Biden Thread

[Montmorency]

West Virginia is the first or second most Republican state in the country; Manchin is one of the only Senators remaining in the country who is part of a split-party state delegation.

It was always understood that Manchin would be replaced by a Republican in the next election there. If Manchin refuses to caucus with Democrats, we instantly lose the Senate and no more legislation will be enacted.

[Hooahguy]

Exactly. I loathe Manchin but without him control of the Senate goes back to Mitch who wont pass a single bill. If we had 51 Dems in the Senate that would be a different story but sadly we do not.

[Montmorency]

Exactly. I loathe Manchin but without him control of the Senate goes back to Mitch who wont pass a single bill. If we had 51 Dems in the Senate that would be a different story but sadly we do not.

Reminding you that Manchin is far from the only obstacle, Sinema has reportedly reaffirmed her commitment against any tax increases (i.e. she effectively approves of the Trump-era tax cut that she voted against).

Real bastard people.

I told y'all since October 2020 or so, the only real chance for passing the agenda was 52+ senators.

[Hooahguy]

Oh Im aware, I was just focusing on Manchin for the moment.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I, for one, am sick of discussing Manchin/Sinema et al. Their corruption, and all the others, are well documented at this point. There can be absolutely no doubt why conservative Democrats are voting the way they are.

What I want to know is where the eff is President Biden?? He's worked for over 30 years as a politician to get to where he is---President of The United States. Why is he letting Manchin & Company dictate the narrative? Why is he not aggressively promoting his BBB agenda? Talk was big during the campaign, but where is the rhetoric now? Discussions behind closed doors isn't cutting it. Neither Manchin nor Sinema have budged an inch on what THEY want.

This is what we get for electing a career politician instead of someone with a vision who's willing to fight tooth and nail to see that vision realized. Yes, choices were limited, but if/when the GOP completely reclaims the federal government, there won't be another chance, IMHO, before the end of this decade.

Biden needs to get off his ass and fight aggressively for what he claimed he wanted for this country.

[Hooahguy]

I mean if you look at his social media and public schedule he has been. Literally just two days ago he was promoting it in Pennsylvania, and then yesterday had a town hall with CNN promoting it.

[ReluctantSamurai]

The key word in my statement is "aggressively". When you hear media discussion of BBB, how often is Biden's name mentioned compared to Manchin or Sinema? I'd venture a guess it's not even close...

How many times do we need to hear "Manchin doesn't like this, or Sinema doesn't like that"? The mainstream media mostly portrays Manchin & Company as fiscally responsible "moderates" who are just watching out for the bottom line (with a smattering of how corporations are actually dictating their narrative). How about strong messaging like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS8NHHOhY88

WHAT'S IN THE DAMN BILL!?!

And BTW, the CNN town hall showed just how delusional he stubbornly remains---with this statement:

As Biden put it during CNN’s Town Hall on Thursday night, “When you’re president of the United States, you have 50 Democrats — every one is a president. Every single one. So you gotta work things out. It’s all about compromise. Compromise has become a dirty word, but bipartisanship and compromise still has to be possible.”

Still talking about "bi-partisanship"? At this point? Just sad...

[Hooahguy]

The key word in my statement is "aggressively". When you hear media discussion of BBB, how often is Biden's name mentioned compared to Manchin or Sinema? I'd venture a guess it's not even close...

How many times do we need to hear "Manchin doesn't like this, or Sinema doesn't like that"? The mainstream media mostly portrays Manchin & Company as fiscally responsible "moderates" who are just watching out for the bottom line (with a smattering of how corporations are actually dictating their narrative). How about strong messaging like this:

I agree that the media is doing a terrible job. Almost as if they are trying to rile things up because they thrive on chaos. I havent been following most of the developments on purpose- Im terribly burnt out.

[Montmorency]

Biden being more active in media, as hinted above, wouldn't move the needle on low-commitment voters, on uncooperative lawmakers, or, indeed, on the media itself. It would however be useful as part building cohesion among the Democratic base. Over the past decade the Democratic electeds have consistently failed to realize the need to organize the liberal masses into a self-conscious and politically-activated unit. There's more to a society than fundraising solicitations.

In other news, Biden's approval rating is officially in Trump territory.

[Hooahguy]

Looking at the polling, it seems like Afghanistan was the turning point. I guess we know why nobody else wanted to pull the trigger on leaving until now.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Biden being more active in media, as hinted above, wouldn't move the needle on low-commitment voters, on uncooperative lawmakers, or, indeed, on the media itself.

