Where Do Democrats Go From Here

[triplehorn 2664]

Biden has signaled an intent to serve one term, correct?  That suggests an emphasis on reform and restoration.  After 4 years of devastating Trump wreckage, we're fortunate to even have the chance to start.  Investigations need to go full steam, people need to be held accountable and punished, then bury the heads in a separate location to prevent re-animation.  Overturn Citizens United and begin to create a system for sane campaign finance.  Redouble efforts to cut off foreign meddling in our elections via both foreign cash and foreign incursions targeting elections with cyber attacks. Find ways to begin to reverse gerrymandering, and multiple forms of voter suppression and disenfranchisement.  I'd like to see serious emphasis taking on organized and systemic social media disinformation that is an accelerant for corroding our national health and discourse.  I'd like to see a serious consideration of restoring basic tenets of the fairness doctrine for broadcasters.

In short, stop the ongoing harm, start to repair and heal, and level the electoral playing field to better ensure the most qualified candidates with the best character are elected regardless of political stripe.  

 

 

[bad_teammate 13125]

LEARN TO COOOOODE

 

[berlinerbaer 670]

On another subject, the decision by many (most?) Democratic campaigns to stop door-knocking was probably an unwise overreaction. It can be done safely.

 

 

[mycox 582]

9 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Bullshit. Beto could run in ‘24 on a platform that includes fewer items or none of them and have a lot larger Latino vote share than Biden. I truly think if Biden focused more in Texas, we could be Georgia right now. That wasn’t his strategy and it doesn’t seem to matter. 

Bullshit. Latino's are voting republican no matter what. Just like the suburbs. 

[bad_teammate 13125]

8 hours ago, berlinerbaer said:

On another subject, the decision by many (most?) Democratic campaigns to stop door-knocking was probably an unwise overreaction. It can be done safely.

That starts at the top. The Biden primary campaign was the laziest and most haphazard thing. Even in a non-COVID scenario there wasn't going to be a lot of on-the-ground work from volunteers because there was basically no enthusiasm for Joe from anyone.

And I know this won't be very popular, but the "super-spreader rallies" that Trump held weren't actually all that big of a deal spread-wise and Democratic rallies where everyone wore masks and didn't pack in as tightly would probably have been fine COVID-wise and amazing voter-turnout-wise. If Biden had lost then it could be credibly argued that some of blame rested on the Democratic need to posture as shut-ins in opposition to the gross and stupid Republican anti-maskers out living life.

Notice that outdoor protest movements didn't really contribute to spread.

C'mon, man.

 

[UncleSonny 6520]

This. RINOs didn’t deliver shit and have no say in this party going forward. They can all fuck right off. 

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

 

 

[RDCanecutter 26239]

The downside of Doug Jones as AG is that he'll have to recuse himself when Tommy Tuberville's internal abet-a-scam clock goes off.

[Disco Strangler 1865]

On 11/6/2020 at 12:29 PM, Nope said:

If Joe doesn’t make it through his term, who does Kamala nominate for VP?

An old, gay white guy. . . . Mike Pence

[Redpuma 146]

 

[Firemans4Horn 17792]

Chasing Lincoln Party voters is a losing strategy. 
 

 

[Dbeasy 14953]

Hammer every single day, multiple times per day, the Republican obstructionist approach to governing. Make people aware.

[Dahobbs 17420]

On 11/6/2020 at 2:55 PM, CHIEF said:

Yes, they are out of work. When the housing market came to a halt in 2008, we gave them food, helped with house payments, paid utility bills, bought diapers, and formula. These are subs, but you still care about them. Luckily I had the savings to help where I could. They lived on what charity could provide and the benefits that their children were entitled to.

