What's new
By:

The Biden Administration and All Things Politics

Sardines said:
You might be right.

But by leaning into the base I mean to advocate for and deliver realistic plans to achieve progressive objectives. Climate change, gender and race equality, narrowing the wealth gap, providing universal health care... and legalizing pot nationally, improved education, support for low income parents, etc..

None of that is extreme in my humble opinion. It can be presented, and carried out, in ways that have high support amongst voters.
Click to expand...
I love all those things. But holy crap whoever were to run on those policies/issues would guaranteed be labeled an extreme leftist anti American communist Marxist more than any candidate prior.
Maybe it would work. Would be extremely risky though.

If this is a slam dunk winning platform then I'm pretty sure a candidate would have employed it by now. They want to win the election.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
fishonjazz said:
So what are the specific things that the democrats (kamala in this case) should have been campaigning on? What should the messaging have been regarding the economy. Be like " the economy sucks, and while i was part of the administration that it got real sucky I had nothing to do with it. It was all bidens ideas that caused the bad economy. I had great ideas but no one would listen to me because im a woman." I mean she has said she is going to go after price gouging and make the wealthy pay their taxes. First time home buyer credit/assistance. Those things are too extreme for some voters already lol.
Click to expand...
You asked the same thing to me in the other thread, so I'll respond here.

First on the messaging front. You don't have to tie the bad economy to Biden, It's clear that the economy has been moving in a certain direction for a while now. income inequality and qol indicators have been on the decline for median-income earners since the 80s. You, as a democrat strategist, could argue that Brandon did the hard work of undoing the damage of the trump admin and now its time to go in a bold new direction. I don't think this is difficult.

As for Specific Policy, I have a wish list but realistically, at the very least, they could have taken Tim Walz's economic accomplishments which are extremely popular in Minnesota and rolled them out to the nation. https://mn.gov/governor/accomplishments/accomplishments.jsp You can add things like M4A, Climate Change Initiatives, stronger protections for Unionized Labor, updating national infrastructure, public transportation improvements. You said they're doing a few of these things but I mean compared to what Walz accomplished in Minnesota, most of what they're proposing is tame, neutered, or off the table.

Sure, Fox news would lampoon them as socialist or whatever but they do that with everything. Let them denigrate feeding hungry kids and lowering poverty (and as a result, crime) as socialism.

What do you want to see the government focus on? I think if you, as an average guy, wanted something, that that thing would be broadly popular. Don't let people tell you that the things that are objectively good for a nation's citizens are unrealistic and broadly hated. I don't buy it.
 
Last edited:
fishonjazz said:
Well, it's true. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-polls-were-mostly-wrong/

In the weeks leading up to the November 2016 election, polls across the country predicted an easy sweep for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.


President Trump's victory in 2016 came as a shock to many Americans. National polls showed his opponent, Hillary Clinton, leading the race up until the election. Even the Clinton campaign was confident she would win. All data they were looking at seemed to predict her victory.

Nationwide opinion polling for the 2016 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
Most polls correctly predicted a popular vote victory for Hillary Clinton, but overestimated the size of her lead

I could provide dozens of links for this.


Ya Bernie was a male so he night have polled better than Clinton against trump. But once trump started calling Bernie names and giving him nicknames and Insulting his wife and calling him unAmerican and extreme leftist and saying Bernie would take our guns etc etc etc his polling numbers might have dropped down to where Hilary was.

No way to know. I would love to find out though.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


dude everyone knows about the Hilary thing. My recollection was that Bernies potential polling v Trump was really good, and that he was perceived as far more likeable than Hilary so wouldn't have the same issues. And you're right i'd guessing there is a portion of the population male and female who just won't vote for a woman.
 
fishonjazz said:
I love all those things. But holy crap whoever were to run on those policies/issues would guaranteed be labeled an extreme leftist anti American communist Marxist more than any candidate prior.
Maybe it would work. Would be extremely risky though.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
You love all those things and YOU are not an extreme leftist. You are probably very representative of the majority of Americans as far as I can gather and combine with my own assumptions. I think going with those very popular ideas, at least some of them, is so crazy it just might work.