Instead of a lot of blah, blah, blah at a "Biden Town Hall", how about this---take out media time in West Virginia with an ad that puts King Manchin squarely in the crosshairs:

"Did you know that Joe Manchins' proposals to slash the BBB Plan is actually costing West Virginia new jobs by more than half? The Institute for Policy Studies says the Biden version of the plan would create 17,290 new jobs (there), compared to the 7,410 jobs created under Manchin’s plan. Contact Sen. Manchin's office and make your voice be heard. The job you help create might be your own."

Then take out media time in Arizona with an ad something along the lines of this op-ed:

According to a poll done by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 88% of adults believe that giving the government the authority to negotiate drug prices would dramatically lower the cost of life-saving prescriptions. Your voters like the idea, Senator. You should listen to them.

In 2020, more than 1.35 million Arizona residents had Medicare. That’s almost 19% of the state’s population. These are voting adults who can easily sway your next election. Legislation that lowers the cost of their medication is not only in their best interest, but also in yours.

Including this in the budget is fiscally responsible. According to a report done by the House of Representatives in 2019, this measure is projected to save approximately $500 billion over the next 10 years if included in the budget. Footing the bill for these savings would be the pharmaceutical companies themselves. Don’t worry, they can afford it. Big Pharma rakes in around $1.3 trillion a year. That’s $13 trillion over the next decade—if there isn’t any growth, that is, but there’s always growth. The projected $500 billion bill is less than 1% of that. Big Pharma will be just fine. But with rising prescription costs, if you don’t get this passed in the 2022 budget, 1.3 million Arizonans and even more Americans might not be fine at all.

But what did we get from Joe Biden? This crap: He praised Sinema as “smart as the devil” and said Manchin was “not a bad guy.” Sinema will likely not get re-elected in Arizona in 2024 but she might jump to the Republican Party or take a job as a corporate lobbyist. Dunno whether that qualifies as being smart, but if it makes you a millionaire, I suppose it does. Manchin will likely be personally responsible for hobbling the quest for the US to become carbon neutral by 2050, all for the sake of personal gain. I'd say that makes him one of the worst kinds of individuals there are.

Pathetic...

[Hooahguy]

Except its pretty abundantly clear that dragging Manchin and Sinema, as good as it makes us feel, isnt working.

[ReluctantSamurai]

And why is it that Manchin/Sinema apparently don't budge? Because they both know there aren't any consequences or push-back for what they're doing. Neither of them (or the other corporate Dems hiding behind them) are in any immediate danger of losing their positions as lawmakers, but if I had been working in politics for as long as Biden has, and now I have a moment to make a real impact on the future of this country, I'd make damn sure that those two were made as uncomfortable as possible, instead of kissing their asses. But that's just me.

I'd argue that caving to their every demand isn't working either... Instead, we will get a repeat of the response to the 2008 economic crisis---a halfway response that made the whole ordeal last much longer than it had to.

[Hooahguy]

If I knew the secret to getting through to them I sure as hell wouldn't be posting about it first on a video game forum lol. But for real, its crap like this which is why I'm 1) exhausted, 2) disengaged, and 3) work in a policy field that's very bipartisan. I wouldn't survive if I had to do the partisan politicking thing for a living.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I agree that the media is doing a terrible job. Almost as if they are trying to rile things up because they thrive on chaos.

Perhaps some evidence to that effect:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democra...-opinion-poll/

While congressional Democrats negotiate within their ranks over the "Build Back Better" plan, the public is more likely to have heard about what it would cost than about the specific policies that would be in it. Despite the popularity, in principle, of these program ideas, some of the very popular ones — like expanded Medicare coverage and lowered prescription costs — are among the least heard about.

Perhaps as a result, even though a slight majority approve of it, only about a third of Americans think the plan would help them directly — or help the economy overall, for that matter. That includes only 61% of Democrats, though it's their party's bill. More broadly, this all may be impacting views of Democrats' priorities too: just over a third of the country describes Joe Biden and the Democrats as focused on the issues they care a lot about. Only 10% of Americans describe themselves as knowing a lot of specific things about what's in the Build Back Better plan, and a majority admit to either not knowing specifics or anything at all.

Say what you will about the Republican Party (and these days there's little good to say), you can be damn sure if this was a GOP bill, the entire world would know what's in the bill. An absolutely abysmal job of messaging...

WHAT'S IN THE DAMN BILL!

