Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

I really should read my own blog.

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

Today’s GOP: why go just far enough when too far is right there?

This blog will pay for itself.

Conservatism: there are some people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

They were going to turn on one another at some point. It was inevitable.

The GOP couldn’t organize an orgy in a whorehouse with a fist full of 50s.

Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don’t ask for more? Great plan.

Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.

“Squeaker” McCarthy

Is it negotiation when the other party actually wants to shoot the hostage?

Trump’s legal defense is going to be a dumpster fire inside a clown car on a derailing train.

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

There is no compromise when it comes to body autonomy. You either have it or you don’t.

Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.

It’s the corruption, stupid.

Tick tock motherfuckers!

Take your GOP plan out of the witness protection program.

They’re not red states to be hated; they are voter suppression states to be fixed.

The next time the wall street journal editorial board speaks the truth will be the first.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

He wakes up lying, and he lies all day.

Imperialist aggressors must be defeated, or the whole world loses.

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

You are here: Home / Open Threads / How to fix the politics problem

How to fix the politics problem

by | 157 Comments

This post is in: 

There’s an avalanche of punditry about the Democrats’ messaging and/or politics problem. Most of the analysis I’ve read has been garbage, i.e., Never Trumpers advising Democrats to be “less woke” (like Republicans only less fascist), DSA types insisting (against evidence) that a narrow focus on wealth inequality will inspire economically anxious Trump voters to throw in with Team Donk, blah blah blah.

A guest essay by Julia Azari, which was published in today’s NYT under the click-baity title “Are Democrats Bad at Politics?”, is one of the more interesting of the genre, IMO. Azari says the party faces the same challenge of uniting a diverse coalition with disparate interests that it always did but with new twists:

  • Hyper-nationalized state and local elections drive some Dem politicians who need to set themselves apart from the Dem brand for whatever reason to resort to more dramatic stunts.
  • A stronger progressive coalition within the party makes working with conservative-leaning Dems more difficult because they can’t simply be ignored.

That boils down to what we’ve discussed here a lot — the problems inherent in a big tent. Basically, Democrats collect all voters who aren’t affirmatively in favor of a patriarchal, ethnonationalist, quasi-theocratic, authoritarian state.

That’s most voters, but they don’t necessarily agree on much else except “not that,” and the majority status is narrow enough that structural deficits come into play that make it harder for Dems to win. Azari outlines different ways Democrats (voters and politicians) could address the problem, including:

  • Strengthening social movements around Democratic goals, e.g., climate change mitigation, student debt, etc., to make those issues harder to ignore.
  • Institutional reform to level the structural playing field, e.g., filibuster reform, proportional representation.
  • Reducing the power of wealthy donors via better conflict-of-interest oversight and lobbying reform.

She concludes as follows:

Many of the Democrats’ problems in the legislative process are not of their own making. But, fairly or not, Democratic leaders will need to think differently about how power flows through their coalition if they want to see their successes in electoral politics turn into policy achievements.

For various reasons, all of the solutions Azari proposes are a really heavy lift, but I figured her thoughts were worth sharing. If I ran the zoo, I’d start with #3.

Open thread.

PS: Bonus dog wrasslin’!

Reader Interactions

157Comments

  5. 5.

    Ajabu

    I don’t know the answer but I see the reality:

    If the Repugs Get a foothold in the federal government in the midterms the country is finished. And I don’t have any answer…

  6. 6.

    Jerzy Russian

    Proportional representation would help.  If we took the population of Wyoming to be the number of people in a Congressional district, then California would have about 66 members of Congress instead of 53.   New York state would have 33 instead of 27, and so on.

     

    As long as we are wishing for ponies, if we are to keep the Senate as is, at least require the Majority Leader to be from the party whose members represent the most people.

  7. 7.

    Jerzy Russian

    @Baud:

     

    What does the first recommendation mean?

    I guess we change the culture so that issues like climate change are as popular as Motherhood and Apple Pie.

  8. 8.

    SpaceUnit

    I wish the NYT editorial board would all watch ‘Don’t Look Up’ together.  And then afterwards I’d like to be a fly on the wall as they tried in vain to figure out what the movie was about.

  9. 9.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @SpaceUnit: I wasn’t planning on watching that movie, but I’m seeing such wildly varying opinions, even among people who like it, that I’m kind of curious

    ETA: hanging around on this thread to see if anyone can answer Baud’s question @Baud: # 4

  10. 10.

