The 2024 Presidential Election- The LONG General Election

[Dr. Strangelove]

7 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

- In short. In order to combat the conservative wave sweeping rural America, Democrats need to be present in rural America. They need to listen to the concerns and enact real economic policy that will relieve rural poverty, income inequality, and education deficits. Rather than showing up at a coal mine saying coal is dead, and you can all find new jobs somewhere else. They need to say, "Your local coal plant my be closing, but I've already recruited a new wind factory to come to your town that will offer you employment and has agreed to pay an average of $2 an hour more than the coal company. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

See my above post concerning coal mining. They've tried, it's in the story. The voters rejected it.

 

As for the rest of your post, I agree with all those proposals! If Democrats thought that would be a winning message, they would do it immediately. 

 

The point Im trying to make is that the money and effort it takes to campaign in those areas is extreme. Secondly, it's not effective.  Decades of political science research tells us that all that positive messaging about attempting to improve their lives via Public-Private partnerships is simply countered when a Republican says "Mexicans are Rapists and Murderers, and they took your jobs". 

 

Those voters will only be won over via culture war issues. Nothing else matters.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Honestly, there's a single fulcrum for all 21st Century political messaging. 

 

Socialism.

 

Democrats can roll out program after program that will benefit 97% of Americans at a slight expense to the wealthiest 3%. 

 

And it will be labelled as Socialism. 

 

And Americans have been taught to fear Socialism. Even if it's not socialism, but pretty much the same America they've always championed. 

 

Or maybe it is socialism -- the part where a collective effort creates a healthier society, top to bottom.

 

Except the top still get to be fantastically wealthy captains of industry. That's how America works. 

 

Republicans have turned this into a straight-up anti-government narrative that's wildly hypocritical. Democrats have moved from left of center to right of center to appease and attract the fence-sitters, but get labeled as socialists, communists and Marxists regardless. 

 

Americans don't understand basic economic and political theory. The average citizen in most countries is savvier. That would be a good place to start. 

 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Just now, Dr. Strangelove said:

 

 

As for the rest of your post, I agree with all those proposals! If Democrats thought that would be a winning message, they would do it immediately. 

 

 

Not necessarily. There is much disagreement within Democratic leadership about how we got here and what should be done next.

 

Not unlike HuskerBoard. 

[Dr. Strangelove]

2 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Honestly, there's a single fulcrum for all 21st Century political messaging. 

 

Socialism.

 

Democrats can roll out program after program that will benefit 97% of Americans at a slight expense to the wealthiest 3%. 

 

And it will be labelled as Socialism. 

 

And Americans have been taught to fear Socialism. Even if it's not socialism, but pretty much the same America they've always championed. 

 

Or maybe it is socialism -- the part where a collective effort creates a healthier society, top to bottom.

 

Except the top still get to be fantastically wealthy captains of industry. That's how America works. 

 

Republicans have turned this into a straight-up anti-government narrative that's wildly hypocritical. Democrats have moved from left of center to right of center to appease and attract the fence-sitters, but get labeled as socialists, communists and Marxists regardless. 

 

Americans don't understand basic economic and political theory. The average citizen in most countries is savvier. That would be a good place to start. 

 

 

Bingo.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Just now, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Not necessarily. There is much disagreement within Democratic leadership about how we got here and what should be done next.

 

Not unlike HuskerBoard. 

I disagree. If Democrats thought they could win 60 Senate seats based and the proposals described - ones I would support in a heart beat - they would do so.

 

The problem is it wouldn't lead them to victory, but instead a likely massive defeat. All the messaging about economic issues is simply countered by Abortion, Immigration, or it being labeled socialism as you noted above. 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I know: a fact based book written by somebody with a PhD accurately predicting that white voters care more about culture wars than their own economic interests 15 years before it went mainstream is certainly something a person like yourself (A denier that climate change is caused by human activity) probably would reject. 

Lots of people have PhD’s who don’t know s#!t about rural Kansas or reason people like living the way they do and the way of life in small towns.  Certainly a PhD from Mission Hills (I will assume you don’t know why this is important) who hasn’t spent time out there fits that description. 

[Born N Bled Red]

1 minute ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

See my above post concerning coal mining. They've tried, it's in the story. The voters rejected it.

