I’ve said this over and over. Polling a year out is only a game that has no bearing on the election a year away. Too many events can happen that will sway people one way or the other prior to a month out. Until then it’s just fluff for media. They conduct these polls and the results are often skewed to reflect what they paid for it to say. Like anyone would believe that a crime lord would be the leading candidate who’s under numerous indictments.
Dems though tend to have the vapors when polls like the recent ones come out, even knowing full well they are truly useless and often paid to say what the buyers wanted them to say. Dems could do the same things. Buy poll after poll to say Biden is on top etc etc, but they pretty much know they wouldn’t be covered by the very media that covers the Trump polls every minute of the day.
In the end voters have a choice next year in November. A criminal or a statesman, a mob boss or a president who has improved the economy and helped to grow America that republicans can’t accept.
Voters are motivated primarily by fear and secondarily by their sense of fairness. The best approach to harnessing these is to understand them, organize around them, display empathy and hope, and show (a) that your way is better and (b) what would happen if the other side won. Policy and messaging can be useful tactically but neither should be a strategic principle any more than expecting rational behavior from voters. And the best policy ideas will be those that emerge from organizing, not what politicians tell people they need.
Can you explain “shame game”? When I hear that I think of the many who vote Nader or Bern “to teach Dems a lesson.” But you might mean something different?
I know way too many on the far left who consider anything less than a socialist utopia to be beneath them and worthy of contempt, and will consider nothing less, and if it doesn’t happen, it’s simply the Dems’ fault for not listening, and there’s nothing left to discuss. Nader was like this, Bern&AOC (tho I think they’ve changed& mellowed a bit) used this tactic as well. It is impossible to even talk with this kind of voter. I don’t think your method would reach them either.
The only way we can have the future that these voters want is if we have SOLID majorities in both houses of Congress & a Dem pres. I don’t know why they think dividing the party—absolutely the worst strategy ever—is going to do anything but capitulate all power to the GOP. So illogical. They hurt so many people in the end.
How do you get from "studied the issues and gamed out repercussions logically" to "democracy is on the line!" and "fascist!"? That doesn't sound logical at all, but viscerally tribal.
Seems to me analyzing the issues logically would include matters like the Biden Administration, through some combination of neocon aggression and stunning diplomatic incompetence, has started what appears to be World War 3. It has alienated world leaders the same way it alienates American voters, by constantly lying about everything--Ukraine, covid, Russiagate, bogus Trump prosecutions, the FBI, the 2020 election, Jan 6 political prisoners, Nordstream, RFK, immigration, influence peddling, and the list goes on.
Logic suggests that if we re-elect these people, we can expect more of the same behavior, no? Whereas if we re-elect Trump, we can expect more braggadocio, more beltway pandemonium, and more citizen derangement. If we elect Nikki Haley, more war. None of these sound ideal, just more reality-based than framing 2024 as "democracy" vs "fascism."
I was thinking you didn’t have a helpful suggestion for those wanting to grow the anti-Trump vote but the second half of the article had that, so thank you. Nuance is not really something that works with more than a tiny minority of people. It’s worked for Republicans, it will work for Democrats.
I would also add pointing out how weak and insecure of a person Trump is will also be effective. MAGAs like to cheer on “their bully” but the won’t be comfortable cheering on a wuss.
You state opinions about voters' motivations as if they were facts, and as if they applied equally to all uncommitted voters. They're not, and they don't.
WIllis writes: These people need a combination of policy and message. They need it to be clearly communicated to them that progressive solutions for what ails their lives are being put into action by Democrats, being proposed by Democrats, and possibly most importantly, being blocked by Republicans and the conservative movement.
This is an improvement over what Democrats typically do, but it may not be enough. It is instructive to look the New Dealers did to put themselves into a position where they could remake the American economy so it "naturally" delivered a better result for working people even before any effects of redistributive programs are taken into account. Such programs were of course a big element of the New Deal but they were not the centerpiece of the political appeal of the Democrats.
FDR also had large numbers of conservative Southern Democrats who would vote with the Republicans on some issues (like they opposed unions). Progressive policy was not really possible after the 1938 defeat. Obama had large majorities in both houses of mostly non-Southern Democrats so he was able to do stuff too. Democrats could have restored the "talking" fillibuster that FDR operated under.
Had FDR suffered the election defeat Democrats got in 2010, rather than the victory he actually got in 1934, the New Deal might have petered out after that first defeat. As I pointed out in the piece, in this alternate history Republicans would have actually regained control of the House after the 1938 election, like they did in 1918, as a prelude to recapturing control after Wilson. In both 1912 and 1932, Democrats won control of the government because of a Republican screw up like what happened in 1992 and 2008. In the first case they got it back after two Democratic terms, in the second they did not. The abnormal 1934 election results are key to this difference.
FDR also had the advantage of a crisis. But Obama could have had that advantage. When he sent to Washington in fall 2008 to meet with Congressional Dems, he could have urged them not to support the TARP. Had he done that the crisis would have grown much bigger by the time he came to power in January. FDR spurned Hoovers offer to work together on a plan to address the crisis after the election. This meant more hardship for the country but was politically astute. Had Obama followed FDR's example, he might have had more success.