As for anchor babies, again, no one in Europe confers citizenship to newborns. Why do you think that is? If Switzerland offered it, I would have loaded up Mrs. CHIEF and flew into Lucerne to have CHIEF Jr., he would have been a citizen they would not deport, would they have deported Mrs. CHIEF and I? Would have had free healthcare and other benefits, and therein lies the cost. You can't have expensive social programs where people can just move in and establish a citizenship barrier that cannot be removed, they have never paid into, and immediately start taking advantage of it. There is a reason that European countries are so tough to get citizenship, Switzerland is the worst, its to keep people from taking advantage of their social programs.

CHIEF

 

Negged for using the term anchor babies. 

[Firemans4Horn 17792]

How exactly is bi-partisanship supposed to work when this is one of the “moderates”

 

 

[SilasCoade 2620]

What is it that conservatives find objectionable about providing healthcare coverage for everyone and trying to salvage the ecosystem before we render ourselves obsolete?

[Pancho 44358]

Clyburn has been all over the news today saying "defund the police" language hurt Dems in the House and Senate, and I can believe it.  I thought I read somewhere where he and John Lewis had the discussion that this type of rhetoric is bad for the party, especially because people didn't know what it meant. 

I tend to agree.  

[Biff Tannen 45477]

6 hours ago, Llogg said:

What is it that conservatives find objectionable about providing healthcare coverage for everyone and trying to salvage the ecosystem before we render ourselves obsolete?

They fear change. Simple as that. There’s no logic behind it. 

[mdmost 42775]

Reform the Police would've been a better slogan but the rawness in the aftermath of George Floyd's death wouldn't allow that to occur. 

[Pancho 44358]

6 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Reform the Police would've been a better slogan but the rawness in the aftermath of George Floyd's death wouldn't allow that to occur. 

And the crazy part is for a while, Rs were out-registering new voters until something happened that caused a major, major spike in D new voter registration—the death of George Floyd.  That major D registration helped with the election of Biden.

I’m a qualitative analysis guy, and there are going to be some badass dissertations and research papers written about this moment. 

[cactusflinthead 27593]

On 11/6/2020 at 2:31 PM, JFKFC said:

 

This is what I like to hear.

But, the RGV is CONCERNING 

much angst and hand-wringing 

On 11/6/2020 at 11:32 PM, berlinerbaer said:

On another subject, the decision by many (most?) Democratic campaigns to stop door-knocking was probably an unwise overreaction. It can be done safely.

 

 

Oh. I see. People like it when you visit them. 

Ok. Sounds good. 

5 hours ago, Pancho said:

Clyburn has been all over the news today saying "defund the police" language hurt Dems in the House and Senate, and I can believe it.  I thought I read somewhere where he and John Lewis had the discussion that this type of rhetoric is bad for the party, especially because people didn't know what it meant. 

I tend to agree.  

Yep. 

5 hours ago, mdmost said:

Reform the Police would've been a better slogan but the rawness in the aftermath of George Floyd's death wouldn't allow that to occur. 

And yep.

5 hours ago, Pancho said:

And the crazy part is for a while, Rs were out-registering new voters until something happened that caused a major, major spike in D new voter registration—the death of George Floyd.  That major D registration helped with the election of Biden.

I’m a qualitative analysis guy, and there are going to be some badass dissertations and research papers written about this moment. 

I expect to see a whole lotta rooting around in this. Good. May the DNC pay some attention. 

 

Biden didn't even have a campaign before SC. I think it was Joy this week that said that the older black voters figured that Uncle Joe would be the best bet to get the Midwest white middle class voters. They were right. That bet paid off. 

The DNC has got to get down to Texas. Full time. Beto might be able to get some leverage on them. I dunno. The Castro brothers ain't it. Just stop. I can't put a finger on it, but they have very little Elvis in them. I don't know who or what is going to happen to make black, white, and brown people pull in the same direction. There are so many personal fiefdoms. So many people like John Wiley Price that are voted back in time after time that don't do a damn thing for their constituents. It's not a wonder to me that some younger black males left the party. 

I think not conducting a regular door to door campaign was a mistake. But, it probably saved some lives. 