My daughter is 23. She will not be voting in this election. As far as I can tell (she is extraordinarily guarded and has been since she could talk. My wife and I used to joke when she was like 5-8 that she'd make a good CIA agent because no one and nothing can make her talk) she is actually an extreme leftist. Very supportive of women's rights and of the LGBTQ community. She won't vote because Kamala isn't good enough to vote for, she's just another corporatist shill (my words, not hers). Even though she thinks Trump is evil, she doesn't care who wins if neither of them represents her ideology.
 
fishonjazz said:
If this is a slam dunk winning platform then I'm pretty sure a candidate would have employed it by now. They want to win the election.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't think they do. That's my conclusion. They'd rather lose or win a close one than improve the lives of average citizens at their own expense and/or they buy into the myth that these things are untenable. To them it's a convenient lie to propogate.
 
fishonjazz said:
I love all those things. But holy crap whoever were to run on those policies/issues would guaranteed be labeled an extreme leftist anti American communist Marxist more than any candidate prior.
Maybe it would work. Would be extremely risky though.
Click to expand...
They already call Kamala or whoever the democrat is all of those things though.

Short of a nationwide education on how stupid it is to call any party line politician a 'communist' when every single one is a devout capitalist, which aint gonna happen. Just give me a candidate who better earns all those labels they will be given either way.

If they get absolutely obliterated in an election, at least we learned something.
 
Safetydan said:
You asked the same thing to me in the other thread, so I'll respond here.

First on the messaging front. You don't have to tie the bad economy to Biden, It's clear that the economy has been moving in a certain direction for a while now. income inequality and qol indicators have been on the decline for median-income earners since the 80s. You, as a democrat strategist, could argue that Brandon did the hard work of undoing the damage of the trump admin and now its time to go in a bold new direction. I don't think this is difficult.

As for Specific Policy, I have a wish list but realistically, at the very least, they could have taken Tim Walz's economic accomplishments which are extremely popular in Minnesota and rolled them out to the nation. https://mn.gov/governor/accomplishments/accomplishments.jsp You can add things like M4A, Climate Change Initiatives, stronger protections for Unionized Labor, updating national infrastructure, public transportation improvements. You said they're doing a few of these things but I mean compared to what Walz accomplished in Minnesota, most of what they're proposing is tame, neutered, or off the table.

Sure, Fox news would lampoon them as socialist or whatever but they do that with everything. Let them denigrate feeding hungry kids and lowering poverty (and as a result, crime) as socialism.

What do you want to see the government focus on? I think you, as an average guy, wanted something, that that thing would be broadly popular. Don't let people tell you that the things that are objectively good for a nation's citizens are unrealistic and broadly hated. I don't buy it.
Click to expand...
Good post. Next question. Why doesn't anyone campaign on this platform then. Campaigns spend a ton of money researching what will get voters to vote for them. Why do you think this info that you have and know will be successful is not available/understood by these presidential campaigns/candidates?
 
Safetydan said:
I don't think they do. That's my conclusion. They'd rather lose or win a close one than improve the lives of average citizens at their own expense and/or they buy into the myth that these things are untenable. To them it's a convenient lie to propogate.
Click to expand...
But thats the thing. They dont have to improve anyones lives after they win. They run on those things you suggested, get the votes, get into office and say that they tried to fight against the swamp and implement all the wonderful things but the other side blocked everything (this would probably be true anyways so they wouldn't even be lying to us) that they tried to pass.

Candidates ALWAYS say they are gonna do lots of **** to get votes and then never do it.
 
Bawse Dawg said:
If they get absolutely obliterated in an election, at least we learned something.
Click to expand...
This is the best answer so far, thanks. Im shocked that it hasn't been attempted if its certain to be successful (not saying you think its certain to be successful but some people seem to think so)

I mean, kamala is seen by moderate republicans as an extreme leftist lol.
 