 

As for the rest of your post, I agree with all those proposals! If Democrats thought that would be a winning message, they would do it immediately. 

 

The point Im trying to make is that the money and effort it takes to campaign in those areas is extreme. Secondly, it's not effective.  Decades of political science research tells us that all that positive messaging about attempting to improve their lives via Public-Private partnerships is simply countered when a Republican says "Mexicans are Rapists and Murderers, and they took your jobs". 

 

Those voters will only be won over via culture war issues. Nothing else matters.

 

The point Im trying to make is that the money and effort it takes to campaign in those areas is extreme.

- what is more costly, investing in rural areas or being locked out of power? If it's not effective explain Beto's success in Texas. Democrats abandoned rural and in doing so has allowed conservatism to spread and conservative messaging to have a greater and undue impact. Their failure to enact true policy change when given the opportunity has further enforced this and allowed culture war issues to hold more weight than they should because there is no economic solution being offered by either party for the issues rural areas face. 

 

Those voters will only be won over via culture war issues. Nothing else matters.

- This is 100 percent false and boils 22 million people into a single derogatory stereotype that conveniently allows you to dismiss the absolute failure democratic platforms and messaging have had with gain traction in rural America. 

 

- If this is your excuse with rural white Americans' why are Democrats also struggling to hold onto the Hispanic vote? Surely the DNC and democratic party apparatus cannot be at fault here either. Right?

[RedDenver]

26 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

This was NEVER my claim, and you should have gone back to check before putting words in someone's mouth.

Here's your claims:

On 1/6/2022 at 10:00 AM, Born N Bled Red said:

The caricature Democrats have created around the rural white voters is no different than the one Republicans created in the 80's and 90s of the urban welfare queen. It is a way to pass off their policy failings, placing the blame on the voters rather than the party and its platform. 

 

On 1/6/2022 at 10:48 AM, Born N Bled Red said:

This is a problem with democrats, their economic platforms and messaging leave the rural voter behind and they are directly responsible for the "reddening" of rural America. 

 

22 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

What they are angry at are the "welfare queen," stereotypes they are shown on TV. Unfortunately Democrats unknowingly reinforce this narrative when they share their success stories that benefit urban minorities. And every national Democratic campaign does this. To rural voters, as I've said, this is further proof Dems don't care about their struggles. It could almost be seen as taunting. 

 

22 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

 

I would have to see these campaign ads that celebrate success stories of welfare queens. Whose ads do this? National ads or local? That seems utterly bizarre - but I'll admit I haven't had cable in years and don't watch commercials. 

   --- National - rural local races generally don't run ads, if they even have a democratic challenger at all. 

 

21 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

Man, if you're telling me, you've never seen an ad for a candidate that has an anecdote, quote, or personal message from someone who had personally benefitted from a social program and support XYZ candidate, because without them, I would have never gotten my college diploma/ graduated high school, etc. I'm going to flag that as pure .

 

20 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

Yeah, sorry, I think I'm going to keep ignoring it. I think you know what I'm talking about, and are just being difficult. Just like you were about democratic elected official mocking rural voters.

 

I was incorrect in that I thought you had said Dem party ads demeaned rural Americans. I had combined your claim of national ads celebrating the success of "welfare queens" and your claim of "democratic elected official mocking rural voters". However, you've still not given any of these national ads celebrating "welfare queens" (the choice of your words here is pretty telling that it's not Dem ads you're thinking of), and very little for "democratic elected official mocking rural voters". Hillary "deplorables" I'll given you, even if it wasn't intended as rural vs urban but rather for Trump voters, but the Obama one is a nothing burger if you actually read the whole quote.

[Dr. Strangelove]

10 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

Those voters will only be won over via culture war issues. Nothing else matters.

- This is 100 percent false and boils 22 million people into a single derogatory stereotype that conveniently allows you to dismiss the absolute failure democratic platforms and messaging have had with gain traction in rural America. 

Countless Political Science papers - as well as what we can see and observe with our own eyes - tells us otherwise.

 

I've provided you with a Political Science essay written in the 1960s detailing how the right-wing appeal to conspiratory thinking and anger is more persuasive than Econmic messaging from the left. This powerful essay, popular in the field of Political Science, was expanded upon numerous times. I cited Thomas Frank's book to detail how Republican messaging - appealing to the Paranoid Style documented decades earlier - wins the day when put up against the Democratic economic messaging of bettering their lives.

