Dems Rebuild

[RedDenver]

idk about dysfunctional, but they definitely don't have the narrative and the marketing cohesiveness down the way that the GOP does. The Republican animating myth is a good one - always has been.

What is the "Republican animating myth"?

[Landlord]

An animating myth is the cohesive and unifying narrative you use to galvanize people to action and belief. It's telling a very particular, very clear story to gather masses of people into a united vision.

[zoogs]

Landlord has it right. The Democrats are somewhere between muddling and abysmal in the quality of their storytelling. When it’s not preaching to the choir it’s ineffective or even alienating.

On the other hand, as far as actual policy goes, they’ve cornered the market on competent and detail-oriented policymakers. Their platforms are detailed and when, for example, that one guy in the Sanders camp released his less-than-rigorous economic analysis there were plenty of established policy people on hand to criticize it as not well defined enough. Relative to the Republican Party it’s not even a contest, and any Democratic candidate would have assembled together a strong policy team putting out detailed proposals.

 

Whether they are the right ones is perhaps another question. A consequence of the Democrats having so many academics on their side is that ideologues are pushed to the margins and you typically still have market-friendly investment banking types at the center of fiscal policy. I understand the criticisms there but I don’t mind it.

[Danny Bateman]

I would certainly agree that the Dems messaging is horrible. Knapp's post about them trying to counter the GOP with their own statements while repeatedly getting punched in the face comes to mind. This is an issue for the party and one that I'm not sure they have a good answer to short of another amazing orator oozing charisma like Obama. Bernie's message, as flawed as it may have been in several aspects, still spoke to a broader swath of people in a way that a generic Democrat today would not.

 

Undisciplined idealogue (re: demagogue) vs. policy wonk pretty much sums up the 2016 election.

[RedDenver]

 

Landlord has it right. The Democrats are somewhere between muddling and abysmal in the quality of their storytelling. When it’s not preaching to the choir it’s ineffective or even alienating.

 

On the other hand, as far as actual policy goes, they’ve cornered the market on competent and detail-oriented policymakers. Their platforms are detailed and when, for example, that one guy in the Sanders camp released his less-than-rigorous economic analysis there were plenty of established policy people on hand to criticize it as not well defined enough. Relative to the Republican Party it’s not even a contest, and any Democratic candidate would have assembled together a strong policy team putting out detailed proposals.

 

 

Whether they are the right ones is perhaps another question. A consequence of the Democrats having so many academics on their side is that ideologues are pushed to the margins and you typically still have market-friendly investment banking types at the center of fiscal policy. I understand the criticisms there but I don’t mind it.

 

Who are these candidates?

 

Hillary, for example, actually had fewer policies in her ads than Trump did, in fact less than any presidential candidate since at least 2000. Even if we grant that she and/or her team were policy wonks, they weren't running on their policies.

[Moiraine]

The GOP is good at getting people angry, and directing that anger at Democrats.

[Danny Bateman]

Senate Democrats weigh blockade to protest GOP health care plan

 

Good. Fight. The fight is just.

I'm so tired of watching them play patty-cake while the GOP plays hardball. When they're trying to ram healthcare through on their own, in the dark, they need a taste of their own medicine. Let's see if the Dems grow a spine.

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

Landlord has it right. The Democrats are somewhere between muddling and abysmal in the quality of their storytelling. When it’s not preaching to the choir it’s ineffective or even alienating.

 

On the other hand, as far as actual policy goes, they’ve cornered the market on competent and detail-oriented policymakers. Their platforms are detailed and when, for example, that one guy in the Sanders camp released his less-than-rigorous economic analysis there were plenty of established policy people on hand to criticize it as not well defined enough. Relative to the Republican Party it’s not even a contest, and any Democratic candidate would have assembled together a strong policy team putting out detailed proposals.

 

 

Whether they are the right ones is perhaps another question. A consequence of the Democrats having so many academics on their side is that ideologues are pushed to the margins and you typically still have market-friendly investment banking types at the center of fiscal policy. I understand the criticisms there but I don’t mind it.

 

Who are these candidates?

 

Hillary, for example, actually had fewer policies in her ads than Trump did, in fact less than any presidential candidate since at least 2000. Even if we grant that she and/or her team were policy wonks, they weren't running on their policies.

 

 

This is fair. From what I remember, most of her ads were slamming Trump. Rightfully so.

 

But Clinton faced an uphill battle either way. They chose to try to make Trump as unpopular as possible. It didn't work. If they had chosen to be more policy oriented, both the GOP and the Bernie constituency would've called her a neocon in disguise, a liar, someone who wouldn't follow through... rinse and repeat.

 

In the end, she was just far too unpopular a candidate to win no matter what she did. Too much baggage.

[RedDenver]

If they had chosen to be more policy oriented, both the GOP and the Bernie constituency would've called her a neocon in disguise, a liar, someone who wouldn't follow through... rinse and repeat.

We can't know for sure either way, but IMO she'd have done better. At least we could have debated the merits of her policies.

[Danny Bateman]

I don't know how much oxygen was left in the room to debate much of anything when 90% of the national discussion was dedicated to Trump's absurd day to day antics. The media is complicit in this.

But I agree. Clinton's policies were there for the viewing, but hardly anyone knew it and she did a poor job making that a focus. I think that would be a valuable lesson for whomever challenges Trump in 2020.

 

This conversation intersects with another key tenet I came away from 2016 with: Charisma matters more than anything else. You can trace this principle back through many elections. It blows my mind, especially now with his poll numbers, but in a vacuum, people just liked Trump more than Hillary.

[RedDenver]

I don't know how much oxygen was left in the room to debate much of anything when 90% of the national discussion was dedicated to Trump's absurd day to day antics. The media is complicit in this.

 

But I agree. Clinton's policies were there for the viewing, but hardly anyone knew it and she did a poor job making that a focus. I think that would be a valuable lesson for whomever challenges Trump in 2020.

 

This conversation intersects with another key tenet I came away from 2016 with: Charisma matters more than anything else. You can trace this principle back through many elections. It blows my mind, especially now with his poll numbers, but in a vacuum, people just liked Trump more than Hillary.

Trump had higher unfavorable rating than Hillary at the time of the election (61% vs 52%). So I don't know that the 2016 election supports your conclusion.

[zoogs]

Hillary, for example, actually had fewer policies in her ads than Trump did, in fact less than any presidential candidate since at least 2000. Even if we grant that she and/or her team were policy wonks, they weren't running on their policies.

You're talking about advertising.

 

I'm talking about policy. She was detailed, thorough, and comprehensive; as Sanders would have been if he had won, most likely, thanks to the people he would draw to his team.

 

I don't understand what you're trying to get at here. The assertion that the Democrats didn't have detailed policy proposals -- whether or not you agreed with them -- is a bit of a wild charge, don't you think?

[BigRedBuster]

"I do not support a livable wage."

 

Wow. That's very honest. Good for her. My goodness, though.

All right. You name something called "living wage". Just simply doing that makes saying that phrase found bad even though the policy behind the name is bad.

 

I don't support it either because I don't believe every single job in America is made to support ones self entirely.

 

But, I guess if I oppose it....I'm horrible.

[Moiraine]

Someone working 40 hours a week should be able to afford food, shelter and other basic needs. Right now that isn't the case. BRB - what's your answer for people incapable of getting a better job than one that pays minimum wage?

 

Nobody likes to be blunt about it, but those people exist, and some are hard workers.

[zoogs]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage

 

I suppose this is one area in which we diverge, BRB.