Sardines said:
From what Safetydan said earlier today, the people who control the DNC do not want those policies to happen.

The DNC is essentially a main stream, corporate friendly party lead by people who are due a piece of the pie when corporate America thrives.
Click to expand...
Again, lie to the voters, get the votes, win the election, dont implement the policies. Blame it on the republicans and moderate democrats in congress. Easy peasy.
 
fishonjazz said:
Again, lie to the voters, get the votes, win the election, dont implement the policies. Blame it on the republicans and moderate democrats in congress. Easy peasy.
Click to expand...
The ideas might get a life of their own if they are too popular.

I deleted the post you quoted because Safetydan answered for their self before I hit the post button.
 
Douchebag K said:
dude everyone knows about the Hilary thing. My recollection was that Bernies potential polling v Trump was really good, and that he was perceived as far more likeable than Hilary so wouldn't have the same issues. And you're right i'd guessing there is a portion of the population male and female who just won't vote for a woman.
Click to expand...
The only thing up for debate there is what that proportion is. But there is absolutely a percentage of the population that just simply won't vote for a woman.
 
fishonjazz said:
Good post. Next question. Why doesn't anyone campaign on this platform then. Campaigns spend a ton of money researching what will get voters to vote for them. Why do you think this info that you have and know will be successful is not available/understood by these presidential campaigns/candidates?
Click to expand...
This is a two parter I'll respond to your second post too.

I'll focus on the insular nature of D.C. culture. I've talked to many people who interact with these insiders. They're universally surprised at how out of touch many of these people are. They only talk to like minded people and our legacy media also buys into and propagates the narrative so there's a bit of a feedback loop that will reject many of these ideas out of pure "common wisdom". This is by design.
 
Sardines said:
The ideas might get a life of their own if they are too popular.
Click to expand...
I guess so. But I feel like the ideas wouldn't be popular with congress and would get killed on arrival. Maybe not but it just seems like lobbyists would still exist, corporate america would still exist and money would still rule even if bernie were president
 
fishonjazz said:
But thats the thing. They dont have to improve anyones lives after they win. They run on those things you suggested, get the votes, get into office and say that they tried to fight against the swamp and implement all the wonderful things but the other side blocked everything (this would probably be true anyways so they wouldn't even be lying to us) that they tried to pass.

Candidates ALWAYS say they are gonna do lots of **** to get votes and then never do it.
Click to expand...

If somebody were to campaign on something like M4A and win in a landslide, the cat is out of the bag at that point. They'd have no excuses if they had a majority in both houses of Congress. They'd lose their messaging leverage and longevity for not delivering.

This is conjecture on my part. I do want to see it attempted but I think this is why they wouldn't do that. They need that carrot out in front of the horse as long as they can keep it there.

Letting Bernie through their primary gives the game away so to speak so of course they did what they could to ensure he'd lose.
 
fishonjazz said:
I guess so. But I feel like the ideas wouldn't be popular with congress and would get killed on arrival. Maybe not but it just seems like lobbyists would still exist, corporate america would still exist and money would still rule even if bernie were president
Click to expand...
Yeah, I mean you're right.

Thanks for bringing me back to the depressing reality of U.S. politics.
 
Sardines said:
You love all those things and YOU are not an extreme leftist. You are probably very representative of the majority of Americans as far as I can gather and combine with my own assumptions. I think going with those very popular ideas, at least some of them, is so crazy it just might work.

My daughter is 23. She will not be voting in this election. As far as I can tell (she is extraordinarily guarded and has been since she could talk. My wife and I used to joke when she was like 5-8 that she'd make a good CIA agent because no one and nothing can make her talk) she is actually an extreme leftist. Very supportive of women's rights and of the LGBTQ community. She won't vote because Kamala isn't good enough to vote for, she's just another corporatist shill (my words, not hers). Even though she thinks Trump is evil, she doesn't care who wins if neither of them represents her ideology.
Click to expand...
I missed this post. Its a good one and makes a good point.
 
Thanks for all the really great responses. I was mostly playing devils advocate here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top