 

It's a real problem that is difficult to grapple with. You're saying Democrats need to get down and dirty, campaign and put fourth a tremendous effort to sell a massive expansion of the federal government in their lives by visiting those areas and selling the pitch face to face with the people who would benefit from it. This won't work due to the research cited above.

 

 

[Born N Bled Red]

3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

What they are angry at are the "welfare queen," stereotypes they are shown on TV. Unfortunately Democrats unknowingly reinforce this narrative when they share their success stories that benefit urban minorities. And every national Democratic campaign does this. To rural voters, as I've said, this is further proof Dems don't care about their struggles. It could almost be seen as taunting. 

 

- Check you're reading comprehension. In the above. I never said Democrats are sharing or celebrating "welfare queen" stories. In keeping with the conversation it was pretty clear that I was discussing Republican talking points, and "Democrats unknowingly reinforcing this narrative when they share their success stories that benefit urban minorities." Which clear indicates that the Welfare Queen Narrative was presented by another party. I further ellucidated this morning, that 

 

"This (the use of minority anecdotes of examples of positive policy impact) is meant to widen the party's base, to create broad appeal and be more inclusive and indicate who left wing policies benefit the "normal person." However, when paired with Right winged maker vs. taker talking points, going to the same audience, it can also have the unintended effect of amplifying the republican message. Because when a Rural Red voter see that minority person, the rural red voter does not see themselves reflected in that that story. They see benefits going to someone else, who doesn't look like them, doesn't talk like them, and doesn't live where they do."

 

Now if you could let this Red Herring Fallacy Go, and focus on the actual conversation that'd be great. 

 

Oh- and just so I don't have to explain myself later- 

The red herring fallacy is a logical fallacy where someone presents irrelevant information in an attempt to distract others from a topic that’s being discussed, often to avoid a question or shift the discussion in a new direction.

[Born N Bled Red]

21 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Countless Political Science papers - as well as what we can see and observe with our own eyes - tells us otherwise.

 

I've provided you with a Political Science essay written in the 1960s detailing how the right-wing appeal to conspiratory thinking and anger is more persuasive than Econmic messaging from the left. This powerful essay, popular in the field of Political Science, was expanded upon numerous times. I cited Thomas Frank's book to detail how Republican messaging - appealing to the Paranoid Style documented decades earlier - wins the day when put up against the Democratic economic messaging of bettering their lives.

 

It's a real problem that is difficult to grapple with. You're saying Democrats need to get down and dirty, campaign and put fourth a tremendous effort to sell a massive expansion of the federal government in their lives by visiting those areas and selling the pitch face to face with the people who would benefit from it. This won't work due to the research cited above.

 

 

 

Nebraska's success on left leaning ballot initiatives would suggest otherwise. This success, as I said, is in spite of the fact that Nebraska has not had a Democratic Governor since 1999. 

[RedDenver]

15 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

- Check you're reading comprehension. In the above. I never said Democrats are sharing or celebrating "welfare queen" stories. In keeping with the conversation it was pretty clear that I was discussing Republican talking points, and "Democrats unknowingly reinforcing this narrative when they share their success stories that benefit urban minorities." Which clear indicates that the Welfare Queen Narrative was presented by another party. I further ellucidated this morning, that 

 

"This (the use of minority anecdotes of examples of positive policy impact) is meant to widen the party's base, to create broad appeal and be more inclusive and indicate who left wing policies benefit the "normal person." However, when paired with Right winged maker vs. taker talking points, going to the same audience, it can also have the unintended effect of amplifying the republican message. Because when a Rural Red voter see that minority person, the rural red voter does not see themselves reflected in that that story. They see benefits going to someone else, who doesn't look like them, doesn't talk like them, and doesn't live where they do."

 

Now if you could let this Red Herring Fallacy Go, and focus on the actual conversation that'd be great. 

 

Oh- and just so I don't have to explain myself later- 

The red herring fallacy is a logical fallacy where someone presents irrelevant information in an attempt to distract others from a topic that’s being discussed, often to avoid a question or shift the discussion in a new direction.