It would be cool if everyone got along on the progressive side and the centrist side, but it's not going to happen. So, we have plenty of entertainment to come. 

Meh, I'm spitballing here.

[Huckleberry 32685]

Disclaimer: I haven't read a single post on this thread. My assumption is the entire thing is b_t arguing with "shitlibs" and centrists arguing with progressives. So here are my recommendations to the Democratic Party (lots of these will be interrelated):

1. Stop being pussies
   • The Republican Party only cares about winning. They get more votes than the general public's opinions on actual policy issues would suggest specifically because of this. Now it's certainly easier for them to only care about winning because they don't care about governing. But Dems need to realize that they don't get to do the governing part if they don't do the winning part. Get dirty and win.
   • This also loses votes directly because there are lots of dumb Americans who get taken in by strong attitudes even if they're doing nothing but spouting lies. You may have noticed certain people the last four years. Americans are dumb. Accept it and work with it.
2. Two words: Fuck Decorum
   • Again, Reps take advantage of you because they absolutely know without a doubt that they can run roughshod over traditions, decorum, and civility for years while in power and the Dems will just say "aw shucks we know you didn't mean that" and then play nice when they get power back. Stop doing that you morons. When you're in power, USE IT. If the Democrats would actually do this then they would gain more loyalty over time. They believe the bullshit that Republicans spout for too long until it's too late. It happens over and over and over again. Progressive policy position --> Democrats talk about it --> Republicans say OH MY GOD IT'S SO RADICAL --> Democrats chicken out and don't implement it when in power --> Society advances --> More of America accepts it until it's basically a centrist position --> Republicans vote for it and DEMOCRATS GET NO CREDIT FOR ADVANCING SOCIAL CAUSES BECAUSE THEY WERE PLAYING NICE FOR TOO LONG.
   • Mitch McConnell has obstructed government for years. The Reps have appointed far too many judges (and Justices, obviously) because they don't give a shit about decorum. The Democrats are about to to jack shit about it because they're dumb.
3. Nuance loses elections
   • Democrats lose because they think the average American will understand nuance if they just explain it right. No, the average American is too dumb to understand. Put the Republicans on the back foot instead. Did the current Congressman from the district that is targeted for a possible flip in 2022 vote on a big bill? Then find something in it to use against him. "Your Congressman voted to send your money to California instead of keeping it here in Texas." NOBODY GIVES A SHIT IF IT WAS PART OF A HUGE BILL THAT WAS GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY. Attack. Then attack again. Then when you're tired of attacking do it again anyway.
   • Own the terminology. Democrats have sucked at this for so long that half the country is afraid of big bad buzzwords like socialism and welfare. So turn it around. Start talking about corporate socialism, c-suite welfare, and Republican communism right now and don't stop. I know what you're thinking right now. "Okay Huck, those first two make sense, I mean the Republicans love to funnel money to corporations and creating a system where the c-suite gets their golden parachutes, but that last one just doesn't make sense. I mean how are Republicans communists?" WHO CARES? Make it up. Lie. Come up with some weird tenuous connection and then pound that idea into people's skulls for the next two years. I mean Donald Trump just literally took away private citizens' land on the border to build a vanity project. His administration took money via tariffs just to give it in bailout form to farmers.

 

[Firemans4Horn 17792]

BiPaRt1sIn$hiP

 

 

[Gravy Train 974]

13 hours ago, Llogg said:

What is it that conservatives find objectionable about providing healthcare coverage for everyone and trying to salvage the ecosystem before we render ourselves obsolete?

Paying for someone else's Free Shit® in exchange for declining quality of care, I'd imagine.

The system is already broken. You have to shatter the racket the drug makers, oncology labs, mega-hospitals and insurance companies who drove our cost of healthcare at a level 145% higher than the OECD median.  Healthcare spending now accounts for 18% of our GDP.  Good luck busting that up, but I want to hear more about that, not just who's footing the bill.   

