https://archive.is/0mPP1 An interesting tidbit That’s insane. 2.7 points is an insane amount of movement. I think the Democratic Party is going to have to shift to the right on a lot of social...
About a week after the September debate, Mr. Trump started spending heavily on a television ad that hammered Ms. Harris for her position on a seemingly obscure topic: the use of taxpayer funds to fund surgeries for transgender inmates. “Every transgender inmate in the prison system would have access,” Ms. Harris said in a 2019 clip used in the ad.
It was a big bet: Mr. Trump was leading on the two most salient issues in the race — the economy and immigration — yet here he was, intentionally changing the subject.
But the ad, with its vivid tagline — “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you” — broke through in Mr. Trump’s testing to an extent that stunned some of his aides.
So they poured still more money into the ads, running them during football games, which prompted Charlamagne Tha God, the host of the Breakfast Club, a popular show among Black listeners, to express exasperation — and his on-air complaints gave the Trump team fodder for yet another commercial. The Charlamagne ad ranked as one of the Trump team’s most effective 30-second spots, according to an analysis by Future Forward, Ms. Harris’s leading super PAC. It shifted the race 2.7 percentage points in Mr. Trump’s favor after viewers watched it.
That’s insane. 2.7 points is an insane amount of movement.
I think the Democratic Party is going to have to shift to the right on a lot of social issues that just are deeply unpopular with the us public, and it’s going to be a bitter pill to swallow when it happens.
To me, the people that care about social policies are going to be on average more informed than those who don't care about social policies. Because of this, maybe it's a good idea for future...
To me, the people that care about social policies are going to be on average more informed than those who don't care about social policies. Because of this, maybe it's a good idea for future democratic candidates to mention nothing about social policy on TV and save it for their website and other interviews, where the people who do care will find it and the people who don't care won't think there's some sort of "culture war" or "race replacement" or "dei" or whatever the fuck they always whine about. To me, this election highlighted how uninformed the average american voter is, and to me that means that any progressive platforms need to be dumbed down, too.
Also, the first time I had to sit through the "Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you" commercial, I think I kind of knew we were fucked. I'm almost not surprised at how many points the campaign swung from that and other ads, the line admittedly goes hard even though I fucking hate it. It turns out your average voter wants slogans and buzz words instead of policy.
I'm with @nukeman - I don't think the DNC's problem is their actual positioning on social issues, it's that their messaging is abysmal. Some Americans are opposed to transgender rights enough to...
I'm with @nukeman - I don't think the DNC's problem is their actual positioning on social issues, it's that their messaging is abysmal.
Some Americans are opposed to transgender rights enough to have it affect their vote. For sure. But I am certain that the vast majority of Americans, even those actively opposed to transgender rights, don't really care enough about it to have it be a major component of how they vote, in and of itself.
However: what all of these people are massively susceptible to is the message contained in that ad - that the democratic party cares more about 'them' - any them - than they care about you. Whether it be illegal immigrants or transgender folks, the danger isn't the actual support so much as the notion that they are coming first, before the rest of the voting public. This is just a twist on the same thing that we saw in 2016, in which it was the notion that the democrats cared more about elites than steelworkers that cost Ms Clinton the election.
The Times argues that the ads were successful in casting VP Harris as dangerously liberal. I completely disagree. They were successful in casting her as out of touch and unconcerned with the average voter.
The DNC needs to figure out how to neutralize this sort of attack ad more than they need to change their actual policy positions.
Democrats do not have the massive propaganda outlets that the Republicans have. The Republicans have monopolized most of the available platforms - television, AM & FM radio, Sirius radio, twitter,...
Democrats do not have the massive propaganda outlets that the Republicans have. The Republicans have monopolized most of the available platforms - television, AM & FM radio, Sirius radio, twitter, many newspapers, and whatever else I have missed. Talk radio on Sirius and some other radio stations is insanely toxic.
This is essentially a media problem and we need to figure out to combat that or our message will never even be seen or heard.
Holy shit what a tagline. Laying out both the "fuck your pronouns" sentiment and the fear of the out-group "those people, them, the others". I don't know what word to use for this emotion. It's...
But the ad, with its vivid tagline — “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you”
Holy shit what a tagline. Laying out both the "fuck your pronouns" sentiment and the fear of the out-group "those people, them, the others". I don't know what word to use for this emotion. It's awestruck but with horror and not delight.
