3918

That appears to be the case, but I still find it strange. Logically there should be a degree of candidate awfulness which becomes sufficient reason to vote against them and to turn out. I thought Trump was past that degree, but clearly I was wrong.

3919

And there is also the rub. Hillary had reasons to vote for her, proposals and policies to actually try and address the issues. Whether you agreed with them as the proper response, they were there.

However you never heard about them because the media is shit. And that is something that needs addressing. However I’m not sure it’ll ever work with the ingrained culture of ‘unbiased means treating both parties as the same and can’t take sides on policy’ bothsiderism

3920

Hey now, they were busy covering all the super important issues about her email, so no time to cover her actual policies and positions.

3921

This is true but her framing was not that strong IMO. Her proposals were too incremental and complex compared to the relatively simple and bold proposals of Trump. Yes, it’s true that “simplistic and xenophobic” is probably more accurate for Trump than simple and bold, but in terms of messaging and media, simple and bold was the ticket.

I feel like the current Dem agenda would be much more persuasive if the framing were better, without sacrificing any policy chops. For example, the economy and jobs are issues with broad based appeal and almost every Dem policy touches on those topics, but the Dems don’t emphasize that enough. For example, the Green New Deal is going to create jobs in several ways so it needs to framed as the “Green Jobs Deal”. Medicare for All or Medicare Buy In both affect workers’ ability to retain health coverage when they switch jobs, so both can be framed as “Freedom to Work Where You Want” proposals. Dem proposals for infrastructure and investing in education would also create jobs and should be framed as such.

Focus on the simple and broad based elements of the policies, and the message will get through a lot better.

Complex, incremental and nuanced is so easy for the lazy media to ignore and for and racist/xenophobic Republicans to twist. In particular, broad-based programs where we all pay in and we all benefit are going to way more politically successful than narrowly targeted incremental policies, which may be wonkishly more efficient but run afowl of the racism/etc and corrupt political economy of the US. An example is ACA versus Medicare. Medicare is a more liberal/left program by most measures: more direct government involvement, bigger budget, elimination of private carriers, etc, and ACA is more targeted on helping people who don’t have / can’t afford coverage, costing much less, retaining private insurers, etc. And yet, Medicare is extremely popular and it was very easy for the GOP to target the ACA as only helping “those people”.

Clinton 2016 was all about excellent wonky narrowly targeted non-budget-busting programs, incremental in scope, it just didn’t appeal to voters that much and just wasn’t able to bust through the media’s ennui and stimulate voters.

By contrast, focusing on jobs, on health care for everybody without a lot of “buts”, etc. is the way to go.

3922

Only if you take a female chaperone.

3923

Don’t forget to leave room between you and the one you debate for the holy ghost.

3924

Well, I don’t think you’re wrong on that. 2018 turnout was driven by Trump’s awfulness. The problem is that voters have short memories, and the Dems haven’t done anything with their House majority that will encourage voters to double down on them. They don’t have to actually vote to impeach Trump, but effectively doing nothing, doing so much nothing that you actually take impeachment off the table, probably isn’t going to be very energizing.

3925

And yet 2016 had the second highest voter turnout in nearly 50 years.

Maybe. But designing and implementing a media strategy for elections is… well hard is an understatement. Media hates policy because it’s boring. It’s actually possible that more radical policy would be better just because it could get more attention and shift attention away from gaffes, gotchas and internal conflict. Maybe tweeting insults on twitter is the way to go. I mean who knows? I guarantee many smarter and more knowledgeable people than you and me are spending their whole day every day thinking about exactly this.

3926

I think there is a Discourse for the elites and a Discourse for the people - the Discourse for the elites gets print and news media excited to follow, while the Discourse for the people gets them excited to vote.

I’m not sure that “jobs jobs jobs” is the right answer. I’m not saying it’s the “wrong” answer either! But the Economist makes the case that relatively well off people care more about “non-existential” issues like culture. I’m not sure banging the drum about how horrible everything is at a time of historic low unemployment and growth is entirely sound either - if done, it has to be done the right way.

Personally i feel the tack Liberals need to make is the “agree to disagree” sort of line of attack next to the traditional policy positions. That, yes, you (Mr. Conservative) and I (Ms. Liberal) do not see eye to eye on anything but that what we agree on is our right to believe in different things. Basically twist things such that it forces Republicans to admit that their wanting to impose their values goes against basic concepts like freedom or the Constitution, force all but the most stubborn voters to admit the contradiction. You can’t beat Republicans on issues like Abortion but you can parry them enough to reduce their enthusiasm.

3927

Meh. Whether people have the right to e.g. have racist views is hardly the ground on which to fight. Of course they have that right, but equally of course those views are morally reprehensible. For Democrats to galvanize voters and win, they have to actually stand for something different than their opponents. Everyone is for jobs, and everyone is for the right to have your own views. What is it that Democrats are for that Republicans are clearly against? The right to get health care when you need it. A decent wage, one that lifts you out of poverty. Adequate assistance when the market destroys your livelihood. The right not to be shot by cops. Good schools for kids. Adequate housing. An end to corporate rule, corporate depredations, and tax cheating by corporations and the wealthy. That’s the fertile ground, because most voters actually agree that Democrats are right on those things.

3928

Sure, but they don’t actually think any of these things are going on.

I mean there are huge segments always voting D or R. Saying the right things there just increases turnout, it doesn’t switch things around. Part of the Biden appeal is that he seems somehow moderate and “let’s all work together” crap and that’s the kind of position that the low information voters want to hear because they’re timid and unsure and not able/willing to fully understand complicated issues. And it’s really the low information voters that you’re aiming at.

I mean the current Dem candidate appeal of Biden is entirely built on people’s priors.

3929

And now Biden is telling a string of lies and half-truths about MFA which are designed to scare voters away from it, and offering instead minor tweaks to the ACA which will neither add substantially more people to the ranks of the insured nor making the insurance better or more affordable. Jesus, he’s useless.

3930

Sorry, I don’t understand that.

Well, there’s nothing wrong with increasing turnout. That aside, I’d be more open to the idea that real substantial promises of the type I suggest fail to change people’s voting intentions if anyone had ever actually tried them and failed. What fails is promises to tweak existing weak programs to make them slightly less weak.

3931

Don’t forget “a habitable planet.”

3932

I think that’s a good, aspirational distinction to draw, one that gets a lot harder when you actually promise policy solutions for it. But yes, definitely call it out.

3933

We’re totally not.

3934

Sometimes you gotta just rip the bandage off and expose a festering wound to the air before you can clean it out. Seems like we are at that point.

3935

I like how you think this is as low as it’s going to get.

3936

Trump will run as a racist. I wonder how much of that is electoral strategy, shoring up support among non-college whites in the midwestern battleground states, and how much of it is building his brand for the post-presidency Trump Network.

3937

The Kavanaugh process taught Republicans all they need to know about how to respond to the Left.

Righteous indignance. Call me a racist? Well fuck you, how about that?!

Always double down. Then triple down. Own every single thing you say even if it was a flubbed line or a mistake. Never, ever admit you screwed up or say you’re sorry.

Look at Lindsey Graham’s performance over the weekend. Kids in cages? Hell yes, kids in cages! I hope they die in there!

Some people may not like it, but one things for sure: nobody likes a weak waffler.