[SilasCoade 2620]

49 minutes ago, Gravy Train said:

Paying for someone else's Free Shit® in exchange for declining quality of care, I'd imagine.

The system is already broken. You have to shatter the racket the drug makers, oncology labs, mega-hospitals and insurance companies who drove our cost of healthcare at a level 145% higher than the OECD median.  Healthcare spending now accounts for 18% of our GDP.  Good luck busting that up, but I want to hear more about that, not just who's footing the bill.   

1. It's not paying for someone else, though. It's everyone paying for everyone else. What employed people currently pay to get their employer-subsidized insurance is likely more than any single-payer system would cost an individual.

2. Declining quality of care for whom? The people without coverage now can't possibly have worse care. The people with coverage will see the same doctors, the same nurses, the same hospitals as currently exist. Do Medicare patients report a lower quality of care?

3. Let's ignore the low hanging fruit of hospital CEO salaries and the class warfare pharmaceutical companies engage in. Just stop paying insurance companies. Full stop. Just stop paying insurance CEOs, their subordinates, their support staff, their army of semi-retired or otherwise unable to practice MDs who "review" orders for procedures/drugs/equipment. That's a fuckload of money. The CEOs alone is going to be ~$150M.

4. Or fuck it, just pay the insurers EXACTLY THE SAME and keep their staff the same and have them administer the government plan but instead of them keeping their profits of $22B annually, we just give that money back to the taxpayers.

The people making 100s of millions of dollars want this shit to seem complicated. It doesn't have to be. People don't want government making decisions about healthcare rationing but they want Douchey McFuckface, MBA to make that decision when he (or she) has a HUGE financial incentive to deny as much care as possible so (s)he can afford a Bentley this year? It's absurd.

[Gravy Train 974]

I'm fairly certain that was my first reply in CR, and was painted in perception of the conservative view, though we do need to reduce the cost of care before MFA can make any traction.  And yes, we're already paying for someone else's "free" care.

[SilasCoade 2620]

52 minutes ago, Gravy Train said:

I'm fairly certain that was my first reply in CR, and was painted in perception of the conservative view, though we do need to reduce the cost of care before MFA can make any traction.  And yes, we're already paying for someone else's "free" care.

I understood you weren't stating your personal position. That said, I disagree that cost reduction should come before MFA. MFA will enable cost reduction through increased access to preventive care, increased negotiating power with pharmaceutical companies and providers, and yes, not paying insurance company CEOs. Cost reduction is probably the single best argument FOR a single-payor system.

[washparkhorn 9931]

1 hour ago, Gravy Train said:

reduce the cost of care before

How long should we continue to fail at that? What is the austerity limit on human neglect and damage?

[bad_teammate 13125]

5 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

How long should we continue to fail at that?

[DonkeyCigars 144]

The answer has always been in that Democrats need better salespeople. They are showing up at people’s front door with Kirby vacuums and cutco knives to warm referrals from their grandmothers in a world where they need to be pitching outcome based/value-based ROI deals to folks.

MFA, $15 min wage, raising taxes on Uber rich, all these things can be shown to be a net gain and positive for 80% of the country if the Democrats could be bothered to whiteboard it out and/or take the time to do some basic education.

speaking of whiteboards, the Dems need more Katie Porter’s, I think her name is.

Edited November 9, 2020 by DonkeyCigars

[G650 13990]

7 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

The answer has always been in that Democrats need better salespeople. They are showing up at people’s front door with Kirby vacuums and cutco knives to warm referrals from their grandmothers in a world where they need to be pitching outcome based/value-based ROI deals to folks.

MFA, $15 min wage, raising taxes on Uber rich, all these things can be shown to be a net gain and positive for 80% of the country if the Democrats could be bothered to whiteboard it out and/or take the time to do some basic education.

speaking of whiteboards, the Dems need more Katie Porter’s, I think her name is.