The eternal revolution against an amorphous and shifting enemy is one of the hallmarks of totalitarian governments. It is also a specific and common manifestation of fascist movements.
The eternal revolution against an amorphous and shifting enemy is one of the hallmarks of totalitarian governments. It is also a specific and common manifestation of fascist movements.
The United States’ obsession with genitals and sexual reproduction organs and everything that is entitled to them, is another uniquely “American” thing. Why does it matter ? For a place that...
The United States’ obsession with genitals and sexual reproduction organs and everything that is entitled to them, is another uniquely “American” thing. Why does it matter ? For a place that believes in individual rights, we sure do police where people can piss or how they can pleasure themselves (I’m looking at you, porn bans!)
I’m no sociologist but I think it comes back to the same religious roots that somehow make topless women more taboo and unacceptable to broadcast than gore and violence. It’s seriously warped the...
I’m no sociologist but I think it comes back to the same religious roots that somehow make topless women more taboo and unacceptable to broadcast than gore and violence. It’s seriously warped the public psyche.
I don’t even think they have to shift right per se, but moving toward a “live and let live” would almost certainly help, although if they can’t keep the social activists away from the party that...
I don’t even think they have to shift right per se, but moving toward a “live and let live” would almost certainly help, although if they can’t keep the social activists away from the party that will cause problems.
it doesn't feel good to be part of the group it's increasingly politically toxic to show any kind of support for, that's for sure. i wonder where that could be going
it doesn't feel good to be part of the group it's increasingly politically toxic to show any kind of support for, that's for sure. i wonder where that could be going
I'm not trans, but my immediate reaction to the idea that the democratic party abandon any LGBT rights is that I'd much rather leave the country than support them.
I'm not trans, but my immediate reaction to the idea that the democratic party abandon any LGBT rights is that I'd much rather leave the country than support them.
We need to continue to push our elected officials not to take those stances publically and often, and then we need to make sure we vote for candidates who vocally support human rights for all, or...
We need to continue to push our elected officials not to take those stances publically and often, and then we need to make sure we vote for candidates who vocally support human rights for all, or run for something ourselves.
Right now I only vote for them because they aren't as bad on those topics. The more vulnerable people they hang out to dry, the less likely I am to hold my nose. I wonder how many other people...
Right now I only vote for them because they aren't as bad on those topics. The more vulnerable people they hang out to dry, the less likely I am to hold my nose. I wonder how many other people feel the same way.
Who would you vote for then? No one? Third party? If more people voted their conscience rather than the lesser of two evils we would most likely have third party candidates with a legitimate...
Who would you vote for then? No one? Third party?
If more people voted their conscience rather than the lesser of two evils we would most likely have third party candidates with a legitimate chance of winning
I would vote for no one. Maybe third party down ballot, if someone I like runs, but not for the presidency. I think the whole system needs to be rebuilt anyway, my votes are typically for harm...
I would vote for no one. Maybe third party down ballot, if someone I like runs, but not for the presidency. I think the whole system needs to be rebuilt anyway, my votes are typically for harm reduction. If they're not even going to accomplish that, I'll skip the trouble.
I feel the same way, but this time around there was definitely one obvious candidate who wants to hurt people on purpose. I didn’t vote in 2016 for the reasons you stated. Back then, we didn’t...
I feel the same way, but this time around there was definitely one obvious candidate who wants to hurt people on purpose.
I didn’t vote in 2016 for the reasons you stated. Back then, we didn’t know what Trump would do. Now we know he will hurt people on purpose.
I honestly think they need to stop "going high" and start playing dirty. They are like a kid on the playground letting bullies push them around and trying to argue logical facts in retort.
I honestly think they need to stop "going high" and start playing dirty. They are like a kid on the playground letting bullies push them around and trying to argue logical facts in retort.
I agree, and they can do that without abandoning marginalized groups. When they have an ad like the one OP discusses, you respond with "Donald Trump spends way too much time thinking about the...
I agree, and they can do that without abandoning marginalized groups. When they have an ad like the one OP discusses, you respond with "Donald Trump spends way too much time thinking about the genitals of people who want nothing to do with him. What a little creep."
