Send Us Hatemail ! mailbag@conservativecave.com
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Star Member BainsBane (38,525 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512654423A word of advice about controlling the Democratic Party messageTo all of you who feel you know what the Democratic Party message should be, You believe you're right about what a winning political message is. Maybe you're right. The way to find out is for you to run for office using that message. Because, believe it or not, the Democratic Party isn't coming to DU to read about what the next campaign should be based on. That is for individual candidates to decide, and elections reveal the relative success of those messages. So if you truly believe you have the answer, run for office. You could get every last DUer to agree on your OP and it would affect nothing. The only way for you to control the message is to deliver it to voters yourself.
Star Member BainsBane (38,525 posts) 2. A number of people seem to confuse positions or messagewith what the media chooses to cover. They are not the same.
Star Member BainsBane (38,525 posts) 6. Unfortunately for manyCampaigns, or at leat the Democrats general election campaigns, don't exist apart from television. It's amazing how many still refuse to look at what Clinton actually proposed, despite claiming expertise about what she should have run on.
Star Member BainsBane (38,525 posts) 5. Hillary Clinton won voters earning under $50kAnd had her widest margin with voters earning under $30k. Trump won incomes over $75 k. And as much as you might like to pretend the Klan, neo-Nazis and White Supremacists in the White House aren't racist, don't matter, or can be explained away by your obsession with Bill Clinton, the evidence doesn't support your claims. Tell me how exactly I control the party? Really, I would like to know how I amassed such massive power? My income doesn't rise to the level of the average Trump voter, though it would be nice if it did. I don't live in the suburbs or exurbs. It is true that I am a woman and survivor of sexual assault who believes that rape is wrong and that a sexual assailant doesn't belong in the White House. I don't make excuses for hate crimes and the Klan, and if that makes me your enemy, I am proud to assume that mantle. I am simply one of the inferior people that your Trump voting heroes demanded have my rights stripped away so they could make America Great again. You had an opportunity in the GE to work toward overturning those Supreme Court decisions turning elections over to big money, but you decided the scourge of white supremacists being called racist was a more serious problem. You now have a fascist about to enter the White House, and several times a day one of those non-racist Trump voters attacks or beats a woman of color in Trump's name. My post was not about your obsession with the 90s or outrage that a Hillary Clinton won the nomination by 3.8 million votes. Its purpose was exactly as I said. If people believe they have the answers, they should run on that message. This site does not determine the future of the party or anything else. I'm sorry you so resent voters like me and that you see the marginalized as part of a cabal against the oppressed, middle and upper-middle class white men that decided this election. All you despised was defeated. The Clintons are finished. The nefarious civil rights-concerned Democrats have been soundly defeated. America is great again. You really have no reason to be angry at me, other than you can't accept the fact I have the right to exercise a vote, because one vote is the extent of my power. Clearly you don't sit down with those you disagree with. You can't even read a post without unleashing venom, projecting all kinds of views onto strangers who you don't respect enough to even ask how they see the issues you ascribe to them. You do not now and will never have any idea what I believe because you view the entire world through your prism of resentment. I can't do anything about your animosity toward Democratic voters. All I can do is continue to exercise my right to vote as long as I still have it, and it is precisely that which so enrages you.
Star Member BainsBane (38,525 posts) 13. I didn't mention Sanders or his supportersThe Democrats in general support Civil Rights and diversity. I made that reference because of your claim that we somehow unjustly accused white male Trump voters of being racist. Trump ran on racism. It was central to his campaign. Voters affirmed that view of America when they voted for him. Your projection is off the charts. It's impossible to have a discussion when you project crap onto me that I never said. You should take your obsession with the primaries and the 1990s to someone who wants to have that discussion.
Star Member BainsBane (38,525 posts) 14. Yes, I wasand I agree in a general sense, though I think it more important for political representatives to do than individual voters. Part of the problem with the increasing polarization of politics is that it is related to location. The range of political views of people who live near me run from Democrat to Green. I have some Republican in-laws who don't live in the city, but my sister insists quite vehemently that we don't discuss politics at family gatherings. I do have a friend who is an old-school Republican, but he voted for Clinton in the general election. It surprised me, but he said he would have voted for any Republican other than Trump or Cruz over Clinton, but of course the party base doesn't give him that option. So I do discuss politics with him. That's how I know that Obama is despised in the financial sector, despite claims by some here that he is their bestie. They clearly do not see it that way.