This

[Chuckie Finster 22583]

37 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

The answer has always been in that Democrats need better salespeople. They are showing up at people’s front door with Kirby vacuums and cutco knives to warm referrals from their grandmothers in a world where they need to be pitching outcome based/value-based ROI deals to folks.

MFA, $15 min wage, raising taxes on Uber rich, all these things can be shown to be a net gain and positive for 80% of the country if the Democrats could be bothered to whiteboard it out and/or take the time to do some basic education.

speaking of whiteboards, the Dems need more Katie Porter’s, I think her name is.

Yes, the issue isn't the message - it's the messaging.

Saying the word "socialism" needs to be an impeachable offense.  Even if that's what exactly what you are describing, there needs to be a better way to communicate it to the masses.  Same with police and gun reform.  People WANT to deal with these things, but they do not want to "defund the police" (seriously, whoever came up with this slogan needs to be excommunicated) or "give up their guns."  (And yes, I know Republicans will still hammer the negative messages no matter how Democrats present it, which is why this won't be an easy task.) 

I think many progressives view this as some ideological battle with the more moderates members of the party, and it is not.  It is simply a belief that moderate views are more effective at winning elections.  If the progressives can prove them wrong and improve their messaging to the point that these issues become election-winners, then I can all-but guarantee the rest of the party will hop on board.  

Progressives have wonderful ideas that should be popular with the majority of the country.  It's time to get them on board.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

25 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Progressives have wonderful ideas that should be popular with the majority of the country.  It's time to get them on board.

Yes!

Progressives are like the GOOG of technology (no offense, re:CCP), in that like GOOG has great technology and people, they think that is or should be enough to win market share and wallet share. But because they don’t invest in the sales machine, they are a distant third place in getting their vision and idea and technology bought and implemented by most people and getting butts whipped by (arguably) inferior technologies like MSFT and Amazon.

Progressives need to roll up their sleeves and start showing their work and math instead of standing around with the propeller hat insulted and indignant that the general ethic and ideas is not enough to get to people bought in and on the trolley.

[SilasCoade 2620]

That's a terrible analogy, man. Google is absolutely dominant in market share for the their core businesses: search, online advertising, and mobile. (Android dominates global market, with iOS still outperforming them in the US ~60:40.) And chromebooks are starting to have a slow burn effect.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

28 minutes ago, Llogg said:

That's a terrible analogy, man. Google is absolutely dominant in market share for the their core businesses: search, online advertising, and mobile. (Android dominates global market, with iOS still outperforming them in the US ~60:40.) And chromebooks are starting to have a slow burn effect.

Sorry thought it was obvious I was talking about enterprise marketshare

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

On a fundamental level, moderate Dems want to work in an illusory reality created by decades of GOP propaganda for political expediency.  

Progressives want to reject this false framework and solve problems.

[bad_teammate 13125]

1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Saying the word "socialism" needs to be an impeachable offense. 

How are Democrats going to police the Republicans and media figures saying it? Because that's where it comes from. There is no bogeyman Democratic movement saying "WE LOVE SOCIALISM HOORAY!"

The centrist desire to punish leftists for what Republicans say is insane.

Quote

I think many progressives view this as some ideological battle with the more moderates members of the party, and it is not.  It is simply a belief that moderate views are more effective at winning elections.

A belief that is impervious to evidence or reason. A dogma.

What evidence do we have that moderate Democrats are big winners?

[G650 13990]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

There is no bogeyman Democratic movement saying "WE LOVE SOCIALISM HOORAY!"

I have to admit the impulse is there to do this just to make my Trumpkins neighbors head explode.

[bad_teammate 13125]

That's a good idea, because treating it lightly takes away its power as a scare tactic.

That's exactly what we need to do.

"Hey now that Biden one I'm going to get an angle-grinder and take half your truck. Redistribution, baby." Make it ridiculous. Make it absurd. Stop treating it like it's real, because it's not real.

