NY Times - Democrats Biggest Weakness (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

Also total speculation and not based on any data analysis.  Someone with more time can dig into that...

Agreed. But that's what it feels like to me too. 

 

[Summer Wheat]

D's have won the popular vote for the Presidency all but once in the past 8 cycles. Looks like the R's got them right where they want them!

I led my FF league in total scoring points the 2 of the last 3 seasons and lost my league.  Winning states will always be the key.   I am just glad we have California.  If Cally ever flipped Dems would be doomed. 

 

[Thunderlips]

I led my FF league in total scoring points the 2 of the last 3 seasons and lost my league.  Winning states will always be the key.   I am just glad we have California.  If Cally ever flipped Dems would be doomed. 

It would be the same with TX for the R's.....and that looks like it will go purple before Cali.

 

[Sammy3469]

I think the lack of running on and in embracing popular liberal and/or progressive platform items such as $15 an hour or Medicare for All or legalizing Marijuana is the larger problem when it comes to getting elected to begin with.  I think that the fact that country doesn't have many problems with simple solutions that fit well into political rhetoric messaging is the biggest problem for democrats staying in office.

I'm not sure which - getting elected for the first time or staying in office - is the bigger problem right now.

But I really think the democrats biggest problem is that the democrats skipped a generation of national leaders.  That there just aren't enough young rising star democrats poised to take the reigns in the near future.     Some of this is the fault of the existing leadership sticking around forever blocking paths, some of this is the result of this nations infatuation with Reagan and that brand of conservatism, some of this is because a bunch fell to the corrupting power of power, and I'm sure some of this is for reasons I'll never know.  Maybe these types of individuals will start coming out of local and state government woodwork to lead sort of a revolution, but until then the democrats are going to be stuck with "old school" thinking (even Bernie is "old school" liberal) that will have trouble resonating. 

ETA- And considering the defeats at local and state levels the last decade or so I doubt there are many Mayor Pete's to expect to emerge anytime soon. 

There's a lot to this post, but I do think it gets glossed over that the biggest weakness for Dem's are the 45+ year olds who appear to fondly remember Reagan and the Republican team/policies in general from that time.  For a large portion of the population (anyone born before 1970-75), those years were formidable and not easily forgotten.  Why that got transferred to Trump, I don't understand; but I do think it is sort of natural to yearn for that time period and very hard to convince people otherwise.  

TLDR Demographics and history matter more than we want to admit

 

[Bamboo Bill]

I led my FF league in total scoring points the 2 of the last 3 seasons and lost my league.  Winning states will always be the key.   I am just glad we have California.  If Cally ever flipped Dems would be doomed. 

In my league, the total points champion gets a payout and an auto spot in the playoffs.

 

[FairWarning]

It would be the same with TX for the R's.....and that looks like it will go purple before Cali.

It will for sure with the influx of people from California and Illinois.  Ironic as they leave higher taxes to no state income tax.  That eventually will change also.  The pandemic will really change congressional districts also.   People leaving the cities to their second houses in red areas, they will be purple in the next election.  

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet - as long as the R's can keep their guns, they are happy.  

 

[Terminalxylem]

Voted mostly disagree but I can certainly see the appeal to those on the left looking for their echo chamber.

What do you think is their biggest weakness, and what demographic dislikes Dems the most?

ETA somebody else already asked...I need to read further to see if you responded.

ETA you didn’t. Any thoughts?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Voted mostly disagree but I can certainly see the appeal to those on the left looking for their echo chamber.

What do you think is their biggest weakness, and what demographic dislikes Dems the most?

ETA somebody else already asked...I need to read further to see if you responded.

ETA you didn’t. Any thoughts?

Thanks, I missed that.

When I responded to Joe's question I was referring to mostly disagreeing with the column and a lot of assumptions he snuck in (racism, etc). As I was reading it I think I disagreed with almost every single sentence.

I think the Dems biggest weakness is the general over emphasis on things like character and morals at the cost of emphasizing a specific policy solution to a particular problem. Placing value on character or striving for morality in itself aren't bad things, but shouldn't be the driver for policy. This results in a disconnect in any dialogue or compromise. It's a pattern that seem to repeat on almost every topic of contention. We want A, and if you don't agree, you don't simply want B, but you're a bad person because A isn't simply better policy, it's morally superior.  It's not the only weakness imo, but I think it's a much bigger weakness than "how do we increase support from working class whites".

