[REASON] Woke Excess Causes Minority Voters To Flee the Democratic Party

Lose the mid term elections is what is going to happen

 

I think he explicitly states once that his only convicinction here is being annoyed by liberals. That's what his entire existence as a elderly man has come down to. It's kinda sad at this point.

 

Os isn't concern trolling, he'd never do that.

 

I have been critical of DEM messaging for a long time now (think of the economy and how DEM is perceived one way while what reality is).

In the sphere of honesty, I can't fault WOKE folks, DEM or anyone for just being honest about who they are. Honesty after all is a virtue we want in our representatives.

In the sphere of political labeling and attack, honesty can be deadly. It's a vicious cycle politicians are trapped in. Use the "wrong" words and you can be dead politically the next day. You hear it in how they talk, how they debate, and how they act. Many of them sound so fake and divorced from real people because of this behavior and political instinct.

From my perspective, after hating liars, I dislike politicians that aren't real. I prefer honesty and doing the very hard work of explaining and defending. Too often, what I see from DEM is they are honest and then they allow others to define those labels without explanation or defending their positions. Worst path IMO. Either be careful and avoid being labeled/attacked or be honest and defend your position aggressively.

IMO, Bernie and AOC self-labeling of dem socialist isn't a problem. They are honest about it and they define what it means and defend themselves. It's the moderate that gets pulled into the same label and can't find a way to get themselves out that is the problem. They can simply say we have a diverse coalition and yes, dem socialist is part of it (this is what it means and defend it for their fellow team members), but it's not what I believe in nevertheless, we believe diverse ideas are for the best. They get more in trouble when they attack their own team members, try to avoid it, and not accept that's what their coalition is made up of, all of which lend a hand to their opponent to label them exactly that way. The DEM coalition is simply much more diverse than the REP. Trying to mold a unifying message for all doesn't reflect who they are and get them in a lot of trouble. It's a lot of hard work, but they should be highlighting why diversity is a strength and not a weakness.

Edit - Takes 'defund the police' as an example. Yes, some member of our party believes in that. I don't. In fact, I think we need more funding to reach the goal we want. We of course value all ideas and we will work together on the goal that we all agree on - police accountability and better policing. Again, we have diverse ideas in our party and while some are on the extreme in my view, as a group we will come up with a moderate approach. That's our party. The, no I'm not for defunding the police or simply running away and not explaining leaves room for other to define it for you.

 

Stop talking like AOC is the future leader of the Democratic party and realize that moderate democrats have always done better in the elections. Just because the GOP chose Trump doesn't mean the Democrats have to do the same thing.

Don't give people doing bad things like rioting and looting a pass just because it fits a narrative. Understand that the democrats have lost less educated blue collar workers but gain the female suburban voter. Those voters care a lot about law an order. Defund the police messaging isn't going to attract them. Also understand that minority voters are not all liberal and lot of them own and would like to keep their guns.

 

Yes but it was never a Democratic Party message. Most rejected it outright. It was a message that the right wing propaganda networks lied about that it was a Democratic Party slogan because a few activists said it and millions believed that lie.

The Dems cannot control that Republican voters easily believe lies. The Dems deserve a ton of criticism but I don’t think it’s entirely fair to blame them for the fact that half of America is just profoundly ignorant and lives in a fantasy land. Not sure what they really can do about that but it’s a massive problem for our Democracy.

Right now if you polled FoxNews watchers with this question what do you think the percentages would be?

Q- What bill did the Democrats pass in the House yesterday-

1. HR1 - a bill around ethics and voting reforms
2. Cancel Dr Seuss bill that strikes Dr Seuss books from all American public schools

 

Exactly. The GOP propaganda machine will use what ever framing they desire regardless of what democrat polticians say or write in bills. And unfortunately the GOP has a easy time doing this because most of their voting base read only click bait headlines, shock jock radio, memes on facebook and Tucker Carlson so it's very easy to frame anything in the sky in any manner they chose. And the few GOP constituents who do read are the ones in on the false framing and know better. They just want their lower tax burden.

 

I just sort of get the sense that this is how Democracies fail.

A historian would probably tell you that the oldest example is the fall of Democracy in ancient Greece where the main reason was mostly because of folklore and propaganda of people like Alexander the Great and other warlords cushioned the Greeks to adjust to a more authoritarian strong man society. That's probably oversimplification, but you have to look at the past to understand that information, and disinformation/folklore/lies are a big reason why Democracies fail.

Correct me if I'm being too pessimistic, but I don't have alot of faith anymore that America can continue to remain a Democracy. Maybe in name only but it seems only a matter of time.... in years not decades or generations.

 

I'm not sure about folklore but democracies including the ancient Greeks often fell because of demagogues seizing popular power. This is why they came up with the term "Demagogue". In Plato's Republic tyranny followed democracy as a demagogue would capitalize on populists anger towards "elites" and then use that take over the tools of democracy and become a tyrant. That pattern has been followed throughout history with many tyrants coming in as opponent of the elites and the savior of the common man. We even see that currently with the current rise of the strongmen in Duerte, Erdogan and Bolsanaro.

The US Founders were very aware of this history and much of the nature of the Constitution with it's checks and balances and distrust of direct democracy are there to make it difficult for a demagogue to seize control.