    Another Scott

    I haven’t read the link (no time at the moment), but in general I think it’s funny that Democrats who win elections are supposed to take unsolicited advice from non-Democratic pundits and completely change their approach to reach some subset of voters, while the GQP goes about its merry way without any apparent introspection at all.  Certainly nothing serious since their 2012 autopsy report. That report was disowned and memory-holed before it was even released.

    ’tis a puzzle.

    Thanks.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  13. 13.

    comrade scotts agenda of rage

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: ​
     

    It’s essentially a re-imagining of Dr Strangelove. Existential threat to humanity? Check. Societal and governmental responses totally dysfunctional? Check. Individual obsession on minor things (Lawrence’s character has one, that’s all I’ll say)? Check. There’s more.

    Basically, it means that we as a species have made no progress in 60 years toward some kind of Star Trek future which I now see as wild-eyed fantasy as opposed to just sci-fi aspirations.

  15. 15.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Baud: “I know we disagree on UBI, but we both know that Climate Change is a huge thing.  Why don’t we work to together on that?”  Repeat with different issues for different groups.

  19. 19.

    Jess

    Dems need moar cowbell.

    Dems have great policies that the majority of voters agree with, but ultimately people are too self-absorbed to care about policies. They want mythology, grand narratives, and validation. This is one reason why Obama was successful against all odds, and why HRC was not. Similar policies, but very different communication styles. Obama himself noted the power of narrative, citing Reagan as a model for this. And of course this is what the GOP has excelled at, despite their lousy and incoherent policies.

  20. 20.

    mrmoshpotato

    Never Trumpers advising Democrats to be “less woke” (like Republicans only less fascist)

    I’m a Never Trumper too – because I’ve been a Fuck-the-GOP-er for as long as I’ve been paying attention to politics.

    Fuck these GOP careerists who just hate that Dump started yelling the deplorable shit instead of whispering it.

  21. 21.

    Matt

    Basically, Democrats collect all voters who aren’t affirmatively in favor of a patriarchal, ethnonationalist, quasi-theocratic, authoritarian state.

    The root of the problem is the “affirmatively” part – there’s a sizable contingent that wouldn’t like the authoritarian state per se, but would be fine with it if the alternative was a state 0.1% more generous than they prefer.

  22. 22.

    geg6

    I think that we should just make Badger and Pete the face of the party.  And maybe rope in Jean and Jorts for good measure.

  24. 24.

    CaseyL

    • Institutional reform to level the structural playing field, e.g., filibuster reform, proportional representation.
    • Reducing the power of wealthy donors via better conflict-of-interest oversight and lobbying reform.

    These aren’t just heavy lifts; they’re impossible ones under current procedural constraints (Manchinema protecting the filibuster) and legal ones (Citizens United).

    I don’t see the foundations of the problems being overcome anytime soon, if ever. A new Voting Rights Act – in the unlikely event one even gets passed – will be tossed by SCOTUS.

  25. 25.

    Kay

    @Baud:

    It means a sustained focus on an issue by a group of people who are drawn together by that issue and to a certain extent are disciplined by the norms within the group – so a social movement around climate change wouldn’t expand that into all sorts of side issues or splinter into warring factions because they feel a responsibility to the others in the group to stick to the agreed upon message. It doesn’t need to be rule-bound or heavily policed because the association between the members creates a duty among the members to not harm the larger cause.

  26. 26.

    mrmoshpotato

    @Baud:

    What does the first recommendation mean? 

    Bullshit, because Rethuglicans could call climate change a hoax as it’s literally strangling them.

  27. 27.

    Old School

    @Baud:

    That can’t be what that means.

    But, it is.  Here’s the entire paragraph:

    As a result, Democrats might be doomed to more cycles of lengthy negotiations and under-delivering on progressive promises. But there are a few changes that could shake up which groups hold power within the party, making it more responsive to a broader range of its voters. One route is to strengthen social movements, which could both keep progressive issues like green energy and student debt on the public agenda and possibly help to elect more progressive Democrats. Such movements could also help to mobilize different groups of voters around shared priorities like health care and economic insecurity.

  30. 30.

    Baud

    @Kay:

    to a certain extent are disciplined by the norms within the group

     
    She knows she’s talking about Democrats, right?

    Seriously, thanks. Your explanation makes sense. I have to think about it.

  34. 34.