 

[Thunderlips]

Thanks, I missed that.

When I responded to Joe's question I was referring to mostly disagreeing with the column and a lot of assumptions he snuck in (racism, etc). As I was reading it I think I disagreed with almost every single sentence.

I think the Dems biggest weakness is the general over emphasis on things like character and morals at the cost of emphasizing a specific policy solution to a particular problem. Placing value on character or striving for morality in itself aren't bad things, but shouldn't be the driver for policy. This results in a disconnect in any dialogue or compromise. It's a pattern that seem to repeat on almost every topic of contention. We want A, and if you don't agree, you don't simply want B, but you're a bad person because A isn't simply better policy, it's morally superior.  It's not the only weakness imo, but I think it's a much bigger weakness than "how do we increase support from working class whites".

I think that's a good take.  Do you think though, that that is something the Republican Party (particularly the more religious camps of it) are guilty of as well? To me, Trumps Presidency was the first period of Republican history in a long  time in which they didn't seem to place "morality' as a tentpole to determine a candidates(and by extentsion policy) fiber.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think the Dems biggest weakness is the general over emphasis on things like character and morals at the cost of emphasizing a specific policy solution to a particular problem. Placing value on character or striving for morality in itself aren't bad things, but shouldn't be the driver for policy. This results in a disconnect in any dialogue or compromise. It's a pattern that seem to repeat on almost every topic of contention. We want A, and if you don't agree, you don't simply want B, but you're a bad person because A isn't simply better policy, it's morally superior.  It's not the only weakness imo, but I think it's a much bigger weakness than "how do we increase support from working class whites".

Is it OK if we flesh this out a little?  I’m not sure how Democrats can fix this. A lot of my motivation for my preferred public policy involves morality.  Are you saying I need to take that out of the equation entirely or that I should just express myself differently?  
 

ETA: I guess I’m most confused by the part where you say we should be emphasizing specific policy solutions for particular problems.  Don’t Democrats already do that?

ETA2:  By what metric are we supposed to determine what is a better policy?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I think that's a good take.  Do you think though, that that is something the Republican Party (particularly the more religious camps of it) are guilty of as well? To me, Trumps Presidency was the first period of Republican history in a long  time in which they didn't seem to place "morality' as a tentpole to determine a candidates(and by extentsion policy) fiber.

Absolutely. But in general I think there's a misperception of the other side of the coin. There's a lot of people who support Trump despite his mean tweets (character flaws) and not because of them.

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

Thought this was interesting by David Leonhardt.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/07/briefing/democratic-party-covid-georgia.html

Do you agree with Leonhardt?

It doesn't resonate because they have been saying the same thing for decades and things haven't changed. 

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Is it OK if we flesh this out a little?  I’m not sure how Democrats can fix this. A lot of my motivation for my preferred public policy involves morality.  Are you saying I need to take that out of the equation entirely or that I should just express myself differently?  

Not at all. But I think both sides could extend their values to the other side in order to discuss solutions. Sometimes this isn't possible but imo many times this would be useful to get us to the table for constructive dialogue. "I want to do what's right and I know you do too" is going to at least be a better starting point imo.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Not at all. But I think both sides could extend their values to the other side in order to discuss solutions. Sometimes this isn't possible but imo many times this would be useful to get us to the table for constructive dialogue. "I want to do what's right and I know you do too" is going to at least be a better starting point imo.

Unfortunately I guess I still need to be convinced that Trump supporters “want to do what’s right.”  I agree it would be nice if we could have discussions like you’re proposing.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

ETA: I guess I’m most confused by the part where you say we should be emphasizing specific policy solutions for particular problems.  Don’t Democrats already do that?

Yes but the perception is that it's so tightly wrapped in the morality that opposition is not simply disagreement but hyperbolic evil.

If you disagree with my gun control proposition then you clearly want children massacred in schools. If you disagree with my Covid restrictions then you wanna kill grandma. Etc.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Unfortunately I guess I still need to be convinced that Trump supporters “want to do what’s right.”  I agree it would be nice if we could have discussions like you’re proposing.

That's understandable. There's many on the right that need to be convinced the left doesn't "hate America."

 

[Joe Bryant]

That's understandable. There's many on the right that need to be convinced the left doesn't "hate America."

Yes to both you and @fatguyinalittlecoat. It's been my experience as you guys are suggesting, a real conversation and discussion is helpful for things like this. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Yes to both you and @fatguyinalittlecoat. It's been my experience as you guys are suggesting, a real conversation and discussion is helpful for things like this. 