 

I hear moderates all the time do this explaining you are talking about all the time, especially with defund the police but when you have an entire media ecosystem blaring disinformation it's hard for those individuals to break through.

You had the top 2 democrats even saying they did not believe in it and it still stuck.

I did not see anybody running away it was a sexy slogan for Republicans and the mainstream media and some democrats who continued to use it because it was a great hashtag.

Now I will say democrats usually don't message worth a dam and they are not as consistent as republicans be we seem to want to stand out from each other and some tend to latch on to things without much thought of the consequences.

 

When you have to explain what it means, then the messaging sucks. No one needs to explain the "death tax", "pro-life", "socialist", "communist", "2nd amendment" to get the effect that Republicans want.

 

I get all this. I understand the echo chambers and propaganda machines . They will be believed by the people who only want to believe them. But that is only one part of equation and whole different story. I don't disagree with anything you said and equally share the frustration.

The thing I am little concerned with, is the concept of word(phrase) association. What message it conveys vs what it really means.

Defund the police was the rally cry of the 'people(leader/activists) associated with democrats or sympathizers. Republicans did not coin it. Conceptually, what is being explained under the context of defund the police is not a bad idea. But the point of messaging is to not do that 'Explaining'. 'Defund the police' has nothing to do with defunding the police, yet we(and the serious leader of democratic) have to cross that hurdle to talk about the real reform it is intended for. The Phrase conveys a negative message even though it has a positive intent. It makes the job easier for the other side to deflect and distract

Lets contrast that with, Build the wall. It is not about the wall. But the message directly associates to securing yourself. It hides the evil intent with which it is primarily being used. It also masks the racial resentment with which it is created. It even normalizes the dumbness of someone really building a wall across the entire southern border. because the word is associated with 'your security'. It makes the job very difficult for the other side to explain all that and show the real turd packaged in that shiny box.

 

Agreed but thats why defund was a thing it was easy.

 

This.

 

Well getting this country back on track won’t happen with simple soundbites.

 

You aren't going to get the country on track unless you get elected.

 

I don't disagree with any of this.

However my point was that while when asked about "building the wall" nearly every Republican in 2016 said... yes we are building a wall in some way to support border security measures etc..... Democrats in 2019 and 2020 nearly all said something along the lines of "No we are not wanting to defund the police, we want to see reforms to take racial bias out of policing, etc."

Maybe you had a couple Dems like AOC, or Thalib sort of overexplaining that point to allow it to sink in that they were sympathetic to the notion, but almost all Democrats were much more like Biden in his approach of pretty directly saying... NO I will not defund the police, I'll do more for policing by restoring faith in communities through reforms.

The difference is the lies, and the messaging of the right wings propaganda machine that can literally create an alternate reality caricature of the other half of America for their viewers. The messaging was NOT from the Democrats on "Defund the Police". It was from the Republicans and their propaganda networks that heard the phrase by activists at George Floyd protests and decided to lie that this was the essential pillar of the Democratic Party platform which it was never.

I cannot tell you how many people on my Facebook feed right now think the Democrats are solely focused on cancelling Mr Potato Head and Dr. Seuss. They have no idea that Democrats passed something called HR1, and don't give a sh$t about Dr. Seuss.

I just don't know how in reality this was a problem that the Democrats brought on themselves. It's like saying that Mitt Romney is running in 2024 on a platform of stopping Jewish Space Lasers. As crazy as the majority of the Republican platform is now under Trump, Gym Jordan, and Marjorie Taylor Green, it's not really fair for Mitt Romney's opponent to say is Romney's political platform. However most people in Utah won't believe Romney is a Jewish Space Laser weirdo.... However most people on the Right and in the middle who don't follow politics believed the Democrats literally wanted to abolish policing in their neighborhood because of the power of the Right's propaganda networks.

I just don't know what you do about that. That's essentially my point. I know it's the Democrats problem to figure out, but I don't know that they are to blame for it.

 

Of course but the people that are voting are just as much an issue as the message being sent. Some people have been so indoctrinated by one side that they cannot think outside the box anymore.

 

I really don't think woke culture is what is causing a migration from conservative to dem or vice versa. If that was the case and conservative ideas were more popular, you wouldn't see efforts to suppress voting turn out across multiple traditionally red states. You'd actually see the opposite.

 

I hear some of those too, but...

This is what Republicans do. They take an extreme message from a member of the dem (or even just make it up completely) and apply it to all members of the Dem party. Generalization sticks because people like to generalize. It's much harder to see details. It's a lot of effort for each member to defend against those types of attacks. I'm thinking ...

1- You need a strong defense early on so that the GOP doesn't get to define the term. Once it's defined, it's very hard to defend in that people already generally see the message as A and you have to now convince them it's not A. I do not see Dem doing this early and consistently defend (and counter-attack). They let the attack stick and won't defend it. Eventually, the meaning gets established and they are on an uphill battle afterward.

2- (the consistent explanation against all attacks - a generalization of defense itself) - yes, there are members in our diverse coalition that have these views but that's not me. It should be a standard line of defense. If they want to explain more, go ahead. Once this is established as standard through repeated usage, the public will become aware of what the GOP is doing - generalizing an extreme to all of the party members. The public is WOKE to what's going on and is less susceptible to accepting generalization of the GOP.