Cards against humanity published all those pics with him and Jeff Epstein, etc. Apparently he used to go to P. Diddy's parties too. They could lean into the predator angle so hard if they wanted to.
Cards against humanity published all those pics with him and Jeff Epstein, etc. Apparently he used to go to P. Diddy's parties too. They could lean into the predator angle so hard if they wanted to.
And they absolutely should! It can't just be cards against humanity, though, it has to be the actual campaign for the actual candidate. They can't let late night talk show hosts take all the heat...
And they absolutely should! It can't just be cards against humanity, though, it has to be the actual campaign for the actual candidate. They can't let late night talk show hosts take all the heat for them. They need to show that they can be real and unvarnished too.
Yes. Being "right", having the "moral ground", means nothing if you're right and moral on the sidelines. How often, really, is worthy and fair for a candidate to get up and demand his or her...
Democratic Party is going to have to shift to the right on a lot of social issues that just are deeply unpopular
Yes.
Being "right", having the "moral ground", means nothing if you're right and moral on the sidelines.
How often, really, is worthy and fair for a candidate to get up and demand his or her entire society change? To declare his or her entire society is wrong and should listen even if the candidate's position is unpopular? Sometimes historic issues do come along, and it does matter that someone stood against an entire society and demanded they change.
But lately, especially in the past twenty years, everyone with a social want, all the people demanding everyone else in society has to shift to their view, feels their issue is historically important. Sure, to them. But to everyone? Does it really matter to everyone, including every voter?
Worse, and far more important, how many voters are going to use that issue as the reason they won't support a candidate? That's what happens with divisive issues. When something's controversial, they feel strongly. For or against. How many feel each way? We're counting votes, not morals. Votes dictate power, and power determines whose morals can be implemented.
If five percent of voters consider something their Single Most Important Issue, that's five percent. Is five percent worth upsetting twenty percent of the other voters enough that they vote against you? What about thirty? Fifty? Sixty-five? Where's the line?
I say the line's where it costs you more than gain. If five percent say "this is my red line if you want my vote" and six percent say "if you support this, don't count on my vote" ... you pick the six. Or you have a serious, extremely cautious and considered reason for not doing so.
Because like it or not, no matter what you feel about it, how many voters can you just ignore and still win? How many issues can you play "no, this is more important than your objection" over and still defeat your opponent? The reason to tell those voters "piss off you're wrong" should be extraordinary.
And if you lose, if you don't get the votes, you're on the sidelines so your principled stance means nothing. You have no opportunity to be an ally, to offer support, to do anything at all helpful. You lost, so you're powerless, and that's that.
Look at what those vaunted swing voters say is important. Listen. Not to the base, to them. If most swing voters don't care about something, you shouldn't either. Unless you don't mind losing. If those swings want something, you probably should too.
Dems and the Left need to stop teeing up softball pitches for the Right to smash so hard swing voters don't just watch admiringly, but come closer and vote for that home run.
Which people and social wants are you referring to here?
everyone with a social want, all the people demanding everyone else in society has to shift to their view, feels their issue is historically important.
Which people and social wants are you referring to here?
There is no scenario in which that's the best move. While there is certainly a contingent of the US population that loathes queer people and will always vote against them, there is also a...
There is no scenario in which that's the best move. While there is certainly a contingent of the US population that loathes queer people and will always vote against them, there is also a significant contingent that will always support them. The democratic party can't appeal more effectively to the former than the right can, and would lose the latter by trying.
But even if the democrats pledged to turn the entire budget towards building a hell and sending all queer people there, it still wouldn't help because the right is not acting in good faith. Queerness has nothing to do with the problems facing the typical US citizen, that's a narrative manufactured by the right. If it stops being effective, they'll make up a new one.
I'm not so sure this is true. From what I've seen, Harris did better in swing states relative to the rightward shift seen everywhere else, i.e. in the states where a) these ads were playing and b)...
It shifted the race 2.7 percentage points in Mr. Trump’s favor after viewers watched it.
I'm not so sure this is true.
From what I've seen, Harris did better in swing states relative to the rightward shift seen everywhere else, i.e. in the states where a) these ads were playing and b) she was campaigning she didn't do as poorly.
Not to say this didn't hurt them, it probably did. But there are a lot of variables to unpack here. Personally, the rightward shift among most demographic cohorts tells me it's probably mostly related to something pretty foundational like affordability.
