Barack Obama says Democrats need to avoid being a 'buzzkill'

Hmm revolution in what sense is viable? Violent?

I remember saying our current trend of wealth inequality and distrust in government over time isn't sustainable and will lead to a violent revolution. But that's a positive statement, not a normative one. I'm not saying one ought to do violent revolution.

 

Thanks for showing everyone how much of an anarchist you are and this is where I get off, you are about to try and win a argument using big words that have no bearing on the conversation.

Wealth inequality is top of mind for me but its not anywhere near being a cause for revolution, but for some reason you think it's right around the corner.

Do not even know what a normative statement is.

A normative statement is an opinion, and your opinion about this is stupid.

IMO of course.

A normative statement is one that makes a value judgment. Such a judgment is the opinion of the speaker; no one can “prove” that the statement is or is not correct.

 

Yes a normative statement is an "ought" statement. Like "the fed ought to lower the interest rate" being normative and "the fed lowered the interest rate today" being positive. What is the disagreement here? I don't want violent revolution. That is a normative statement. "Violent revolution can happen in a society when the right amount of wealth inequality and distrust in those in power reach a certain threshold" is a positive statement.

Are you saying that economic conditions aren't often the cause of societal upheaval such as a violent revolution?

And what do you mean by "around the corner". I guess you can make my premise sound irrational if you paint me as saying that violent revolution should have already occured or is occuring in the next year. I'm seeing a trend of more distrust in government, our voting process, our economic system etc. Yes I can see in the next couple of decades if these trends don't change something paradigm shifting will occur.

 

Yes. Some are doing that, but they should be unified. Also sometimes they include policy details.

 

Ok i'm done you can't discuss anything with someone who is constantly changing the goalpost and using terms that don't fit and then making up definitions to try and fit them in.

The fact that you can't see things have gotten better shows how fatalistic your mind set is.

 

I'm confused also. Am I using those terms incorrectly? I sincerely thought I was using it correctly from my reading and understanding.

 

You campaign to your constituency, and Democrats don't respond to the same message over and over again.

Who are the democrats that are not unified?

 

Yes you are, I been telling you that for years.

Here is the actual definition.

What is meant by normative statement?

A normative statement is one that makes a value judgment. Such a judgment is the opinion of the speaker; no one can “prove” that the statement is or is not correct. Here are some examples of normative statements in economics: We ought to do more to help the poor.

 

The ones that go on shows and talk about issues other than abortion or talk about specific parts of the policies

 

I understand this but I don't understand how that conflicts with my usage.

You claim I made a value judgement on violent revolution suggesting that is something I want. So you prescribed a normative claim to me saying we ought to have a violent revolution when I was saying positive statement that violent revolution usually happens under certain conditions.

I'm just confused about how that doesn't correspond to the definition

 

Who does that because when I see them they all do talk about its within the 1st 30 seconds.

 

Consistent messaging is definitely a strong point of the GOP in the sense that they all fall in line.


Funny irrelevant example but look at this message board. Have you ever seen @basso, @Trader_Jorge , @Commodore etc have an internal debate amongst themselves about a disagreement? Maybe they are all the same person. Who knows at this point.

 

Thanks for telling us what Obama was saying. Obviously his own words don't suffice.

 

To Obama's credit, probably the best combo of character(personal scandal free) and intelligence to hold the office since Carter or Bush sr arguably(his moral character is a little more divisive)


Disagree with on policy and rhetoric all you want but can't deny those traits about Obama.

 

They can't help but look foolish constantly.

 

Also even accepting the "classic liberal" view of 19th century free traders wouldn't fit with today's GOP dominated by protectionist and Nativists pushing religion.

 

Sure Clinton grumbles about not being President. So did Al Gore and John McCain. The difference is that Trump and many people running for office or in office now still claim he is President.

Also none of those above called on their supporters to "Fight like Hell" to overturn the election. Had their supporters try to submit fake electors or tried to pull of the "Green Bay Sweep" to overturn the election.

 

Sure everyone b****es and moans when they lose. The difference is do you then try to use extra legal means to over turn it.

Also the last time I took a tip jar bet on an election I still paid it even though I won the bet and the loser didn't so no thanks.

 

It's a fact the Democrats have a messaging problem. Exit polling after 2020 showed that things like concerns about crime hurt the democrats even though by then most had already dropped "Defund the Police" many, especially in Congressional races voted Republican over the perception that Democrats were soft on crime.

We're seeing that in polling currently showing that the economy and crime are still top issues and Democrats are doing poorly on that.

The Republican message is almost always simpler because Republicans tend to have less issues they focus on. They also don't focus on solutions as much as Democrats but rely on pushing grievance more. This isn't fair to Democrats but politics isn't fair and winning over low interest voters requires straightforward and simple messaging. Also messaging that isn't easily coopted by the other side.

The most successful Democrat message was "Hope and Change" it was easy to deliver and so vague that it became an easy cipher to lash onto. It also greatly helped that GW Bush was terrible, the country was in a bad place and Obama had great charisma. Biden and the current Democrats have a much tougher job as there are many issues bedeviling them and Biden doesn't have anywhere near the charisma that Obama had.

If I could come up with great messaging for Democrats I would be making money as a political consultant and / or be a talking head on CNN instead of Clutchfans D&D so I will admit to pointing out the problem but this is a problem.

The most I can think of would be a message that the Democrats are actually delivering on what they said. Some variation of "Promises made, Promises Kept." The past two years have been extraordinarily productive and that message needs to get out. From what I'm seeing of Democratic ads is that they aren't making that clear enough. If I was a strategist I would start out an ad with showing new bridges and airports being built, people goign back to work and then follow up with that the Republicans will take yoru right to abortion away.