    Kay

    @Baud:

    It’s a through line for those people- so they don’t coalesce around THIS senate candidate or THAT cycle and then just disappear. They’re committed to that issue, not a candidate.

    But you can’t expect complete fealty from them- they aren’t going to support every Democrat because that’s not what they’re about. Candidate or campaign acivists are a different thing.

  35. 35.

    Lapassionara

    @SpaceUnit: I remember “The Day After,” which, iirc, came out in the 1980’s and rendered the details of daily life after a nuclear war. It was full of the grim realities and got people’s attention. There seemed to be some movement toward denuclearization afterward. That is the kind of approach that a filmmaker needs to take to global climate change.

  36. 36.

    Miss Bianca

    @Baud: I agree!

    Oh, Badger and Pete rasslin’ (not even bothering to get out of bed!), it fills me with a joy that not even the 57th variation on “Democrats are doin’ democratin’ RONG…for REASONS!” can destroy!

  37. 37.

    Cameron

    The Democrats’ message problem (if that’s what it is) has really been caused by the Republicans.  For better or worse, the US has locked itself into a two-party system, but that system only works if whichever party isn’t in power becomes the Loyal Opposition.  A tribe of rabid howler monkeys is ill-suited for the role of Loyal Opposition, or really for any other function in our government.  I think this has resulted in the moderate wing of the Democrats taking on the Republican Loyal Opposition role, and the party as a whole attempting to house what are de facto two parties.  The Democratic Party needs to unify internally before anything else, otherwise it won’t be able to have any coherent message.  Well, that’s my view from my COVID hermitage, anyway.

  38. 38.

    WaterGirl

    Thanks or the video, Betty.  Good to know that all is as it should be, somewhere at least!

    Badger has little Pete on his back in the submissive position that entire time, all while they are having fun.  Sometimes the little guy turns out to be the more dominant one, but I think Badger has nipped the in the bud.

  39. 39.

    Kay

    @Baud:

    This happens all the time and some people are disciplined and others are not, but the basic argument plays out all the time.

    In Ohio we had the “we are the 99%” people AND a labor-managed campaign to repeal a specific anti-labor state law. The “we are the 99%” wanted to glom onto the labor rally and the labor people said “no- we’re doing THIS referendum right now”.

    You know I like order so I was “thank fucking GOD someone knows how to say ‘no” :)

  41. 41.

    lowtechcyclist

    I think the Dems should focus on what we can all agree on: turning the Republican brand into shit.

    They and their Fox News, talk radio, Newsmax etc. allies are a treasonous fifth column in our war on Covid-19.  They are equally united against any attempt to deal with global climate change, which is a genuinely existential threat.  They are similarly engaged in a multi-front war to undermine democracy by using their control of state governments to perpetuate their grip on power even with a minority of voters.  And of course, they downplay the January 6th insurrection and make excuses for its participants.

    They are Covid traitors, climate traitors, democracy traitors, and January 6th insurrection traitors.  This should be the message that unites us against them.

  43. 43.

    Baud

    @Kay:

    I guess I’m having difficulty seeing what exactly it is that party leadership needs to do.  Your example involves two private groups.

  44. 44.

    SpaceUnit

    @Lapassionara:

    I sort of remember seeing that, and I agree that it seemed to have some significant impact.  But I think today’s cultural / social / political milieu is vastly different ( and for the worse ).

    I’m not sure there’s any urgency that could get any traction today.

  45. 45.

    mrmoshpotato

    @Cameron:

    A tribe of rabid howler monkeys is ill-suited for the role of Loyal Opposition, or really for any other function in our government. 

    The flying monkeys from The Wizard of Oz would be a better opposition party.

  46. 46.

    Ken

    @SpaceUnit: the Dems know which side of their cat to butter

    I know what you mean, but it reminds me of the joke-paradox, if you strapped a piece of buttered toast to a cat’s back and dropped it, which side would hit the ground?

  48. 48.

    Miss Bianca

    @mrmoshpotato:

    The flying monkeys from The Wizard of Oz would be a better opposition party.

    If I recall my Wizard of Oz properly (I mean the book, rather than the movie), once Dorothy has dispatched the Wicked Witch of the West, the flying monkeys come to terms with her pretty quickly.

  49. 49.

    SpaceUnit

    @Ken:

    The cat would land on its feet of course, rendering your experiment meaningless.

