Given the near unanimous reaction to the assassination of a health insurance CEO, I think the question of whether a populist message can sell across the spectrum is settled. Too bad the Democrats didn’t harness that pent up anger to beat Trump.
There was never a question of whether a populist message can sell across the spectrum. That wasn’t even part of our conversation. By definition it will always be popular across the spectrum.
The conversation was about whether the criticism from progressives towards democrats sowed apathy in voters and whether that apathy decreased votes for democrats.
That started the conversation, but it’s not the only thing you had wrong.
there was no credibility to your claim that “we” know how to reach people and that democrats can’t be interested.
Democrats are shit at their jobs and happy to remain so. As long as that’s true, expecting progressives to ignore it is ridiculous. The unanimity behind the assassination is proof that the energy was there and the Democrats ignored over a decade of progressive advice to use it. They’ll do it again too if we can’t overcome institutional inertia and force a change.
The right wing spin machine exploits this anger all by itself. Without progressives, there is absolutely no Democratic message that competes with right wing noise. There would be no rush to PBS and MS-NBC, it would be a rush to Fox, Ben Shapiro, and Matt Walsh. Americans don’t know much, but they do know Democrats are full of shit. Media outlets trying to hold up the Democratic facade are all losing audience rapidly. The Democratic establishment is an unsellable product.
We know that GOP run ads to paint democrats in a negative light. They do this because it sways the opinion of voters to not vote for democrats. To pretend that that same cause and effect doesn’t exist when progressives do it is delusional.
If progressives knew how to reach people then they wouldnt be a minority in our government. Let alone a minority inside of the Democratic Party that you claim they are better than. But they are. Because they don’t know how to reach people. Making your claims inherently false whether you want to admit it or not. So you will continue to be wrong about that until progressives hold the majority of positions in our government.
The unanimity behind the assassination of the UnitedHealth CEO is just a sign of how bad our healthcare system is. Democrats are the only ones who have made improvements on our healthcare system. Unfortunately they weren’t able to do more because they had to compromise with the rest of Congress to get anything at all passed.
If progressives were any good at reaching people then they would have more seats in Congress and we would have a single payer healthcare system right now. But we don’t. Why don’t we? Because we don’t have enough progressives in Congress. Why don’t we have enough progressives in Congress? You guessed it! Because they don’t know how to reach people or win elections.
Progressives can’t even reach enough people to hold a majority inside the Democratic Party that you claim is unsellable.
I gave you everything you need to google it yourself and find the same information elsewhere, and I even offered to do it for you if you provided a link one single piece of supporting information for any of your assertions. All you did was add a new claim about inflation driving votes with a link to a page that didn’t mention inflation at all. That’s not the most ridiculous thing though. Nothing competes with this statement.
Since the 90s there have been 9 presidential elections and democrats have won 5 of them. It makes perfect sense for them to continue with at least some of the strategies that have earned them the majority of elections.
So, you are looking at where the country stands at this moment, and your thought is “gosh, the Democrats must be doing something right!” Never-mind that wealth inequality has skyrocketed over this period of stunning Democratic success. We might lose the entire new deal over the next four years, but the presidential scorecard isn’t so bad! 5 out of 9, wow! If that isn’t classic Democratic delusion, I don’t know what is.
Of course that’s not really the Democrat’s fault, because some people online criticize them. Presumably the Republicans have swept all three branches because right leaning voters never criticize Republicans or fight back at all. The Tea Party? yeah, that wasn’t a thing. Republicans ousting their own Speaker in a populist uprising? Never happened. MAGA is just a bunch of fine folks who give free hand-jobs to the Republican establishment.
Republicans are winning because their base fought harder against the establishment than the Democrat base did. Despite all the whining, progressives have consistently gone easy on the Democrats, and Democrats have consistently blamed progressives for their failures. I love how you keep pointing out that Progressives have effectively gained no power in the party yet, somehow, they are the only reason the party can’t get it’s act together. I don’t know if you’re just so emotionally invested in the Democratic establishment that it’s blinded you, or if you are personally connected to the consulting gift machine that runs it. In either case, good luck on your insane quest to convince the Internet to not call out what’s plain as day.
Progressives did quite a bit better in this past election than corporate Democrats. But I won’t argue that the establishment hasn’t been really successful at beating progressives in primaries. Besides being clearly true, it would hardly be fair to rob them of credit for the only thing they do well.
But, primaries are not the same as general elections. Money impacts both, but it impacts primaries far more. There is far less free media available, and name recognition can be impossible to build without it. There is also the myth that progressives can’t win general elections that makes voters reticent to nominate progressives. We see it over and over where the progressive platform is preferred, but the establishment candidate gets the nomination.
Cheap shots aside, any real analysis paints a very different picture. Establishment candidates do better when they lean left. Obama ran on “change” and won in a blowout. Then he went establishment and almost lost. Lucky for us the Republicans were only running establishment candidates against him. Hillary ran establishment vs right-populist and lost. Biden ran “progressive lite” against Trump’s “establishment lite” and barely won. Kamala went right against fascist-right and lost. See the pattern?