I am either the farthest left person here or among the group, and not even I advocate actual socialist economy.  King B_T would redistribute all wealth above $100M, transfer ownership of all assets above that mark into a collective PUF-style arrangement benefiting all Americans, then have himself beheaded by a Constitutional Convention that had just signed a democratic Constitution allowing private commerce and enshrining the PUF and $100M wealth cap with inflation adjustments every 10 years.

Go ahead and innovate and compete and get rich. Own a business and a Lamborghini and a ranch with a lake. Hell, I AM FINE WITH RENTING PROPERTY (heavily regulated) for God's sake and I have even been a landlord at different times. The most hated of creatures in socialism.

Stop letting the Republicans and media give this phantom power. Stop running scared from a thing that doesn't exist.

[wildcat09 29187]

26 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

On a fundamental level, moderate Dems want to work in an illusory reality created by decades of GOP propaganda for political expediency.  

Progressives want to reject this false framework and solve problems.

 

15 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

That's a good idea, because treating it lightly takes away its power as a scare tactic.

That's exactly what we need to do.

"Hey now that Biden one I'm going to get an angle-grinder and take half your truck. Redistribution, baby." Make it ridiculous. Make it absurd. Stop treating it like it's real, because it's not real.

I am either the farthest left person here or among the group, and not even I advocate actual socialist economy.  King B_T would redistribute all wealth above $100M, transfer ownership of all assets above that mark into a collective PUF-style arrangement benefiting all Americans, then have himself beheaded by a Constitutional Convention that had just signed a democratic Constitution allowing private commerce and enshrining the PUF and $100M wealth cap with inflation adjustments every 10 years.

Go ahead and innovate and compete and get rich. Own a business and a Lamborghini and a ranch with a lake. Hell, I AM FINE WITH RENTING PROPERTY (heavily regulated) for God's sake and I have even been a landlord at different times. The most hated of creatures in socialism.

Stop letting the Republicans and media give this phantom power. Stop running scared from a thing that doesn't exist.

This. I don't even mind having moderate candidates in moderate districts. I think that's necessary. What I mind is the way they try to compete because it harms the party and the types of policies we're all ostensibly trying to achieve, and it doesn't fucking work.

Moderate Dem candidates get attacked as socialists like Nancy Pelosi and AOC all the time. How do they typically respond to that attack? They typically say "no, I'm not a socialist like them, you can trust me." This response is the entire purpose of the attack in the first place. It tells undecided voters "yes, the Republicans are right, Nancy Pelosi and AOC are socialists and they don't care about you and socialism is evil." It's basically telling undecided voters that they should just go ahead and vote Republican.

It's not actually hard to show that you're different from AOC without validating the attack against Democrats generally. All a moderate Dem needs to do is explain the tactic. The magician isn't exciting anymore once the audience knows how the tricks work. And Dems used to know how to do this: 

All a moderate Dem needs to do is start with that, and then say something about how "I don't agree with AOC on some of the details, but we're fighting together to accomplish ____ which I know all of you support, and the GOP opposes it because they only care about the wealthiest Americans." This shit isn't rocket science.

 

Edited November 9, 2020 by wildcat09

[bad_teammate 13125]

 

[bad_teammate 13125]

The Green New Deal didn't sink Democrats

more

Ideology didn't make or break candidates. It's about whether or not they convinced their constituencies that they wanted to help them and could deliver on that desire.

[bad_teammate 13125]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

It's not actually hard to show that you're different from AOC without validating the attack against Democrats generally.

To validate AOC while explaining the difference would require accepting the reality of that difference: That AOC is more progressive.

Democratic politicians want to be (1) major corporate money-takers, (2) electability scolds, and (3) considered the most progressive person in the room despite 1 and 2. They want it all and they refuse to accept anything else.

See:

It's delusion.