The problem for me is that I find that the conversations are often only "real" in a very superficial way.  It's pretty much impossible for the two sides to articulate how we really feel without being insulting to each other.   Both sides are constantly holding our tongues for the sake of comity (and so we don't get banned).  But by doing so we're diminishing understanding.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The problem for me is that I find that the conversations are often only "real" in a very superficial way.  It's pretty much impossible for the two sides to articulate how we really feel without being insulting to each other.   Both sides are constantly holding our tongues for the sake of comity (and so we don't get banned).  But by doing so we're diminishing understanding.

Understood. Probably better not to have it then if it's not possible without insulting the other side or getting banned. I was thinking more in real life these are good ideas. And these do take some work sometimes to not be insulting. But I've found them doable between most folks. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

 I was thinking more in real life these are good ideas. And these do take some work sometimes to not be insulting.

Thanks, but this website is the only place in my life in which I regularly encounter Trump supporters.  

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks, but this website is the only place in my life in which I regularly encounter Trump supporters.  

That's too bad. But in that case, I guess just don't do it if you can't do it without being insulting or getting banned. 

 

[Thunderlips]

The problem for me is that I find that the conversations are often only "real" in a very superficial way.  It's pretty much impossible for the two sides to articulate how we really feel without being insulting to each other.   Both sides are constantly holding our tongues for the sake of comity (and so we don't get banned).  But by doing so we're diminishing understanding.

Do you think this was the situation between the two camps pre-Trump.........Conservatives or Republicans(the people I am generalizing as the overwhelming majority of current Trump supporters)pre-June 2015?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Do you think this was the situation between the two camps pre-Trump.........Conservatives or Republicans(the people I am generalizing as the overwhelming majority of current Trump supporters)pre-June 2015?

No.  Although at least on this board, the current Trump supporters are not the same people as the Conservatives from the pre-Trump era.

 

[Thunderlips]

No.  Although at least on this board, the current Trump supporters are not the same people as the Conservatives from the pre-Trump era.

I agree with that.  I'm not one who keeps up aliases and such....but there's a number of longterm avatars as I recognize being on the opposite side of the argument in the Bush years.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Even without a comparison they are terrible at messaging.  You can pick literally dozens of different times...the most recent being "defund the police"....that's terrible messaging regardless of what the GOP is doing.  It's brutal and been brutal for a long time.

Agreed. And not only is the messaging poor, but the way it is often said is poor as well.  I shifted from being conservative to being more liberal in the mid to late 00's and eventually settled in the middle as an independent, in part because I was so turned off by the attitude of the average liberal, which far too often comes as condescending,  Their tone far too often is "I am right and you are wrong, and if you are not in lock step with what I believe, you are wrong, stupid and/or racist."  You are never going to win people over to your side by acting all high and mighty, and I think that has been their problem for years.  A lady I worked with years ago was always as nice and kind as could be, but at some point, she turned into a mean, abrasive person who was arguing with anyone and anybody, including her mother, on Facebook any time anyone said anything that she didn't align with her new far left views.  It was like she became a different person.  And that certainly happens on the other side of the aisle as well, but that is for another thread. 

 

[RCon]

Yes but the perception is that it's so tightly wrapped in the morality that opposition is not simply disagreement but hyperbolic evil.

If you disagree with my gun control proposition then you clearly want children massacred in schools. If you disagree with my Covid restrictions then you wanna kill grandma. Etc.

I tend to see this differently.  I'll preface this by saying that when I refer to "liberals" and "conservatives", I'm really referring to "prominent liberals/conservatives with a national voice" such as elected representatives, talk-show hosts, etc., and NOT random dudes on Facebook.

In any case, I see it less as liberals making the claim of "if you disagree with my gun control proposal then you must want children massacred" and more of Rush Limbaugh types making that claim, "liberals think just because we want to own guns that means we want to murder children".  This also applies in reverse.

One of the single biggest issues we have had over the past few decades is politicians and talking heads mischaracterizing the arguments of the other side in order to argue against a strawman.  Obviously, that's been replaced as "biggest issue" by the much more recent issue that certain people can repeat the same lies over and over such that their supporters take them as fact, but the mischaracterization is still is significant barrier to understanding and conversation.