    It would be far more interesting to place Schrodinger’s cat in a sealed box with a singular pat of butter . . .

     

    ETA:  Theoretical butter, obviously.  I think they carry it at Trader Joe’s.

  50. 50.

    SiubhanDuinne

    In the For What It’s Worth department, the NYT has changed the piece’s title from the Cavuto-interrogatory “Are Democrats Bad at Politics?” to the declarative “A.O.C. and Manchin Are in the Same Party. No Wonder Democrats Are Struggling.”

  52. 52.

    Jerzy Russian

    @Lapassionara: 

    I seem to recall a column by Cal Thomas about 30 years ago where he was dumping on the network that broadcast that show (was it ABC?) since the show failed to depict the Soviet Union as not completely evil or some such thing. I distinctly remember thinking “Christ, what an asshole” after reading that.

  54. 54.

    CaseyL

    @Omnes Omnibus: I’m not sure.  It means expending a lot of resources – time, energy, money – that might be better used differently.  (NB: I freely admit I don’t know what those different things might be.  How do you solve a problem like SCOTUS?)

    Now, if the idea is to build a coalition of interested, engaged, and knowledgeable people for the future – say, 10-20 years down the line – that I can totally get behind.

  55. 55.

    lowtechcyclist

    @Ken:  if you strapped a piece of buttered toast to a cat’s back and dropped it, which side would hit the ground?

    Oh, that’s easy. The cat would wriggle out of the straps in mid-air, and would land on its feet while the toast, now disengaged from the cat, landed buttered side down.

  57. 57.

    Poe Larity

    @lowtechcyclist:  Arguably, herd immunity and let that 1% die agendas are a pro-COVID position. The least they could do is preface them that way.

    Couldn’t a liberal ActBlue SPAC or NFT buy the NYT? We could then make DougJ the ombudsman.

  59. 59.

    Jerzy Russian

    @Miss Bianca:   When my daughter was small (about 20 years ago) we spent a lot of time reading the Oz books.  I seem to recall that it was not trivial to find unabridged versions.  In any event, I remember the bit about the flying monkeys and how they had a back story and how that was so much different than the movie.

    We eventually slogged through all 14 books.  My favorite book by far was the second one.

  60. 60.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @CaseyL:  I can tell you how don’t solve a problem like the Supreme Court.  You don’t declare it unsolvable and suggest partitioning the country.

  62. 62.

    Miss Bianca

    @Jerzy Russian: You mean The Land of Oz? Or, The Marvelous Land of Oz, as it is sometimes styled? (The one where Tip is revealed to be Quite a Different Sort of Boy altogether?) That one kind of freaked me out when I was a kid, to be honest. I enjoyed most of the other ones better.

  67. 67.

    JaySinWa

    @The Moar You Know:Most voters these days are single-issue voters.

    I don’t buy that. there are a lot of them but i doubt they are even a plurality. They are enough to swing elections in many cases but they can be outvoted.

    ETA although if your argument is that they are the reason most people sit out the vote then I suppose your majority claim has some validity. I see apathy or resignation as the bigger force for that, myself.

  72. 72.

    Ken

    @Starfish: Neither dog shows any signs of schisming into two dozen smaller dogs which immediately start attacking one another, so I’ll have to say they have no representation.

  79. 79.

    Jerzy Russian

    @Miss Bianca:   Yes, the Marvelous Land of Oz.  This was the only book that did not have Dorothy in it.  I thought the “Highly Magnified and Thoroughly Educated” Woggle-Bug was a hoot.  I had forgotten that part about Tip being a princess, but I can see how that could freak people out.

  80. 80.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @zhena gogolia: I had to struggle through the novel– at least Esther’s narrations– and I loved that version. Gillian Anderson is awesome, and Charles Dance as a Victorian solicitor is scarier than he was as the medieval warlord in GOT

  82. 82.

    schrodingers_cat

    Democrats are doing extremely well among demographics not considered white. So all these think pieces amount to how can Democrats win white people? Something that hasn’t happened since Dems became the party of civil rights for non-white people.

    So all this messaging stuff is bullshit.

  85. 85.

    SpaceUnit

    @schrodingers_cat:

    Funny, we were just talking about your nymsake.

    Make no mistake, there are a LOT of white Democrats.  And Republicans are doing very well among Latinos, so it’s not cut and dry.  I think much of our corporate media just likes to sow division.

    They’d rather talk about “wokeness” and “identity politics” than actual issues that affect people’s lives.