But success is not enough. As I note in the piece, Obama *solved* the problem of the crisis, while FDR never did. Yet FDR was far more successful politically. So good policy does not win votes. Look at the GOP, shitty policy, yet working class folks support them.
"stop believing that lecturing and shaming them into doing their civic duty is going to be the one neat trick to get them off the sidelines"
If people can't be persuaded that their choice may lead to greater, more widespread harm than what they may imagine they are opposing(all the suffering and death that is reasonably foreseeable for years to come), and instead attempts to persuade people they would own the consequences of this choice are viewed simply as 'lecturing and shaming', I'm not sure there's much that might persuade them, even if they were met with good faith efforts to address their concerns.
And, side note, there can by multiple concerns of multiple constituencies to be taken into account, and there isn't necessarily as simple and direct a resolution readily available as might be gleaned from slogans and caricatures.
I’m sick of the liberal shame game. It turns me off discussing politics, which means issues that Democrats have are also not discussed. Contrary to liberal opinion, Democrats aren’t perfect.
I explain that Biden doesn't have a magic wand to force a cease-fire or a 2-state solution on a sovereign nation. Nor will withholding funding to Israel make a difference, as Israel has nearly $200B in reserves.
The US doesn't have tools to stop Netanyahu, a corrupt authoritarian who is using justified fears of Israelis to cement power. That's why you never let an authoritarian gain power...they're nearly impossible to dislodge.
Those who demand that Biden forcefully denounce Israel forget that Israel has been a US ally in the Middle East for nearly a century, and memories of the Holocaust run very deep.
Diplomatic pressure, humanitarian aid, and a Western-Arab coalition may eventually impact the internal domestic politics of Israel, but the greatest experts in the region have no simple answers.
Free Palestine is a slogan...who would govern Palestine? who pays to rebuild Gaza, negotiate, trade agreements, establish business? who ensures that a new Palestinian government won't be overtaken by another Hamas?
Biden is juggling massive geopolitical issues. Trump has stated that he would turn Gaza into a parking lot. How can anyone argue there isn't a difference?
I absolutely agree with you! Thank you for articulating this so clearly.
I’ve said this over and over. Polling a year out is only a game that has no bearing on the election a year away. Too many events can happen that will sway people one way or the other prior to a month out. Until then it’s just fluff for media. They conduct these polls and the results are often skewed to reflect what they paid for it to say. Like anyone would believe that a crime lord would be the leading candidate who’s under numerous indictments.
Dems though tend to have the vapors when polls like the recent ones come out, even knowing full well they are truly useless and often paid to say what the buyers wanted them to say. Dems could do the same things. Buy poll after poll to say Biden is on top etc etc, but they pretty much know they wouldn’t be covered by the very media that covers the Trump polls every minute of the day.
In the end voters have a choice next year in November. A criminal or a statesman, a mob boss or a president who has improved the economy and helped to grow America that republicans can’t accept.
Voters are motivated primarily by fear and secondarily by their sense of fairness. The best approach to harnessing these is to understand them, organize around them, display empathy and hope, and show (a) that your way is better and (b) what would happen if the other side won. Policy and messaging can be useful tactically but neither should be a strategic principle any more than expecting rational behavior from voters. And the best policy ideas will be those that emerge from organizing, not what politicians tell people they need.
Can you explain “shame game”? When I hear that I think of the many who vote Nader or Bern “to teach Dems a lesson.” But you might mean something different?
I know way too many on the far left who consider anything less than a socialist utopia to be beneath them and worthy of contempt, and will consider nothing less, and if it doesn’t happen, it’s simply the Dems’ fault for not listening, and there’s nothing left to discuss. Nader was like this, Bern&AOC (tho I think they’ve changed& mellowed a bit) used this tactic as well. It is impossible to even talk with this kind of voter. I don’t think your method would reach them either.
The only way we can have the future that these voters want is if we have SOLID majorities in both houses of Congress & a Dem pres. I don’t know why they think dividing the party—absolutely the worst strategy ever—is going to do anything but capitulate all power to the GOP. So illogical. They hurt so many people in the end.
Great article needs to be disseminated widely😊
How do you get from "studied the issues and gamed out repercussions logically" to "democracy is on the line!" and "fascist!"? That doesn't sound logical at all, but viscerally tribal.
Seems to me analyzing the issues logically would include matters like the Biden Administration, through some combination of neocon aggression and stunning diplomatic incompetence, has started what appears to be World War 3. It has alienated world leaders the same way it alienates American voters, by constantly lying about everything--Ukraine, covid, Russiagate, bogus Trump prosecutions, the FBI, the 2020 election, Jan 6 political prisoners, Nordstream, RFK, immigration, influence peddling, and the list goes on.