Given the near unanimous reaction to the assassination of a health insurance CEO, I think the question of whether a populist message can sell across the spectrum is settled. Too bad the Democrats didn’t harness that pent up anger to beat Trump.
There was never a question of whether a populist message can sell across the spectrum. That wasn’t even part of our conversation. By definition it will always be popular across the spectrum.
The conversation was about whether the criticism from progressives towards democrats sowed apathy in voters and whether that apathy decreased votes for democrats.
That started the conversation, but it’s not the only thing you had wrong.
Democrats are shit at their jobs and happy to remain so. As long as that’s true, expecting progressives to ignore it is ridiculous. The unanimity behind the assassination is proof that the energy was there and the Democrats ignored over a decade of progressive advice to use it. They’ll do it again too if we can’t overcome institutional inertia and force a change.
The right wing spin machine exploits this anger all by itself. Without progressives, there is absolutely no Democratic message that competes with right wing noise. There would be no rush to PBS and MS-NBC, it would be a rush to Fox, Ben Shapiro, and Matt Walsh. Americans don’t know much, but they do know Democrats are full of shit. Media outlets trying to hold up the Democratic facade are all losing audience rapidly. The Democratic establishment is an unsellable product.
We know that GOP run ads to paint democrats in a negative light. They do this because it sways the opinion of voters to not vote for democrats. To pretend that that same cause and effect doesn’t exist when progressives do it is delusional.
If progressives knew how to reach people then they wouldnt be a minority in our government. Let alone a minority inside of the Democratic Party that you claim they are better than. But they are. Because they don’t know how to reach people. Making your claims inherently false whether you want to admit it or not. So you will continue to be wrong about that until progressives hold the majority of positions in our government.
The unanimity behind the assassination of the UnitedHealth CEO is just a sign of how bad our healthcare system is. Democrats are the only ones who have made improvements on our healthcare system. Unfortunately they weren’t able to do more because they had to compromise with the rest of Congress to get anything at all passed.
If progressives were any good at reaching people then they would have more seats in Congress and we would have a single payer healthcare system right now. But we don’t. Why don’t we? Because we don’t have enough progressives in Congress. Why don’t we have enough progressives in Congress? You guessed it! Because they don’t know how to reach people or win elections.
Progressives can’t even reach enough people to hold a majority inside the Democratic Party that you claim is unsellable.
Damn, full circle back to the same bullshit talking points. All of this has been answered. Too far gone I guess.
With screenshots in Reddit posts.
Let me know when progressives start winning elections.
I gave you everything you need to google it yourself and find the same information elsewhere, and I even offered to do it for you if you provided a link one single piece of supporting information for any of your assertions. All you did was add a new claim about inflation driving votes with a link to a page that didn’t mention inflation at all. That’s not the most ridiculous thing though. Nothing competes with this statement.
So, you are looking at where the country stands at this moment, and your thought is “gosh, the Democrats must be doing something right!” Never-mind that wealth inequality has skyrocketed over this period of stunning Democratic success. We might lose the entire new deal over the next four years, but the presidential scorecard isn’t so bad! 5 out of 9, wow! If that isn’t classic Democratic delusion, I don’t know what is.
Of course that’s not really the Democrat’s fault, because some people online criticize them. Presumably the Republicans have swept all three branches because right leaning voters never criticize Republicans or fight back at all. The Tea Party? yeah, that wasn’t a thing. Republicans ousting their own Speaker in a populist uprising? Never happened. MAGA is just a bunch of fine folks who give free hand-jobs to the Republican establishment.
Republicans are winning because their base fought harder against the establishment than the Democrat base did. Despite all the whining, progressives have consistently gone easy on the Democrats, and Democrats have consistently blamed progressives for their failures. I love how you keep pointing out that Progressives have effectively gained no power in the party yet, somehow, they are the only reason the party can’t get it’s act together. I don’t know if you’re just so emotionally invested in the Democratic establishment that it’s blinded you, or if you are personally connected to the consulting gift machine that runs it. In either case, good luck on your insane quest to convince the Internet to not call out what’s plain as day.
You trying to explain that progressives are better at winning elections, while they are losing elections:
Progressives did quite a bit better in this past election than corporate Democrats. But I won’t argue that the establishment hasn’t been really successful at beating progressives in primaries. Besides being clearly true, it would hardly be fair to rob them of credit for the only thing they do well.
But, primaries are not the same as general elections. Money impacts both, but it impacts primaries far more. There is far less free media available, and name recognition can be impossible to build without it. There is also the myth that progressives can’t win general elections that makes voters reticent to nominate progressives. We see it over and over where the progressive platform is preferred, but the establishment candidate gets the nomination.
Cheap shots aside, any real analysis paints a very different picture. Establishment candidates do better when they lean left. Obama ran on “change” and won in a blowout. Then he went establishment and almost lost. Lucky for us the Republicans were only running establishment candidates against him. Hillary ran establishment vs right-populist and lost. Biden ran “progressive lite” against Trump’s “establishment lite” and barely won. Kamala went right against fascist-right and lost. See the pattern?