  87. 87.

    Miss Bianca

    @Jerzy Russian: That wasn’t the part that freaked me out (although I was a girl who wanted to be a boy, so seeing a girl who got turned into a boy get turned back into a girl because “oh, you’re a PRINCESS, really!” was a little hard for me to take, I admit.) I think it was the Gump and the Suffragette Army and a few other things, like seeing the Scarecrow and the Tim Woodman and such *without* Dorothy, perhaps, that did it for me.

    But yeah, the Wogglebug is an awesome creature.

  92. 92.

    Mo Salad

    @Jerzy Russian: Actually, we should go big on that since it can be done legislatively. It has been 435 since 1911when the population was 92,000,000. That’s an average of one Representative per 212,000 or so. Extrapolate that to 330,000,000 and you get over 1500 Reps and help neuter the Electoral College.

  95. 95.

    Kay

    @Baud:

    Integrate with the groups. Like Republicans do with anti-abortion people, they go to meetings, speak at events, “I’m with you!”. Embrace the interest groups instead of seeing them as competitors, adversaries or a necessary evil that must be borne in terms of turning them out for one cycle. A real relationship.

    Not “you’re with me!” but “I’m with you!”

    The relationship is what you have to rely on when the specific goal isn’t met. So people say “I trust X on Y- he/she has always supported us”. Clinton was like that for health care. She was a senator but she was also a health care advocate.

  99. 99.

    Miss Bianca

    @SiubhanDuinne: The Wheelers! Oh, Lord, they were scary, too. Ozma of Oz – which also introduced the Nome King, and that princess with all the different heads, which she wore instead of different dresses. Yeah, come to think of it, that one was a freak-out too, but I still liked it better than The Land of Oz  – I guess I just always felt safer in Oz when Dorothy was there!

  100. 100.

    Kay

    @Miss Bianca:

    Some of it is malicious but I think most of it comes from a good place. They’re afraid Democrats are going to lose and they don’t want Democrats to lose. They look at Biden’s approval and the generic ballot and they think they’re losing, which is rational. They want to win. You can’t really hate them for that.

  102. 102.

    JPL

    From twitter…  Now I’m going to google to check if true.

    FOX NEWS: Trump vowed to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell if he wins in 2024

    appears to be speculaiton

  104. 104.

    Baud

    @Kay:

    Integrate with the groups. Like Republicans do with anti-abortion people, they go to meetings, speak at events, “I’m with you!”.

     
    Thanks. I guess I assumed that was already happening. If not, it does seem like a good idea.

  106. 106.

    Kay

    @Miss Bianca:

    If Biden were at 60% approval it wouldn’t matter what he said- he’d be a messaging genuis. It’s a response to low approval ratings, so not just arbitrary criticism of Democrats. They think he should be more popular on the merits so they look to messaging as the problem, which is understandable.

  109. 109.

    schrodingers_cat

    @Omnes Omnibus: Oh I agree. When the think pieces say that Ds have a messaging problem with voters, white is silent.

    What they really mean is Ds have a messaging problem with white voters. If say 60% white women overall voted for Ds consistently this country’s politics would look very different.

  110. 110.

    Kay

    @Baud:

    Democrats always held them at arm’s length. “I will now visit with the climate change fanatics”

    Republicans are like “Here’s my AR 15. I am in fact a gun nut, like you!”

    I think it started in the 1990’s, when Democrats become terrified of “interest groups” – we were bullied into considering them something apart from our base. Republicans have no such fear. They embrace.

  111. 111.

    Miss Bianca

    @Kay: No, I don’t hate them, but I get tired of this constant drumbeat from the Republicans and the MSM that Democrats are Doing It All Wrong – that simply *being* a Democrat is somehow wrong – and then get the SAME drumbeat from supposed allies.

    For example, I get this FB message pop up in my feed from “Mobilize Against Voter Suppression!” or some such thing which STARTS OUT by saying, “well, I don’t know if I *believe* that Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer *actually* care about voting rights BUT blah blah blah” and I just.can’t.EVEN with it anymore, that shit makes me crazy. Like, “way to crap all over your objective, dudes and dudettes! Let’s just tell people FLAT OUT that ‘I don’t think that the Democratic President and Senate Majority Leader who staved off an economic crash, rolled out COVID vaccines, and got a huge fucking infrastructure bill passed with no support from Republicans can be TRUSTED when they say they think that voting rights legislation is important! But, you know, a bunch of dumb people VOTED for these guys so we’re stuck with them, I guess?!’ WTF is up with that? Why the fuck are you worried about voter suppression when you don’t even seem to realize what voting has ALREADY BROUGHT YOU?”