Star Member bravenak (31,809 posts) 17. But that's the thing, isn't it?To get a message across to millions you really do have to either have some celebrity status, be a part of an 'established' political party, or have so much ****ing charisma that people have to hear you. People around here try to make it seem super easy and they truly believe that everybody wants to do things exactly the way they want to but they are wrong. What you are dealing with is that more peopke within the party like the party than want to break it down and remold it into the image of their particular marxist fanfiction they enjoy. But life does not work like that. People have to be convinced. Better to run and get ideas out there. Even Bernie could not run without the establishment giving him the stryctures to use to try to make a go of it. Without the democratic party to use for resources, no way he would have made it far enough to be heard at this point in time.
Star Member BainsBane (38,525 posts) 22. I understand there are all kinds of obstacles to runningbut it's not necessarily the party apparatus. For many local races, the key contest is within Democrats or Republicans. For example, in a state senate district near me, Ilhan Omar won the primary against a very long-serving Democratic State House member. While the national media didn't pay attention until the GE, it was that primary that determined her election. Many other local offices are unaffiliated: School board, water commission, etc... Party has nothing to do with those races. While Trump's first foray into politics was the presidency, most people start at the local level. Part of what bugs me is that people imagine that compelling DUers to adopt their assessment of the election or their particular messaging is that it is based on the absurdity that doing so actually matters. This is a website, not the Democratic Party. As much as some are determined to get, for example, Clinton supporters to pronounce their own primary candidate superior, it is absolutely irrelevant to anything. "We" are not the party. "The Party" doesn't look to DU to decide what to run on. Moreover, if the party is to be competitive nationally it cannot be the monolith that the demands for agreement on messaging seek to enforce. Politicians need to be able to respond to the concerns of their local constituents. What that means in my city of Minneapolis is quite different from a community in rural Texas or Georgia, for example. I have seen Democrats in such districts maligned and, in the case of Mary Landrieu, their loss celebrated. That celebration, as should have been obvious to anyone with the slightest understanding of politics, was really for the GOP picking up a Senate seat and increasing their overall control over government. But the fact is some will always see the Democratic Party as the enemy. One quite wealthy former DUer celebrated Landrieu's defeat and swore he would never vote for Clinton. He preferred Republicans gain control, and he got his wish. So it's not that I think the current Democratic Party is ideal. Rather, I don't see it as the enemy. For those who reap advantages under GOP rule, they can afford to look down on Democrats that don't meet their standards. Then they can sit back while their taxes go down and enjoy seeing the women, or others, they so resent have their rights stripped away. I have seen people justify any number of right-wing positions under the guise of progressivism. The election defeat hasn't changed anyone's views. It's simply served as an opportunity to advance their preexisting agenda. That is why we see the ones who insist the party isn't "progressive" enough for them refuse to engage with questions about exit poll data or the defeat of politicians they do approve of (Feingold and Teachout, for example). Part of what is so frustrating is that the proclamation of being sufficiently "progressive" appears to have no ideological consistency and relates more to the long-decided primary fight than any set of policies. It is far too much about the politics of personality. The admiration of Tulsi Gabbard is a key example. Some don't even want to know her position on issues. That she picked the right guy in the primary is all they care about. I find that very difficult to respect. "We" decide what we want through our votes. And as much as people here resent the fact that others exercise their right to vote in ways that differ from their own, they can damn well deal with it. They get one vote, just like everyone else, regardless of how superior they may feel.
Star Member BainsBane (38,525 posts)5. Hillary Clinton won voters earning under $50kAnd had her widest margin with voters earning under $30k. Trump won incomes over $75 k. And as much as you might like to pretend the Klan, neo-Nazis and White Supremacists in the White House aren't racist, don't matter, or can be explained away by your obsession with Bill Clinton, the evidence doesn't support your claims.