For someone who claims to care about messaging, you certainly seem more interested in insults and demagoguing than actual discussion. Continue on with your ranting, I will not interject with relevant discussion about the topic anymore since that seems to be distracting for you.

[Born N Bled Red]

12 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

For someone who claims to care about messaging, you certainly seem more interested in insults and demagoguing than actual discussion. Continue on with your ranting, I will not interject with relevant discussion about the topic anymore since that seems to be distracting for you.

 

Dude, I posted 3 ads last night that did exactly what I claimed they did, one was Trump, two were Biden. They shared stories of minorities who benefitted by policies and actions of elected officials as part of their campaign messaging. I provided two examples of democratic Presidential candidates demeaning nonurban voters. 

 

You and Knapplc's misunderstanding of my posts and repeatedly asking me for something I never suggested existed in the first place serves only to detract from the greater conversation, which is that "Democrats need to own their failures in rural America and find a way to compete or they will be unable to enact the change we all seek, let alone prevent changes the right would see made."

 

If me pointing out your intent to derail the conversation or your misunderstanding of the content of my posts has in someway offended you well, that's on you. (Holy crap. I am a democrat. My failure in messaging is your fault. See???) 

[RedDenver]

28 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

Dude, I posted 3 ads last night that did exactly what I claimed they did, one was Trump, two were Biden. They shared stories of minorities who benefitted by policies and actions of elected officials as part of their campaign messaging. I provided two examples of democratic Presidential candidates demeaning nonurban voters. 

You replied, so you can stop with the "red herring" fallacy nonsense. Either engage in the discussion with me or not, but don't hide behind claiming a fallacy you are contributing to.

 

I went back 24 hours in this thread and here's all your posts with links in them so that I'm not misrepresenting you:

21 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

 

 

Just like this, only instead of getting out of prison, the received benefits from some social service. C'mon man. 

 

 

 

Yes, it's a Trump ad from Feb 2020. I think we all agree on Repub messaging, so I don't think there's a disagreement here.

 

21 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

Now you're being disingenuous. Go watch these. They are examples. Not the best. But its what you're getting. I don't have the time appease your need to not use google. If this doesn't suffice, you can google sources that explain that the ads I'm speaking about don't exist  

 

https://thehill.com/latino/571163-exclusive-pro-biden-group-launches-hispanic-ad-campaign 

This is from Sep 2021. None of the 3 ads in that article is the Dem party demeaning rural America, which I think we also agree on. (I'll come back to what I think you're intending by this link below.)

 

15 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/storytelling-may-make-political-ads-powerful-persuaders-0/

This is an article about how storytelling is powerful for campaigning. I think we can all agree on that.

 

28 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

You and Knapplc's misunderstanding of my posts and repeatedly asking me for something I never suggested existed in the first place serves only to detract from the greater conversation, which is that "Democrats need to own their failures in rural America and find a way to compete or they will be unable to enact the change we all seek, let alone prevent changes the right would see made."

Alright, let's say I completely misunderstood your previous posts and take a fresh look at your assertion (I've bolded).

 

I agree with you here. I'd love for Dems to own their failures and do better. But that brings us to the crux of the issue: What are the Dem failures they need to own?

 

I think you're trying to claim that the ads directed at Hispanics in the Hill article are one of the failures that Dems need to own. Yes?

 

28 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

If me pointing out your intent to derail the conversation or your misunderstanding of the content of my posts has in someway offended you well, that's on you. (Holy crap. I am a democrat. My failure in messaging is your fault. See???) 

I've admitted in a previous post that I got two concepts combined and made a good faith effort to say so and separate them. And I'm taking a fresh look at your assertion in this post and trying to get to the core of the discussion. You can keep saying that I'm intending to derail the conversation or that I'm offended or whatever, but it just makes it hard to take anything you're saying seriously.

[Guy Chamberlin]

3 hours ago, RedDenver said:

For someone who claims to care about messaging, you certainly seem more interested in insults and demagoguing than actual discussion. Continue on with your ranting, I will not interject with relevant discussion about the topic anymore since that seems to be distracting for you.

disagree. This has been a very good discussion. No more demagoguery, rants and insults on one side than the other. Good links to relevant articles. A lot of common ground actually. Not sure why you’re viewing it so adversarial.

 

Archy? Could you step in and give us something to agree on?