[BradInATX 9208]

I'm asking this legitimately, not looking for a fight from either side, as I'm sort of on the fence about the progressive vs. centrist thing.

b_t, or anyone, do you have data on how pro or anti-M4A/GND candidates fared vs. historical results? It doesn't tell us anything to show that progressives won in New York and California or that moderates won in North Carolina or Wisconsin. Are they outperforming expectations or "generic Democrat"? That's the real way to get a measure of this, otherwise it's just puffery.

[bad_teammate 13125]

13 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

b_t, or anyone, do you have data on how pro or anti-M4A/GND candidates fared vs. historical results?

Not that information, no.

 

[BradInATX 9208]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Not that information, no.

 

 

That's interesting. I wish they had plotted that using the candidate's performance vs. the Cook PVI, it would have been far more informative. Hard to divine anything from the chart the way they laid it out. The two biggest winners were a left in CA and a shitlib in PA. The four biggest losers were on the right side, so there's that. I'd also like to see it done specifically on pro/anti certain policies and not an ideology score. Hopefully we get more data as people start to post-mortem this election. 

[cactusflinthead 27593]

Thread

I've had similar experiences.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2020 by cactusflinthead

[bad_teammate 13125]

13 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

That's interesting. I wish they had plotted that using the candidate's performance vs. the Cook PVI, it would have been far more informative. Hard to divine anything from the chart the way they laid it out. The two biggest winners were a left in CA and a shitlib in PA. The four biggest losers were on the right side, so there's that. I'd also like to see it done specifically on pro/anti certain policies and not an ideology score. Hopefully we get more data as people start to post-mortem this election. 

What it shows me is that ideology isn't all that determinative either way.

[TexasEd 8062]

4 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Yes!

Progressives are like the GOOG of technology (no offense, re:CCP), in that like GOOG has great technology and people, they think that is or should be enough to win market share and wallet share. But because they don’t invest in the sales machine, they are a distant third place in getting their vision and idea and technology bought and implemented by most people and getting butts whipped by (arguably) inferior technologies like MSFT and Amazon.

Progressives need to roll up their sleeves and start showing their work and math instead of standing around with the propeller hat insulted and indignant that the general ethic and ideas is not enough to get to people bought in and on the trolley.

working with google now and have this problem.  I am coaching them to solve the business and technical problems we have and not sell us a tech stack.

[BradInATX 9208]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What it shows me is that ideology isn't all that determinative either way.

I agree with that to an extent. 

Gun to my head my takeaway is that the party needs to be flexible in allowing candidates to reflect their constituents. A candidate for a job in Texas should never be hard anti-guns, for example. And a candidate in CA should be a lefty. The party apparatus and both sides of the party need to come to an agreement that the "right way" depends on where you are. 

I strongly agree with your take that Dems are incompetent at selling people on their ideas. It's always defense, never offense. and the GOTV stuff we're hearing out of Florida and other places in inexcusable. The entire leadership structure of the party needs to be nuked, and modern, competent people need to be brought in. What they have today is pitiful. 

[bad_teammate 13125]

Just now, BradInATX said:

The party apparatus and both sides of the party need to come to an agreement that the "right way" depends on where you are.

Agreed 100%, but they can't. It's too threatening to their power to allow flexibility.

Quote

I strongly agree with your take that Dems are incompetent at selling people on their ideas. It's always defense, never offense. and the GOTV stuff we're hearing out of Florida and other places in inexcusable. The entire leadership structure of the party needs to be nuked, and modern, competent people need to be brought in. What they have today is pitiful. 

THIS is why I think progressive politics are the winning play; not because voters think of themselves as progressive and are thinking "man these politicians aren't progressive enough for me!", but progressives are genuinely excited by what they believe in.

A centrist politician out there might be sincerely jazzed by the idea of 97% health coverage using a series of websites and subsidies, but that's pretty rare, and it pales in comparison to the genuine enthusiasm of a single-payer supporter. If I'm trying to recruit you into my cult I don't send in an unsure, somewhat defensive person, I send in the big-eyed girl.