem, even if he agrees with the dem party on exactly nothing. if trump became a democrat tomorrow, no one could tell him he wasn't. in some aspect this is unavoidable, and in some ways the party could do a much better job of branding itself. right now, it doesn't do that well and i agree with those criticisms of the party. lol, did the dems actuall try to raise the minimum wage everywhere? cause they resisted raising it in a lot of places
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Guys, there's no way Chelsea Clinton would get involved in politics and you're just crazy if that's a thing you're worried about. And Hillary will surely not even consider running or trying to influence who runs in the 2020 presidential primaries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:24 |
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Am I missing something or are they not even pretending to say what those achievements are? 1) isnt george w bush
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:38
|
|