 

[The Commish]

Agreed. And not only is the messaging poor, but the way it is often said is poor as well.  I shifted from being conservative to being more liberal in the mid to late 00's and eventually settled in the middle as an independent, in part because I was so turned off by the attitude of the average liberal, which far too often comes as condescending,  Their tone far too often is "I am right and you are wrong, and if you are not in lock step with what I believe, you are wrong, stupid and/or racist."  You are never going to win people over to your side by acting all high and mighty, and I think that has been their problem for years.  A lady I worked with years ago was always as nice and kind as could be, but at some point, she turned into a mean, abrasive person who was arguing with anyone and anybody, including her mother, on Facebook any time anyone said anything that she didn't align with her new far left views.  It was like she became a different person.  And that certainly happens on the other side of the aisle as well, but that is for another thread. 

This is pretty much why I've never been a part of either party.  "You're either with me or against me" isn't something I'm interested in because the world doesn't work that way and success is certainly not built that way.  I've been watching this transformation of people I know and everyone seems to be sprinting away from the middle and fleaing to a "team".  I started a thread here about these kinds of things and it seems like it's a psychological thing.  Good news is, it seems easy to identify and fix.  The bad news is, people have to want to fix it and that's not how we're naturally wired.  Google "Robbers Cave Experiment" for an example of what I'm talking about.  Yes it's done in kids, but it's pretty clear that many adults also fall prey to it.

 

[The Commish]

I tend to see this differently.  I'll preface this by saying that when I refer to "liberals" and "conservatives", I'm really referring to "prominent liberals/conservatives with a national voice" such as elected representatives, talk-show hosts, etc., and NOT random dudes on Facebook.

In any case, I see it less as liberals making the claim of "if you disagree with my gun control proposal then you must want children massacred" and more of Rush Limbaugh types making that claim, "liberals think just because we want to own guns that means we want to murder children".  This also applies in reverse.

One of the single biggest issues we have had over the past few decades is politicians and talking heads mischaracterizing the arguments of the other side in order to argue against a strawman.  Obviously, that's been replaced as "biggest issue" by the much more recent issue that certain people can repeat the same lies over and over such that their supporters take them as fact, but the mischaracterization is still is significant barrier to understanding and conversation.

"Where There's a Will" Act 1 on This American Life has a good recent history (starting in the 70s) of this approach and how it was aggressively reintroduced to our American politics.  Worth the listen IMO.

 

[Navin Johnson]

Everyone in here talking about messaging is correct. The party that brought us tax cuts for the rich, is anti-union, resists minimum wage increases and everything else they stand for are hardly the advocates for the working class they pretend to be but sure let's just keep touting that narrative for them. 

Neither is the other party.

 

[General Malaise]

Well..Considering the party's former leader, President Obama, called them out on it and had major Democrats like Omar discredit his statements, yeah, there seems to be a very strong push for this in the Democratic party.

Thought you didn't like that word for politicians? 

 

[GordonGekko]

I've ranted and raved over "Democratic Messaging" for years.  It is unbelievably bad.  When you can be continually hijacked by the current GOP and it's nonsense, it should give you pause.

ETA:  I voted mostly agree because I understand there are both senders and receivers of messages and responsibility in communication relies on both being willing participants to some extent.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/524805-ocasio-cortez-defends-progressives-from-charges-of-democratic

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) argued Friday that progressivism isn't to blame for Democrats falling short of expectations on Election Day....

"You can’t just tell the Black, Brown, & youth organizers riding in to save us every election to be quiet or not have their reps champion them when they need us. Or wonder why they don’t show up for midterms when they’re scolded for existing. Esp when they’re delivering victories," she wrote.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/07/us/politics/aoc-biden-progressives.html

"....Ms. Ocasio-Cortez made clear the divisions within the party that animated the primary still exist.....It’s really hard for us to turn out nonvoters when they feel like nothing changes for them. When they feel like people don’t see them, or even acknowledge their turnout."

*********

Ice Cube responds to backlash over Trump collaboration

6,308,557 views •Oct 16, 2020  CNN 11.6M subscribers

Rapper Ice Cube once said he would never endorse Donald Trump, now the rapper is causing a stir for working with the President on his plan for Black America. The rap legend joined CNN's Chris Cuomo to explain why he is collaborating with the Trump campaign on his Contract With Black America.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUgzHvDBafE

*********

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2010/16/CPT.01.html

CUOMO: So, here is Ice Cube on PRIME TIME. Thank you for taking the opportunity, brother, I appreciate it.