Disrespectfully, we're at least partially in this situation due to terrible media outlets like the New York Times.
https://archive.is/0mPP1
An interesting tidbit
That’s insane. 2.7 points is an insane amount of movement.
I think the Democratic Party is going to have to shift to the right on a lot of social issues that just are deeply unpopular with the us public, and it’s going to be a bitter pill to swallow when it happens.
To me, the people that care about social policies are going to be on average more informed than those who don't care about social policies. Because of this, maybe it's a good idea for future democratic candidates to mention nothing about social policy on TV and save it for their website and other interviews, where the people who do care will find it and the people who don't care won't think there's some sort of "culture war" or "race replacement" or "dei" or whatever the fuck they always whine about. To me, this election highlighted how uninformed the average american voter is, and to me that means that any progressive platforms need to be dumbed down, too.
Also, the first time I had to sit through the "Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you" commercial, I think I kind of knew we were fucked. I'm almost not surprised at how many points the campaign swung from that and other ads, the line admittedly goes hard even though I fucking hate it. It turns out your average voter wants slogans and buzz words instead of policy.
I'm with @nukeman - I don't think the DNC's problem is their actual positioning on social issues, it's that their messaging is abysmal.
Some Americans are opposed to transgender rights enough to have it affect their vote. For sure. But I am certain that the vast majority of Americans, even those actively opposed to transgender rights, don't really care enough about it to have it be a major component of how they vote, in and of itself.
However: what all of these people are massively susceptible to is the message contained in that ad - that the democratic party cares more about 'them' - any them - than they care about you. Whether it be illegal immigrants or transgender folks, the danger isn't the actual support so much as the notion that they are coming first, before the rest of the voting public. This is just a twist on the same thing that we saw in 2016, in which it was the notion that the democrats cared more about elites than steelworkers that cost Ms Clinton the election.
The Times argues that the ads were successful in casting VP Harris as dangerously liberal. I completely disagree. They were successful in casting her as out of touch and unconcerned with the average voter.
The DNC needs to figure out how to neutralize this sort of attack ad more than they need to change their actual policy positions.
Democrats do not have the massive propaganda outlets that the Republicans have. The Republicans have monopolized most of the available platforms - television, AM & FM radio, Sirius radio, twitter, many newspapers, and whatever else I have missed. Talk radio on Sirius and some other radio stations is insanely toxic.
This is essentially a media problem and we need to figure out to combat that or our message will never even be seen or heard.
Holy shit what a tagline. Laying out both the "fuck your pronouns" sentiment and the fear of the out-group "those people, them, the others". I don't know what word to use for this emotion. It's awestruck but with horror and not delight.
Its the same emotion I got when I first watched the death star blow up a planet.
The eternal revolution against an amorphous and shifting enemy is one of the hallmarks of totalitarian governments. It is also a specific and common manifestation of fascist movements.
The United States’ obsession with genitals and sexual reproduction organs and everything that is entitled to them, is another uniquely “American” thing. Why does it matter ? For a place that believes in individual rights, we sure do police where people can piss or how they can pleasure themselves (I’m looking at you, porn bans!)
I’m no sociologist but I think it comes back to the same religious roots that somehow make topless women more taboo and unacceptable to broadcast than gore and violence. It’s seriously warped the public psyche.
I wouldn't say it's uniquely American. The UK is having its own issues, just to name one example.
How is it at all uniquely American?
I don’t even think they have to shift right per se, but moving toward a “live and let live” would almost certainly help, although if they can’t keep the social activists away from the party that will cause problems.
it doesn't feel good to be part of the group it's increasingly politically toxic to show any kind of support for, that's for sure. i wonder where that could be going
I'm not trans, but my immediate reaction to the idea that the democratic party abandon any LGBT rights is that I'd much rather leave the country than support them.
We need to continue to push our elected officials not to take those stances publically and often, and then we need to make sure we vote for candidates who vocally support human rights for all, or run for something ourselves.
Right now I only vote for them because they aren't as bad on those topics. The more vulnerable people they hang out to dry, the less likely I am to hold my nose. I wonder how many other people feel the same way.
Who would you vote for then? No one? Third party?
If more people voted their conscience rather than the lesser of two evils we would most likely have third party candidates with a legitimate chance of winning
I would vote for no one. Maybe third party down ballot, if someone I like runs, but not for the presidency. I think the whole system needs to be rebuilt anyway, my votes are typically for harm reduction. If they're not even going to accomplish that, I'll skip the trouble.
I feel the same way, but this time around there was definitely one obvious candidate who wants to hurt people on purpose.
I didn’t vote in 2016 for the reasons you stated. Back then, we didn’t know what Trump would do. Now we know he will hurt people on purpose.
I honestly think they need to stop "going high" and start playing dirty. They are like a kid on the playground letting bullies push them around and trying to argue logical facts in retort.
I agree, and they can do that without abandoning marginalized groups. When they have an ad like the one OP discusses, you respond with "Donald Trump spends way too much time thinking about the genitals of people who want nothing to do with him. What a little creep."
Cards against humanity published all those pics with him and Jeff Epstein, etc. Apparently he used to go to P. Diddy's parties too. They could lean into the predator angle so hard if they wanted to.
And they absolutely should! It can't just be cards against humanity, though, it has to be the actual campaign for the actual candidate. They can't let late night talk show hosts take all the heat for them. They need to show that they can be real and unvarnished too.
Yeah 'they' meaning the campaign went so soft, and the reach of those who went hard only went to echo chambers.
Yes.
Being "right", having the "moral ground", means nothing if you're right and moral on the sidelines.
How often, really, is worthy and fair for a candidate to get up and demand his or her entire society change? To declare his or her entire society is wrong and should listen even if the candidate's position is unpopular? Sometimes historic issues do come along, and it does matter that someone stood against an entire society and demanded they change.
But lately, especially in the past twenty years, everyone with a social want, all the people demanding everyone else in society has to shift to their view, feels their issue is historically important. Sure, to them. But to everyone? Does it really matter to everyone, including every voter?
Worse, and far more important, how many voters are going to use that issue as the reason they won't support a candidate? That's what happens with divisive issues. When something's controversial, they feel strongly. For or against. How many feel each way? We're counting votes, not morals. Votes dictate power, and power determines whose morals can be implemented.
If five percent of voters consider something their Single Most Important Issue, that's five percent. Is five percent worth upsetting twenty percent of the other voters enough that they vote against you? What about thirty? Fifty? Sixty-five? Where's the line?
I say the line's where it costs you more than gain. If five percent say "this is my red line if you want my vote" and six percent say "if you support this, don't count on my vote" ... you pick the six. Or you have a serious, extremely cautious and considered reason for not doing so.
Because like it or not, no matter what you feel about it, how many voters can you just ignore and still win? How many issues can you play "no, this is more important than your objection" over and still defeat your opponent? The reason to tell those voters "piss off you're wrong" should be extraordinary.
And if you lose, if you don't get the votes, you're on the sidelines so your principled stance means nothing. You have no opportunity to be an ally, to offer support, to do anything at all helpful. You lost, so you're powerless, and that's that.
Look at what those vaunted swing voters say is important. Listen. Not to the base, to them. If most swing voters don't care about something, you shouldn't either. Unless you don't mind losing. If those swings want something, you probably should too.
Dems and the Left need to stop teeing up softball pitches for the Right to smash so hard swing voters don't just watch admiringly, but come closer and vote for that home run.
Which people and social wants are you referring to here?
There is no scenario in which that's the best move. While there is certainly a contingent of the US population that loathes queer people and will always vote against them, there is also a significant contingent that will always support them. The democratic party can't appeal more effectively to the former than the right can, and would lose the latter by trying.
But even if the democrats pledged to turn the entire budget towards building a hell and sending all queer people there, it still wouldn't help because the right is not acting in good faith. Queerness has nothing to do with the problems facing the typical US citizen, that's a narrative manufactured by the right. If it stops being effective, they'll make up a new one.
I'm not so sure this is true.
From what I've seen, Harris did better in swing states relative to the rightward shift seen everywhere else, i.e. in the states where a) these ads were playing and b) she was campaigning she didn't do as poorly.
Not to say this didn't hurt them, it probably did. But there are a lot of variables to unpack here. Personally, the rightward shift among most demographic cohorts tells me it's probably mostly related to something pretty foundational like affordability.