    As you pointed out earlier, “People who consider themselves some kind of Lefty vanguard have absolutely no concept of collective action or solidarity. They need to go back and read their own foundational ideas.”

  113. 113.

    zhena gogolia

    @Kay: Aaron Rupar argues that Biden’s approval numbers follow the Covid numbers.  I think that’s right. Everybody’s pissed at Biden that Omicron has ruined the holidays.

  114. 114.

    Le Comte de Monte Cristo, fka Edmund Dantes

    @Chief Oshkosh:

    “How dare you reflect that we’re shamefully shallow and vapid about how we cover “big issue” events! We’re serious! And thinky!”

  115. 115.

    mrmoshpotato

    @zhena gogolia:

    Aaron Rupar argues that Biden’s approval numbers follow the Covid numbers. I think that’s right. Everybody’s pissed at Biden that Omicron has ruined the holidays.

    Biden: Well, you unvaccinated assholes!…  Also, fuck you all who let that Kremlin-humping, orange shitstain win!

  116. 116.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Miss Bianca: This one of the reasons that, when I make calls to politicians on our side, I do not ask what there position on x is.  I usually know it and I call to thank them for their efforts so far and encourage them to do more.  A pat on the back.  Even if they have done much, yet.

  117. 117.

    Le Comte de Monte Cristo, fka Edmund Dantes

    @SpaceUnit:

    I have one cat that loses her shit around butter. Fiona, I think she is on the April calendar page of version B.

  120. 120.

    Miss Bianca

    @Ken: I think it’s really only the first book that that theory applies to. Once Baum found out that kiddies were clamoring for more Oz, he turned to and started churning them out as kiddie books.

  123. 123.

    Kay

    @Miss Bianca:

    I agree with the writer that there’s cause for concern. It doesn’t matter what we think about who they aren’t reaching. They have to reach “them” or they will lose. We can’t just swap in 10 million other people if we lose support in a group. They have to fucking win Wisconsin, or Arizona or whatever. They need the Cleveland suburbs. There’s no alternate group of better voters to replace them with. In some places, many places, there are SUCH tight margins. They lose 20,000 pain in the ass “swing voters” they lose the state. I agree they’re not reliable. Are there others that are more reliable to replace them with?

  125. 125.

    Kay

    @Miss Bianca:

    To me, a political Party that decides their voters are the problem is just doomed. There’s no where to go with that. It doesn’t matter if it’s technically correct. It isn’t going to work.

  126. 126.

    Miss Bianca

    @Kay: I think we’re talking past each other, here. I’m saying that there are a shit-ton of people out there who are actively making the “messaging” problem WORSE, by actively casting doubts on the MOTIVES of Democratic politicians. (Like, what – they’ve “seen into their hearts”, or something? WTF? Judge them by their actions, not what you “believe” about their motivations.) Whether their intentions are pure or not, I don’t know, and I don’t care – if they’re lefty activists and they’re crapping on Democrats – still at the end of the day the only party that even pretends to give a shit about their issues –  they’re part of the problem. They’re helping to *create* the “messaging” problem that they’re so concerned about.

  128. 128.

    Kay

    @Miss Bianca:

    I don’t really take the criticism as something to reject. It’s just suggestions. Organizations can be better and this criticism to me obviously comes from a “friendly” who hopes they succeed. Some of it is malicious or obviously motivated by an agenda – push them Left or push them Centrist- but this is just organizational suggestions to reach more people.

  129. 129.

    Baud

    @Miss Bianca:

    I agree with you, but we can’t really control them anymore than we can control the Let’s Go Brandon people. All we can do is decline to fund them and ostracize them and encourage others to do the same.

  130. 130.

    Miss Bianca

    @Baud:

    @Kay:  Eh, points taken all around, but I’m thinking I’d better just go back to watching the Pete and Badger Wrestlemania show for another dozen times or so. Better for my mental health. ; )

  131. 131.

    Kathleen

    @zhena gogolia: I think the Mainstream Media’s constant negative anti Biden propaganda has a lot to do with polling numbers. There are other anti Democratic coordinated and funded activities as well. This is not to say we are powerless but I think we have to be realistic about forces aligned against Democratic Party as an institution. It is the last bulwark against fascism.