ICE CUBE, RAPPER/ACTOR, WORKING WITH TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ON "CONTRACT WITH BLACK AMERICA": Thanks for having me, Chris. Your lead-ins are a little misleading.

CUOMO: How so?

CUBE: Well, the Platinum Plan is not my plan. I came up with the "Contract With Black America." And I didn't run to go work with any campaign. Both campaigns contacted me. Both campaigns wanted to talk to me about the "Contract With Black America." One campaign said, "We love what you have, but let's really dig into it after the election." And one campaign said, "We love what you have. Do you mind talking to us about it?" And that's what I did. So, I didn't run to nobody. And so that was real misleading to me.

CUOMO: Well I didn't say you ran to anybody.

CUBE: You know--

CUOMO: I said that you had taken a pivot.

CUBE: Well you said I ran over to the Trump team instead of the Biden team. That's just not true.

CUOMO: Well but you are working with the Trump team, instead of the Biden team.

CUBE: They both contacted me.

CUOMO: And people are giving you heat for it. What do you say to them?

CUBE: Well I am willing to work with both teams. But I'm just working with whoever is willing to work with me. So, the Trump campaign came to me, and asked me to explain to them some of the "Contract With Black America." That's what I did. I am not playing no more of these games, these political games. We're not part of a team. We have very broad problems, especially the wealth gap in this country, when it comes to Black Americans. So, I am going to whoever is in power, and I am going to speak to them about our problems, specifically. I am not going there talking about minorities. I am not going there talking about people of color, or diversity, or none of that stuff. [21:50:00] I am going there for Black Americans, the ones who are the descendants of slaves. And that's what I am going to talk to, anybody who is in power with that. So, if anybody got a problem with that, it seems like a personal problem.

************

 

[GordonGekko]

CUOMO: Well here's the problem and it is very personable - personal, as you know, for a lot of people of color, because they'll say, "Well why would you pick Trump when he says there's no such thing as systemic inequality?"

CUBE: I'm not picking nobody.

CUOMO: Say again.

CUBE: I'm not picking nobody. He's the President.

CUOMO: But why do you think--

CUBE: He's the President.

CUOMO: --he'd want to do something for the community when he says there is no such thing as systemic inequality?

CUBE: I don't know what he want to do. I just know what the man said. I know what he said to the country. I've never met Donald Trump. And so, I don't know what he's going to do. I just know what he said he was going to do. So, both of them have a plan. Both of them say they're going to do something. And who knows what's really going to happen after November 3rd? Nobody knows, from each side. We're all hoping that candidates keep their campaign promises. So, that's just it.

CUOMO: So, let's look at it this way. I think that you're right to be skeptical. Let's start with the Democrats because even though there is a traditional connection between Black voters and the Democrats, you could also say you've been let down or forgotten by Democrats, in a lot of situations that would have mattered. Then you said "All right. So, then what's one - what makes one side better than the other?" That's where you get in trouble, which is do you really think that Donald Trump could be trusted as much as you could trust Joe Biden?

CUBE: I don't think - I'm not trusting any of them. I'm just going by action. That's all I'm going by. I'm not going by words. I'm not going by rhetoric, not going by media spin, not going by none of that. I'm not - I'm not on nobody's team.

CUOMO: All right.

CUBE: I'm not on Team Blue not on Team Red.

CUOMO: So then, I have that wrong.

CUBE: I'm an independent person.

CUOMO: So--

CUBE: Hold on, I'm an independent person, and I believe that's what Black people need to do, is become independent, and we need to get something for our vote. That may not happen but it's going to happen.

CUOMO: It's got to happen. It's got to happen. Nothing changes if nothing changes. Look, if I had brought you here, to fight with you, you would have known it. What I'm saying is I think I did get it wrong, and I want to make sure I get it right. So, saying you are working with the Trump team is wrong. What you did was when they asked to talk to you about it, you said "Yes." If Biden had asked to talk to you about it now, you would have gone to them the same way. It's not about you choosing anything. It's you working with everybody who's got a chance of doing anything. Is that right?

CUBE: I'm working with whoever is in power. Yes, I'll work with both - whoever is in power, I'm going to work with. So, whoever wins, they'll hear from me.

 

 

[GordonGekko]

CUOMO: OK. So, I'm glad you came--

CUBE: Frequently. CUOMO: --to clear it up. So, Ice Cube is not with the Trump campaign. He's just giving his ideas, and anybody who wants to do something with them, fine. Do you believe they are doing anything with your ideas?