Logic suggests that if we re-elect these people, we can expect more of the same behavior, no? Whereas if we re-elect Trump, we can expect more braggadocio, more beltway pandemonium, and more citizen derangement. If we elect Nikki Haley, more war. None of these sound ideal, just more reality-based than framing 2024 as "democracy" vs "fascism."
“has started what appears to be World War 3”
This sounds so unhinged, boy I don’t even know.
I was thinking you didn’t have a helpful suggestion for those wanting to grow the anti-Trump vote but the second half of the article had that, so thank you. Nuance is not really something that works with more than a tiny minority of people. It’s worked for Republicans, it will work for Democrats.
I would also add pointing out how weak and insecure of a person Trump is will also be effective. MAGAs like to cheer on “their bully” but the won’t be comfortable cheering on a wuss.
You state opinions about voters' motivations as if they were facts, and as if they applied equally to all uncommitted voters. They're not, and they don't.
WIllis writes: These people need a combination of policy and message. They need it to be clearly communicated to them that progressive solutions for what ails their lives are being put into action by Democrats, being proposed by Democrats, and possibly most importantly, being blocked by Republicans and the conservative movement.
This is an improvement over what Democrats typically do, but it may not be enough. It is instructive to look the New Dealers did to put themselves into a position where they could remake the American economy so it "naturally" delivered a better result for working people even before any effects of redistributive programs are taken into account. Such programs were of course a big element of the New Deal but they were not the centerpiece of the political appeal of the Democrats.
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/how-the-new-dealers-gained-the-ability
FDR also had huge majorities in both houses.
FDR also had large numbers of conservative Southern Democrats who would vote with the Republicans on some issues (like they opposed unions). Progressive policy was not really possible after the 1938 defeat. Obama had large majorities in both houses of mostly non-Southern Democrats so he was able to do stuff too. Democrats could have restored the "talking" fillibuster that FDR operated under.
Had FDR suffered the election defeat Democrats got in 2010, rather than the victory he actually got in 1934, the New Deal might have petered out after that first defeat. As I pointed out in the piece, in this alternate history Republicans would have actually regained control of the House after the 1938 election, like they did in 1918, as a prelude to recapturing control after Wilson. In both 1912 and 1932, Democrats won control of the government because of a Republican screw up like what happened in 1992 and 2008. In the first case they got it back after two Democratic terms, in the second they did not. The abnormal 1934 election results are key to this difference.
FDR also had the advantage of a crisis. But Obama could have had that advantage. When he sent to Washington in fall 2008 to meet with Congressional Dems, he could have urged them not to support the TARP. Had he done that the crisis would have grown much bigger by the time he came to power in January. FDR spurned Hoovers offer to work together on a plan to address the crisis after the election. This meant more hardship for the country but was politically astute. Had Obama followed FDR's example, he might have had more success.
But success is not enough. As I note in the piece, Obama *solved* the problem of the crisis, while FDR never did. Yet FDR was far more successful politically. So good policy does not win votes. Look at the GOP, shitty policy, yet working class folks support them.
"stop believing that lecturing and shaming them into doing their civic duty is going to be the one neat trick to get them off the sidelines"
If people can't be persuaded that their choice may lead to greater, more widespread harm than what they may imagine they are opposing(all the suffering and death that is reasonably foreseeable for years to come), and instead attempts to persuade people they would own the consequences of this choice are viewed simply as 'lecturing and shaming', I'm not sure there's much that might persuade them, even if they were met with good faith efforts to address their concerns.
And, side note, there can by multiple concerns of multiple constituencies to be taken into account, and there isn't necessarily as simple and direct a resolution readily available as might be gleaned from slogans and caricatures.
I’m sick of the liberal shame game. It turns me off discussing politics, which means issues that Democrats have are also not discussed. Contrary to liberal opinion, Democrats aren’t perfect.
Do you mean the that comes from
How do we keep Jewish AND Muslim voters convinced that Biden is better for both groups over thump?
I explain that Biden doesn't have a magic wand to force a cease-fire or a 2-state solution on a sovereign nation. Nor will withholding funding to Israel make a difference, as Israel has nearly $200B in reserves.
The US doesn't have tools to stop Netanyahu, a corrupt authoritarian who is using justified fears of Israelis to cement power. That's why you never let an authoritarian gain power...they're nearly impossible to dislodge.
Those who demand that Biden forcefully denounce Israel forget that Israel has been a US ally in the Middle East for nearly a century, and memories of the Holocaust run very deep.
Diplomatic pressure, humanitarian aid, and a Western-Arab coalition may eventually impact the internal domestic politics of Israel, but the greatest experts in the region have no simple answers.
Free Palestine is a slogan...who would govern Palestine? who pays to rebuild Gaza, negotiate, trade agreements, establish business? who ensures that a new Palestinian government won't be overtaken by another Hamas?
Biden is juggling massive geopolitical issues. Trump has stated that he would turn Gaza into a parking lot. How can anyone argue there isn't a difference?
But there might be room for a creative solution where both Israelis and Palestinians can win, while Hamas is left in the dumper.
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/a-proposal-for-the-israeli-palestinian