  140. 140.

    Enhanced Voting Techniques

    Basically, Democrats collect all voters who aren’t affirmatively in favor of a patriarchal, ethnonationalist, quasi-theocratic, authoritarian state.

    It’s like the reason for no state religion in this country, that’s not out of enlightenment, it’s because no signal sect was strong enough take control like the Anglicans did in the UK.  It’s like the poor, oppressed Puritans in New England who promptly started persecuting Anabaptists when they got on top.  There is a notable group of liberals who are pissed Biden isn’t chopping the heads off of conservatives, that’s not the kind of compromise come hold hands and sing kumbia that Democracy requires.

  145. 145.

    JaySinWa

    @Omnes Omnibus: And now for a musical interlude with “You can’t always get what you want”

    Sorry, carry on.
    [no I don’t wish for a violent revolution, and I don’t think “need” is the right term either.]

  146. 146.

    Enhanced Voting Techniques

    @Miss Bianca: by actively casting doubts on the MOTIVES of Democratic politicians. (Like, what – they’ve “seen into their hearts”, or something? WTF? Judge them by their actions, not what you “believe” about their motivations.)

    Yes, this and these same people insist that the compromises these politicians need to do get these laws passed are evidence of whatever hidden motive they imagined for this politician.

  147. 147.

    Enhanced Voting Techniques

    @Starfish: Sometimes, you need the French Revolution.

    Oh go read up on the Reign of Terror. The Jacobins would have happily executed everyone who posts to this blog as reactionaries holding back the progress of the people.  There is a reason why the French were so cool with Napoleon’s absolute dictatorship.

  150. 150.

    Jerzy Russian

    @topclimber: I don’t think so.  It may be more expensive, but in my view it is worth it.  Build a bigger building if needed.   In the end, the more Congress critters there are, the harder it is to gerrymander.

  151. 151.

    topclimber

    @Jerzy Russian: Most Western democracies far less than 1,000 reps–500 or so seems typical. China, like it matters what their Congress thinks, has almost 3,000. That is the outlier by a lot.

    I agree with you about the gerrymander angle. But any increase in the number of reps should help here.

    Expense doesn’t bother me. Democracy is a good investment, as I am sure you agree.

  152. 152.

    WaterGirl

    @mrmoshpotato: I was figuring that was going to be the BBC response with their explanation excuse for their fuck-up

    I couldn’t use quotation marks because someone was bitching earlier about using quotes when you were making up the response. :-)

  153. 153.

    Geminid

    @topclimber: We are most the way through this decade’s redistricting cycle. It looks like aggressive gerrymanders by Democratic legislatures will just about balance out Republican ones. And Republicans are howling about the Commission drawn California map because they stand to lose four or more seats. There, Republicans are up against demographic and political shifts. In 2018, those forces helped Democrats flip multiple seats in Illinois, New Jersey, Texas, Michigan, and Virginia, and Democrats in the last three states did it on Republican drawn maps.

    It could be that Republicans will move for a truce next time around and go for commissions like California’s for all states. That might seem so unlikely as to be in effect impossible. But it’s still a hell of a lot more likely than a Congress with 1000 or more Representatives.

    Not that it can’t be an illuminating exercise to tinker with theoretical solutions to problems in politics.

  154. 154.

    Another Scott

    @Mo Salad: Some guy in 2015 -2016 had a twitter thread indicating that 773 is a good number for lots of reason.  It would be the minimum required for Wyoming to have 2 seats. That makes intuitive sense (why should a state have more Senators than Representatives when the Reps are supposed to more closely represent the people?).

    Thread.

    Relative value of votes for President: CA:TX 1.021; VT:WY 1.109; CA:WY 3.584; VT:TX 3.165

    — Garrett Wollman (@garrett_wollman) November 13, 2016

    GitHub data and Ruby scripts.

    I think others have come up with similar numbers in the 700+ range.

    Amending the Constitution is a hugely heavy lift. Having more Representatives is relatively easy in comparison.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  155. 155.

    schrodingers_cat

    We need a granular approach to messaging, there is a lot of regional variation in the US, both nationally and at the state level. What works in New England will not work down south. Ds should leverage Republican jihad against reproductive rights,  to get enough white women on the D side to make Rs a permanent minority.

Comments are closed.