CUBE: I believe, you know, they looked at the "Contract With Black America" and they updated their plan. But it's their plan. And I have my plan. My plan is broad. It goes beyond the public sector. It goes into the private sector, banks, even the movie industry. So, we got to deal with a lot of different, I think, companies, corporations, and even government, when it comes to solving this problem. I believe this is a non-bipartisan problem - I believe this is a bipartisan problem, when it comes to the issues, when it comes to Blacks in America, and what's going on. It's not a Democrat problem, it's not for them to solve. It's not for the Republicans to solve. It's for both of them to solve. They do it when it comes to debt ceiling. They do it when it comes to getting us on wars. They seem to come together, when it's something that really affects America. And I don't think nothing affects America more than the situation that Black Americans find ourselves in. This country is coming apart at the seams, and it's not going to come together, after January 3rd, no matter who is the President, unless we deal with this wealth gap.

CUOMO: You have the economics. All of it extends from poverty, which is an extension of opportunity, which is an extension of a system that doesn't give equal opportunity, and you see it everywhere, hiring, education, finance, all of it. So acutely, we've been looking at what happens, when policing goes wrong, in communities. It doesn't give you concern that the President has handled police violence, the way he has, in terms of his commitment to work on any of the issues that you think are important? [21:55:00]

CUBE: We've been dealing with police violence in this country from day one. So, police violence is just part of our life here. So, the thing is this. Once we get some capital, we'll be treated better. This is a capitalistic society.

CUOMO: True.

CUBE: And if you ain't got no money, you see how people get treated on the streets when they ain't got no money.

CUOMO: Not just money, wealth.

CUBE: Some of the - some--

CUOMO: Wealth. You got to be able to build up wealth--

CUBE: Well--

CUOMO: --within the community.

CUBE: Yes, you know, to put it in greater terms. But the bottom line is dollars bring dignity. And so, everybody in America knows that. When you got a little more money, they treat you a little better. So, we need to close this wealth gap. You got people making a - families making $120,000 or worth $120,000, and you got Black families worth $200. That - this just is - is just an enormous wealth gap that keeps growing. It's not getting smaller. Do the research, and you'll see this is the problem in America. It's because Black people have no capital. We own half of a point, when it comes to all the wealth in America, half of a point. 13.5 percent people living off half of a point. We cannot survive in America another 100 years living like this.

CUOMO: The issue is real. The problem is properly identified. They do have access of capital - access to capital of about $500 billion, but it doesn't say that it would be earmarked, within the Trump plan, for communities of color. But we'll see what you can get done.And I make you this promise, not just because I'm a fan, but the issue matters. As you learn, and as you see, action and reaction, or inaction, you have a place on this show to discuss it. That's a guarantee.

CUBE: I appreciate it, Chris. And I'll be back to discuss and let you know what I know, what I find out. But I'm going to give you - I'm going to give it to you straight up. I'm not playing sides.

 

[GordonGekko]

I don't agree with what AOC says a lot of the time, but in this case, she's got a point. You can't ask people, specifically minorities and those on the lower income spectrum, to help you win your elections and turn out to vote, and if they see their lives not improving after they've elected you to office, to keep demanding that they support you.

No voting block has their votes for free. If you aren't helping them or their communities or addressing their issues, then they will come to realize you don't give a damn about them, no matter what your "message" is about and they will move on to another candidate and a party WHO WILL PRODUCE DELIVERABLE RESULTS.

This community is based off of fantasy football and love for the NFL and the game itself. The foundation of this business model is subscribers. If people, the rank and file members, didn't feel like FBG as a service helped them win their leagues, why should they keep subscribing? No one cares what Sigmund Bloom's "message" is about. No one cares if Chase Stuart believes Rodney Peete, best known for having a good looking wife who costarred with Johnny Depp in the early 90s, was the victim of some secret NFL owner cabal to disenfranchise his opportunity because of his skin pigment. ( If you are reading this Stuart, no son, you will never ever live that article down. Never) People care about DELIVERABLE RESULTS.

If I voted for you, are their more jobs for me and people like me? More after school programs for my kids? Will my kids have actual opportunity to have a better life? Safer streets for my family? Improvements to the libraries, parks and infrastructure? Is my voice, even if it's a family living off minimum wage going to be heard?

