Reply to Who is more responsible for this Democrat train wreck

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Who is more responsible for this Democrat train wreck"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]
Anonymous wrote:
It's the DNC's fault for not keeping up with the times and rules of the game that is the modern election cycle.

The truth no longer matters as much as a snappy headline. The game changed and the GOP figured out the rules before we did and adapted to be able to win. The Dems are lagging and need to keep up.

The average attention span for an American adult is now only 8 seconds. It's decreased 25% over the last 12 years. We now have a lower attention span than the common goldfish. WTG, humans!

Young people aren't reading long, thought out articles with citied evidence. Young people go by what the latest influencer on TikTok tells them. Did you see how many young, hot (not appearance hot) TikTok influencers were invited to the DNC? They were given incredible access for vlogging and got more facetime with Harris than many donors did at other events. Young people care about the truth, but they want the TL;DR version of that truth.

Old people, the group most susceptible to fake news and misinformation, don't read the articles either. They go off what the headline tells them and what others in the comments are saying. They then parrot those mistruths in other places.

The Dems also hasn't fully embraced the fact that the largest voting body, Gen Z, grew up with Cancel Culture. The Gen Z voters literally said for months, we are not going to vote for Harris if she doesn't come out and fully support Palestine and denounce Isreal, but no one took them seriously. Well, they should have. They are the generation of "if you don't do/say/behave how *we* want you to, we're canceling you."

There's no more "when they go low, we go high" crap. I don't want to hear that BS. That was true when the rules were different. That was true before Trump had his first term but certainly not now. Now? Anything goes.

What snappy headline would have changed the outcome? What did people who chose to vote for Trump not know?
[/quote]

Agree with everything posted---I don't think it is "snappy headline" but the micro-targeting that might have helped.  Remember the Post story a few ago re how Elon Musk funded sophisticated micro-targeting of different groups with content designed to steer them toward Trump based on the micro-group's biggest hot-buttons.  Just as JFK was the first "television" president, Trump is our first social media president and the Dems need to get better at that game.  There also needs to be a concerted effort to restore balance in media ---between the death of local newspapers, the hegemony of Sinclair media in owning local TV stations---there is very little EXCEPT conservative echo-chamber across wide swaths of the country.  [b]As someone noted on here---there is no left-version of Joe Rogan commanding millions of followers. [/b] Dems also need to restore the tradition of small town papers/media that expose local corruption and focus on local issues and demonstrate the value of that kind of vigilance to voters.

And Dems also need to build a ground game emphasizing the value of a two party system that comes up with compromises instead of the Newt Gingrich/Mitch McConnell Zero-sum approach to governance.  Whenever I visit my hometown in South Carolina, I am struck by how much people complain about the unchecked and unmanaged development that has resulted in huge traffic  jams and unsafe country roads---since developers have no obligations to contribute to road improvement.  The same friends and family who are complaining to me reflexively vote Republican because they have been brainwashed into thinking that all Dems are evil.  If there were two viable parties instead of one-party rule, some of those negative development externalities might be more controlled, but they won't be as long as the developer dominated Republican Party has sole control.    (I also feel the same way about the extreme blue jurisdictions---they need more balance in the other direction).[/quote]

In order to have a left-wing Joe Rogan with millions of followers, you need to have a message that millions of people want to hear. There are left-wing podcasters and media, but they cater to a small audience that is getting smaller. They aren’t particularly successful at reaching out beyond their core audience of progressives.

Joe Rogan is a symptom, not a cause. The lack of a left-wing Joe Rogan isn’t structural, it’s because the message from the left is so profoundly unappealing and uninspiring. If the left had an inspiring, unifying message, a left-wing Joe Rogan would exist overnight, probably multiple.

But the progressive wing of the party has become more religion than political party, so they are as impervious to criticism as the far-right evangelicals. [/quote]

There is no progressive wing of the party at least not one that has any weight. Most of the recent democrat candidates make Nixon or Reagan seem liberal.[/quote]

Come on. You are blind. Everyone has to kiss the progressive ring now. Look what happened to Seth Moulton, who timidly expressed an opinion that something like 80% of Americans agree with.

But even that is besides the point. You can’t create a left-wing Joe Rogan from the top down. You have to have a popular message, and then a left-wing Joe Rogan, probably multiple of them, will grow. The problem is that the Democrats have a very unpopular message which requires fealty to a quasi-religious identity-based belief structure.

So long as the Democrats have this evangelical quasi-religious belief structure at the heart of their messaging, there will be no left-wing Joe Rogan. There will be media, of course, but they will remain niche, not mainstream.

In essence the Democrats are going the route of the Republicans of the 1990s — building their political future on a passionate but relatively small religious movement. The progressives are the Focus on the Family of the Democrats. And like those evangelicals, they will pull the party in a direction that loses the middle. [/quote]

There's a lot of Democrats who agree with Moulton.  The Democrats need to take a stance like Barry Goldwater did, when he said the zealots need to have a blanket thrown over them.  The Republicans didn't listen and from that, we got the Tea Party and now the MAGA cult, and the Democrats seem to be headed the same way if they can't get ahead of the progressives.  Democrats need to remember and remind themselves that the progressives are in fact a minority of Democrats, and that they do not have a mandate.  Along with reminding the progressives that their ideology and purity tests are what's putting lunatics and felons like Trump in office.[/quote]

[b]Maybe there are a lot of Democrats who agree with Moulton, but they are dead silent and are not supporting him.[/b] Meanwhile his campaign manager resigned immediately, which points to a structural issue — that is the move of someone who fears career consequences in the Democratic Party. I just don’t see any real pushback against the demands of the religious progressives at a structural level in the party.  [/quote]

We’re still here, we just became independents and voted for Trump. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics