Some not-super-organized thoughts: The question that isn’t often answered is what moderate/centrist voter actually means. They are not 50% or halfway there on each issue or split down the middle....
Exemplary
Some not-super-organized thoughts:
The question that isn’t often answered is what moderate/centrist voter actually means. They are not 50% or halfway there on each issue or split down the middle. Instead, they have highly syncretic (often contradictory) views, are apathetic on many issues, but are firm believers on a couple of pet issues. In my experience, it’s broadly correct they are socially moderate (often with a live-and-let-live or “leave me alone” streak) and fiscally moderate to liberal (frequently with idiosyncratic tendencies, like low taxes but universal Medicare). They don’t like politicians, are skeptical of “the system,” can be persuaded or dissuaded by a highly charismatic candidate, may not vote in every election, and like authenticity; they can sniff out a lab-grown candidate (even if they can’t pick one with genuine beliefs). These factors all make it hard to attract them, but they form a decent portion of the electorate.
Overlapping with (1), white working-class men are a tantalizing electoral demographic for a couple of reasons; (a) they previously formed a major backbone of the Democratic Party, (b) they represent 7-10% of the population, and (c) they are spread out more uniformly than other demos, offering the possibility of winning swing and lean-R states. White working-class voters have a white working-class culture. They aren’t reading Voltaire or Kendi in their spare time.
Polling and messaging are two ends of the same coin. I agree that you can message to swing an issue (cf going from overturning the NC bathroom ban in 2017 to trans issue today for a GOP angle), and the poll chasing isn’t going to magically get you voters back. But issues can be stickier, and more people now are aware of trans issues today versus eight years ago. I think we can partially message our way out on a lot (including on trans issues), but it may only work on certain topics, and when the tone of said messaging is tweaked for “average” middle class sensibilities.
Building off of (3), issue moderation is one that needs be worked carefully. I’ve said before that I don’t think you need to compromise much on trans issues (with the right messaging, I think you could get a median voter to agree to bathroom access and youth transitioning with parental consent. I agree it sucks for kids with non-supportive family, but better than the states with a flat out ban. I think sports might be a bit harder, but in some swing states you could get to a league by league basis). On abortion, safe, legal and rare is a good message that I think still has value, especially if you are running pro-life candidates in the South (and given the size of the old Dems for Life caucus, there’s at least a few seats there at the federal level). On guns, let’s just say I vote for Dems in spite of their positions on guns. This one would need a longer payoff (gun owners really don’t trust Dems on the issue at all), but current gun control proposals seem like old ones with new stuff tackled on, not understanding where the gun community has moved in the last 30 years (many hunters and target shooters have AR-15s now. It isn’t just tacticool weirdos) and not taking the chance to truly modernize things (I also think guns are a gateway issue to the GOP, but I can elaborate on that separately).
Related to (4), you’ll need different candidates for different states. @georgeboff made a good point about Maine and Maine political culture. The increased nationalization of politics makes this harder. If the six-figure consultants can’t figure out a way around that (in terms of emphasizing candidate independence from the party), then fire them. But ultimately, if you want control of the Senate, the House, governorships, and state legislatures, you need to run candidates in every state, at every level, for every position.
Continued from (5), the dearth of political talent and the seniority system Democrats employ has led to stagnation and to a hole that’s very deep. The GOP winner-take-all approach, for all its flaws, allows for younger talent to rise to the top.
For those who need it, here's a paywall bypass. I'm not saying I agree with everything stated here but it's an interesting argument about a party that has yet to find it's way following the...
I'm not saying I agree with everything stated here but it's an interesting argument about a party that has yet to find it's way following the disastrous 2024 election. I found this quote towards the end the most important
The party’s leaders think they have a problem with Trump voters. Some polling says white men without college degrees don’t like them, don’t trust them and won’t vote for them, so they think the only logical way forward is to pander. Their polling addiction ignores more complex political instruments telling them that the working class isn’t just white men and that centrism isn’t enough to bring white voters back into the fold.
I do agree strongly with the last line. The fixation on having to not just pander to but somehow "heal" white men as a political goal (rather than a healthy psychological one - which would require...
I do agree strongly with the last line. The fixation on having to not just pander to but somehow "heal" white men as a political goal (rather than a healthy psychological one - which would require said people to want healing generally) is bizarre to me given the data we have.
But also, the NYT was the one pushing an article that framed white non-college educated men in direct opposition to women with a college degree, showing their "gain" against the "loss" of those specific white men while not including any other men or how women without a degree have fared.
And I think that is intentionally not painting a full picture to sell that narrative of winners and losers. I guess I'm saying that if the NYT would like to stop selling the narrative, or at the very least paint a more honest, complete, picture, the centrist Dems that listen to them might be swayed. (And if the complete picture shows something other than what I think it would, I do still welcome/demand it.)
In my eyes they've had nothing but disaster elections since 2016. Even biden was basically a "fuck it we can't get it together" candidate. A good way forward might be "maybe don't catastrophically...
I'm not saying I agree with everything stated here but it's an interesting argument about a party that has yet to find it's way following the disastrous 2024 election.
In my eyes they've had nothing but disaster elections since 2016. Even biden was basically a "fuck it we can't get it together" candidate.
A good way forward might be "maybe don't catastrophically fuck up at every opportunity". As much as we can all argue about perfect strategies there's so much screaming in the face of what the dems have, and continue, to do. 2024's possible improvements start with "pick an actual fucking candidate before your ancient one has to drop out of the race"
I appreciate some of these messages for the national Democratic party - but I do think it's important to run a candidate that fits with the place they're running in. The article rightly points out...
I appreciate some of these messages for the national Democratic party - but I do think it's important to run a candidate that fits with the place they're running in. The article rightly points out that the working class nationwide is diverse and varied in their backgrounds, ages, ethnicity, and everything else.
But I live in Maine and that's where Platner is running. Maine is the whitest state in the country - roughly 95%, although there are certainly larger immigrant communities in Lewiston or Portland. It's also an incredibly rural state where people care a lot about things like guns and hunting at the same time as environmental preservation and small community support. I'm not saying that any of that should excuse a Nazi symbol tattoo that someone got in earnest or anything like that. It shouldn't mean that people should compromise on their values (like some commentators were suggesting after the election - "back away from trans folks" being one that I recall) just to try and win over conservative voters who aren't voting for your candidate anyway.
But I do think it's important to think of where your base is and where the moderate voters that you might swing to your side are. That will look different here than it will on the west coast or the south or anywhere else. And building a bigger tent nationally needs to engage as many people as possible everywhere. That might mean running candidates in the plains that are focusing on different things than people in Florida or Pennsylvania or California or Texas or here in Maine. There should be some core values that we don't want to compromise on but the nature of politics has to be to meet people where they are, wherever that may be. And here that might look like an ex military rough talking guy from coastal Maine.
One of the reasons Susan Collins has as big of a base as she does is because she's from northern Maine (Caribou as she often reminds us) and they support their own. This is an area Trump carried by 10 points. But Jared Golden is a moderate to conservative Democrat who represents my district which covers this same population. I don't agree with him on a number of things but he's someone who has ran 10+ points ahead of the national Democrats here. He wouldn't win if he was running in NYC.
I have no idea what to do as far as running someone for president or the like and I'll leave that to smarter people than me. But I do live here and have a very public focused job where I interact with lots of people of all stripes across this state. And they're not bad people, mostly. At least they don't think about themselves that way. It isn't going to be possible to bring everyone who's fallen down a Trump (or other right wing) hole. But I don't think it's impossible for small D democracy to bring enough back to make things better at the local and state and regional levels even as the federal government falls apart.
The terminally-online more-progressive-than-thou types calling him a Nazi tick me off so much. For one thing, the rise of the far-right around the world shows that branding somebody a "Nazi" (even...
The terminally-online more-progressive-than-thou types calling him a Nazi tick me off so much. For one thing, the rise of the far-right around the world shows that branding somebody a "Nazi" (even accurately!) is not the rhetorical killshot it should be. But more to the point, we have over a dozen years of his pre-politics internet comments to trawl through for evidence of his beliefs. And while I see a lot of edgy ex-military banter and disappointing but fairly normie levels of sexism/racism/homophobia, I do not see evidence of hateful bigotry or extremist white nationalism. If anything, he very clearly denounces Nazis, genocide, Trumpism, etc., while embracing more left-wing/anti-fascist philosophy. The idea of him being a dumb drunk twentysomething jarhead who got the tattoo because it looked cool and then either never realized the symbolism or (more likely) did but felt un-implicated because that's not why he got it feels far more likely given that history.
Now, that doesn't mean he has great judgment, is electable against Collins, or would make a good senator versus his primary opponents. But he's obviously not a Nazi, and insisting he is (and that anyone who doesn't automatically reject him is a Nazi, too) is self-defeatingly stupid when he has a double-digit lead among Maine Democrats right now.
This is the issue the democrats have backed themselves into. The over labeling of things as fascist (when there are other authoritarian or corrupt structures that probably better apply depending...
This is the issue the democrats have backed themselves into.
The over labeling of things as fascist (when there are other authoritarian or corrupt structures that probably better apply depending on the issue.) already has people desensitized to the entire discussion, but then when you have a candidate who has a literal nazi symbol on their body, and you've got huge portions of your base AND elected representation talking about dog whistles and actual nazi's in the leadership, what else can you do?
It's very possible this is exactly as you described and a "uhh didn't know" situation, but bluntly if this guy wasn't running for a major office and we just saw his face on twitter and the tattoo people would be calling for his head and saying "oh sure now he says he doesn't know". The only reason he's even being given the benefit of the doubt by a large % of these people is because he happens to be on their team.
I've seen people told they deserve to be put against the wall for liking Warhammer 40k since it's clearly fascist, but this guy gets a "well he didn't know" from the same crowd? And I want to be clear it's not just the terminally online, but the "tangentially involved" as well. I know many well meaning people who will spout off whatever the current talking point is (much as most people do), and it's hard to take them remotely seriously when they show just how little their actual position matters vs what they're told matters, as what happens when these stories come up.
Bluntly its insane to me that "literal nazi tattoo" isn't enough to disqualify and instead is just a discussion. As much as everyone likes to point out that the last 100 years of US politics and society was far from perfect, that's been a pretty big "your political career is fucking over" for most of that time, and I think it should be.
To be clear that's as someone who absolutely believes people can change, things can get better, and we need to understand and forgive more. This however is absolutely well within the territory of not even close to fucking worth risking it, and more importantly, it's important to send the message that yes this is not acceptable under any circumstances.
As it pertains to Platner, I see it differently. He has faced all of these accusations, issues, and allegations head on, and best I can tell, honestly and forthrightly. He had tattoo covered up...
As it pertains to Platner, I see it differently. He has faced all of these accusations, issues, and allegations head on, and best I can tell, honestly and forthrightly. He had tattoo covered up and has disavowed those beliefs.
Best case, he wins the democratic nomination, and then gets elected to the senate and we gain another progressive ally. If his opponent in the primary wins(I can't remember her name), it will almost certainly hand the election to Collins as she's just another octagenarian mealy mouthed liberal who thinks she can play boths sides. Worst case, Platner gets elected and he turns into Fetterman. What did we lose? Collins' seat should be an easy flip for anyone who actually wants to help the working class.
This is the whole problem in that it just goes to show how performative the vast majority of the democratic bases stances have been since 2016. You a cop or military? Must be a brown shirt...
This is the whole problem in that it just goes to show how performative the vast majority of the democratic bases stances have been since 2016.
You a cop or military? Must be a brown shirt fascist. Use the word retard? That's a slur and it's never ever ok, hope you're fired and un-hireable.
This guy however, since it might benefit, suddenly were all about getting to know him and realizing "gee he's really just a normal person trying to make the world better, maybe we shouldn't nuke his career".
I'm not saying you personally feel this way, but I see this behavior all the time, and now suddenly its "well intent matters" with him tapdancing on basically every 3rd rail they've built since around 2016.
I mean, in the case of Plattner, you can (like Jacobin did, posted elsewhere on here) take a look at his online record some years back, in addition to his Public stances on the campaign. Given...
I mean, in the case of Plattner, you can (like Jacobin did, posted elsewhere on here) take a look at his online record some years back, in addition to his Public stances on the campaign.
Given both of these (+ actually going to cover up the tattoo), the odds of dog whistle vs genuine mistake tilt very heavily towards one from the other.
Whereas if your public position is ideologically way closer to being a Nazi and your disavowal is "I swear I'm not a Nazi, that tattoo is entirely innocent" and/or you keep aforementioned tattoo, like say some secretary of something, that obviously merits a different interpretation.
Basically, I feel like you are trying to accuse at least some slice of libs/leftists of hypocrisy to a degree that isn't actually aligned with facts.
Some not-super-organized thoughts:
Whew that was a lot. Sorry it turned into a wall.
For those who need it, here's a paywall bypass.
I'm not saying I agree with everything stated here but it's an interesting argument about a party that has yet to find it's way following the disastrous 2024 election. I found this quote towards the end the most important
I do agree strongly with the last line. The fixation on having to not just pander to but somehow "heal" white men as a political goal (rather than a healthy psychological one - which would require said people to want healing generally) is bizarre to me given the data we have.
But also, the NYT was the one pushing an article that framed white non-college educated men in direct opposition to women with a college degree, showing their "gain" against the "loss" of those specific white men while not including any other men or how women without a degree have fared.
And I think that is intentionally not painting a full picture to sell that narrative of winners and losers. I guess I'm saying that if the NYT would like to stop selling the narrative, or at the very least paint a more honest, complete, picture, the centrist Dems that listen to them might be swayed. (And if the complete picture shows something other than what I think it would, I do still welcome/demand it.)
In my eyes they've had nothing but disaster elections since 2016. Even biden was basically a "fuck it we can't get it together" candidate.
A good way forward might be "maybe don't catastrophically fuck up at every opportunity". As much as we can all argue about perfect strategies there's so much screaming in the face of what the dems have, and continue, to do. 2024's possible improvements start with "pick an actual fucking candidate before your ancient one has to drop out of the race"
I appreciate some of these messages for the national Democratic party - but I do think it's important to run a candidate that fits with the place they're running in. The article rightly points out that the working class nationwide is diverse and varied in their backgrounds, ages, ethnicity, and everything else.
But I live in Maine and that's where Platner is running. Maine is the whitest state in the country - roughly 95%, although there are certainly larger immigrant communities in Lewiston or Portland. It's also an incredibly rural state where people care a lot about things like guns and hunting at the same time as environmental preservation and small community support. I'm not saying that any of that should excuse a Nazi symbol tattoo that someone got in earnest or anything like that. It shouldn't mean that people should compromise on their values (like some commentators were suggesting after the election - "back away from trans folks" being one that I recall) just to try and win over conservative voters who aren't voting for your candidate anyway.
But I do think it's important to think of where your base is and where the moderate voters that you might swing to your side are. That will look different here than it will on the west coast or the south or anywhere else. And building a bigger tent nationally needs to engage as many people as possible everywhere. That might mean running candidates in the plains that are focusing on different things than people in Florida or Pennsylvania or California or Texas or here in Maine. There should be some core values that we don't want to compromise on but the nature of politics has to be to meet people where they are, wherever that may be. And here that might look like an ex military rough talking guy from coastal Maine.
One of the reasons Susan Collins has as big of a base as she does is because she's from northern Maine (Caribou as she often reminds us) and they support their own. This is an area Trump carried by 10 points. But Jared Golden is a moderate to conservative Democrat who represents my district which covers this same population. I don't agree with him on a number of things but he's someone who has ran 10+ points ahead of the national Democrats here. He wouldn't win if he was running in NYC.
I have no idea what to do as far as running someone for president or the like and I'll leave that to smarter people than me. But I do live here and have a very public focused job where I interact with lots of people of all stripes across this state. And they're not bad people, mostly. At least they don't think about themselves that way. It isn't going to be possible to bring everyone who's fallen down a Trump (or other right wing) hole. But I don't think it's impossible for small D democracy to bring enough back to make things better at the local and state and regional levels even as the federal government falls apart.
The terminally-online more-progressive-than-thou types calling him a Nazi tick me off so much. For one thing, the rise of the far-right around the world shows that branding somebody a "Nazi" (even accurately!) is not the rhetorical killshot it should be. But more to the point, we have over a dozen years of his pre-politics internet comments to trawl through for evidence of his beliefs. And while I see a lot of edgy ex-military banter and disappointing but fairly normie levels of sexism/racism/homophobia, I do not see evidence of hateful bigotry or extremist white nationalism. If anything, he very clearly denounces Nazis, genocide, Trumpism, etc., while embracing more left-wing/anti-fascist philosophy. The idea of him being a dumb drunk twentysomething jarhead who got the tattoo because it looked cool and then either never realized the symbolism or (more likely) did but felt un-implicated because that's not why he got it feels far more likely given that history.
Now, that doesn't mean he has great judgment, is electable against Collins, or would make a good senator versus his primary opponents. But he's obviously not a Nazi, and insisting he is (and that anyone who doesn't automatically reject him is a Nazi, too) is self-defeatingly stupid when he has a double-digit lead among Maine Democrats right now.
This is the issue the democrats have backed themselves into.
The over labeling of things as fascist (when there are other authoritarian or corrupt structures that probably better apply depending on the issue.) already has people desensitized to the entire discussion, but then when you have a candidate who has a literal nazi symbol on their body, and you've got huge portions of your base AND elected representation talking about dog whistles and actual nazi's in the leadership, what else can you do?
It's very possible this is exactly as you described and a "uhh didn't know" situation, but bluntly if this guy wasn't running for a major office and we just saw his face on twitter and the tattoo people would be calling for his head and saying "oh sure now he says he doesn't know". The only reason he's even being given the benefit of the doubt by a large % of these people is because he happens to be on their team.
I've seen people told they deserve to be put against the wall for liking Warhammer 40k since it's clearly fascist, but this guy gets a "well he didn't know" from the same crowd? And I want to be clear it's not just the terminally online, but the "tangentially involved" as well. I know many well meaning people who will spout off whatever the current talking point is (much as most people do), and it's hard to take them remotely seriously when they show just how little their actual position matters vs what they're told matters, as what happens when these stories come up.
Bluntly its insane to me that "literal nazi tattoo" isn't enough to disqualify and instead is just a discussion. As much as everyone likes to point out that the last 100 years of US politics and society was far from perfect, that's been a pretty big "your political career is fucking over" for most of that time, and I think it should be.
To be clear that's as someone who absolutely believes people can change, things can get better, and we need to understand and forgive more. This however is absolutely well within the territory of not even close to fucking worth risking it, and more importantly, it's important to send the message that yes this is not acceptable under any circumstances.
As it pertains to Platner, I see it differently. He has faced all of these accusations, issues, and allegations head on, and best I can tell, honestly and forthrightly. He had tattoo covered up and has disavowed those beliefs.
Best case, he wins the democratic nomination, and then gets elected to the senate and we gain another progressive ally. If his opponent in the primary wins(I can't remember her name), it will almost certainly hand the election to Collins as she's just another octagenarian mealy mouthed liberal who thinks she can play boths sides. Worst case, Platner gets elected and he turns into Fetterman. What did we lose? Collins' seat should be an easy flip for anyone who actually wants to help the working class.
This is the whole problem in that it just goes to show how performative the vast majority of the democratic bases stances have been since 2016.
You a cop or military? Must be a brown shirt fascist. Use the word retard? That's a slur and it's never ever ok, hope you're fired and un-hireable.
This guy however, since it might benefit, suddenly were all about getting to know him and realizing "gee he's really just a normal person trying to make the world better, maybe we shouldn't nuke his career".
I'm not saying you personally feel this way, but I see this behavior all the time, and now suddenly its "well intent matters" with him tapdancing on basically every 3rd rail they've built since around 2016.
I mean, in the case of Plattner, you can (like Jacobin did, posted elsewhere on here) take a look at his online record some years back, in addition to his Public stances on the campaign.
Given both of these (+ actually going to cover up the tattoo), the odds of dog whistle vs genuine mistake tilt very heavily towards one from the other.
Whereas if your public position is ideologically way closer to being a Nazi and your disavowal is "I swear I'm not a Nazi, that tattoo is entirely innocent" and/or you keep aforementioned tattoo, like say some secretary of something, that obviously merits a different interpretation.
Basically, I feel like you are trying to accuse at least some slice of libs/leftists of hypocrisy to a degree that isn't actually aligned with facts.