The idea that the DNC failed in certain election demographics because of "messaging" is, IMHO, incredibly offensive to those people living on minimum wage, on the fringes and in low income mostly minority brackets. It's saying, "We were elected, we claim to be the party of the people, we promised we would help you, and now that we have your vote, too bad, the problem isn't that your lives aren't better and we didn't deliver the public policy we said we would, the problem is you didn't get what we were talking about! We need to dumb down this message for you so you can finally GET IT!"

Can some of you actually step outside your own shoes for a second and try to look at this from the perspective of a family living on minimum wage salaries and how this sounds incredibly entitled, self absorbed, tone deaf and elitist?

I posted the entire Ice Cube/Cuomo/CNN transcript because it encapsulates a lot of the functional problem here. Cuomo, after trolling his guest by calling him "brother", immediately paints Ice Cube and the issue in one single light. You support Trump, that means something is wrong with you, you are only here to justify why you shouldn't support Trump, if you don't get it, then I'll educate you on the topic since you didn't get the "message." And any valid point you bring up will be routinely ignored so I can keep bringing it back to Orange Man Bad, because I'm not actually here to address or discuss the complexities of the black communities in modern America, I'm just here to make sure you fall in line with the very very very narrow scope of political narrative and viewpoint that we find acceptable.

Ice Cube brings up that he simply worked with the party that actually engaged him and responded for more dialogue. He also discussed issues that are bipartisan in nature, because they deal class division more than racial/party division. He brings up the wealth gap, the critical issue of "the black vote is not for free", the reality that the black community needs actual black owned and operated businesses and infrastructure in place to financially advocate for those areas, and that campaign promises means nothing, the only thing that matters are "actions".

Did Cuomo even begin to dialogue about any of this? No.

What is the demographic breakdown of the posters who have participated heavily on these forums for years? Are they like Otis, who is a high paid attorney and a home owner in one of the most expensive cities in America and still has a job/career now and the biggest complaints are first world problems like his freezer breaking down? You see people talking about buying an air fryer or which vitamin supplement is the best to buy or how to pick the best personal trainer at the gym. Are some of you guys even half way cognizant of  the reality that a FBG subscription is a wild luxury to many Americans?  A few years back, I posted, for the first time, in the Bloom/Lammey podcast thread. I only asked for one simple thing. To address the fantasy community and to remember during the holidays, to support organizations like Toys For Tots and Wounded Warrior and local food banks and remember those in need. To be fair, and to their credit, they did. You know what Lammey said? He talked about a program in Denver giving used warm coats to the needy and how if your biggest worry in life is to think about if the WR you will start this week will win a money league, that your life is objectively probably pretty good. 

In the internet age and the advent of nearly instant information/communication, the gig is up for professional politicians. No one has a vote for free. Your "message" means nothing. What did you deliver? What have you done for me lately? How have you made my life better?  Trump gave big money to Historic Black Colleges and Universities. I will not deny Trump was basically buying votes. De Santis gives political pork to Cubans in Florida. I will not deny De Santis is basically buying votes. Biden leaned soft promises of a 15 dollar minimum wage and college loan forgiveness. You don't think he was also trying to buy votes via public policy as well?  What do you think will happen to the DNC down the ticket when those two things don't materialize?

There's a lot about AOC I just don't agree with or see as logical public policy. But when she's criticized by her fellow Democrats, the ones getting caught in swank and posh restaurants at 350 dollars a plate, for not playing ball with them, I don't blame her for facing the reality that many of them have already privately labeled her as "the loud brown girl just good enough to clean their toilets"

Ice Cube is right. Messages mean nothing. Actions matter. The reality and perception of one keeping their word and promises matter. Giving people dignity through dollars via public policy matters.

Millions upon millions of Americans are completely terrified that their children will starve and be thrown out on the street as homeless in the next few months and the discussion that means so much to Democratic politicians is that they need to "message" better? Are you kidding me? And why they are losing the faith of many people and their votes is actually something that should surprise them?  Does the DNC expect those who are suffering to avoid the reality that their lives are not "objectively good"?

I don't like AOC. I really don't. But this doesn't deny she has a point. And even though I don't like her, I fully believe she is better than just some loud brown girl who is just good enough to clean Nancy Pelosi's toilet. I'm a conservative and even I can see that plainly. The majority of the DNC, swimming in Too Big To Fail corporate payoffs,  cannot. And that's the real problem.

When the message keeps spinning to avoid the ugly uncomfortable truths of those actually marginalized, it only reminds people of what was not delivered.