[Hooahguy]

A surprise to nobody:

Rolling Stone separately confirmed a third person involved in the main Jan. 6 rally in D.C. has communicated with the committee. This is the first report that the committee is hearing major new allegations from potential cooperating witnesses. While there have been prior indications that members of Congress were involved, this is also the first account detailing their purported role and its scope. The two sources also claim they interacted with members of Trump’s team, including former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who they describe as having had an opportunity to prevent the violence.

The two sources, both of whom have been granted anonymity due to the ongoing investigation, describe participating in “dozens” of planning briefings ahead of that day when Trump supporters broke into the Capitol as his election loss to President Joe Biden was being certified.

“I remember Marjorie Taylor Greene specifically,” the organizer says. “I remember talking to probably close to a dozen other members at one point or another or their staffs.”
...
Along with Greene, the conspiratorial pro-Trump Republican from Georgia who took office earlier this year, the pair both say the members who participated in these conversations or had top staffers join in included Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).

Its beyond me how those congresspeople haven't been tossed on their asses yet.

[Montmorency]

Once more the polls have proved precise, validating the rising expectations of the past month. Democrats recaptured the entire Virginia government last cycle under Trump, but now they are suffering their worst setback in at least the past decade, losing the governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general races (no benefit of vote splitting either). The state legislature too appears poised to flip along a number of close contests.

Everything is looking deec in New York however; too early to comment on the statewide ballot measures/constitutional amendments.

Minneapolis is rejecting the proposal to reform/rebrand the police department into a public safety agency though (but yes to rent control and empowering the mayor at the expense of the city council).

[Hooahguy]

Once more the polls have proved precise, validating the rising expectations of the past month. Democrats recaptured the entire Virginia government last cycle under Trump, but now they are suffering their worst setback in at least the past decade, losing the governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general races (no benefit of vote splitting either). The state legislature too appears poised to flip along a number of close contests.

Tough losses in Virginia with bad portents for 2022. At least the state senate is remaining Dem to prevent the worst of GOP impulses. I find the excuse that "oh Dems havent done anything" to be weak, as Virginia Dems have passed voting rights expansion, weed legalization, Medicaid expansion, abortion rights, gun control, universal pre-k, criminal justice reform, and abolished the death penalty. Some of these things were even signed into law by McAuliffe himself in his previous term as governor. So its frustrating that voters didnt care about any of that. My gut feeling is that the culture war stuff like CRT is working for the GOP since fence-sitters scare easy. Or perhaps the media is doing their heavy lifting by falling for obvious dupes, such as this guy who claimed to the NYT to be a Biden voter who is now voting for Youngkin but actually had been a longtime GOP donor and had written articles about CRT before the 2020 election. And the NYT reporter did no research into the guy, only changing it after getting ridiculed online. So much for the libruhl meedia. Also the media blasted McAuliffe for a gaff about teachers schooling, and seemingly ignored the number of racist dogwhistles Youngkin was putting out.

Anyways, the GOP is very motivated and Dems are seemingly incapable of countering the culture war narrative, so unless something changes massively in the next year I expect full GOP control of both chambers of Congress. To counter CRT panic I think Dems need to stop talking about American history in such a negative light, and as Ben Rhodes puts it, "progressive change as a validation of American history and not a repudiation of it." The activists wont like it though so I dont know how this would go down. But one things for sure, clamoring to take down statues of the founding fathers dont go over well for most people.

Everything is looking deec in New York however; too early to comment on the statewide ballot measures/constitutional amendments.

Minneapolis is rejecting the proposal to reform/rebrand the police department into a public safety agency though (but yes to rent control and empowering the mayor at the expense of the city council).

I think this is a hard pill to swallow for a lot of activists, but voters simply do not want to defund the police. I think activists need to recognize that due to rising crime rates people dont want to defund the police. Time to find another, better slogan. I mean India Walton got beaten by a write-in candidate in Buffalo, even after getting endorsed by people like Schumer and Gillibrand.

[Montmorency]

To my mind, the likeliest explanation is that Biden's approval rating has been tanking since the beginning of August, and reached firm Trump territory a month ago (also when McAuliffe's numbers really began sliding). This slump owes to the resurgent Covid wave and linked global economic upheaval, amplified in part by media coverage of the Afghanistan pullout. Democrats lost the most ground in Northern Virginia, the suburbanized region with close sociopolitical ties to Washington DC, the same area whose shifting politics had powered the Democratic restoration in the state over the past decade.

For what it's worth, these were close defeats that probably won't interrupt the state's general trend for long. The Republicans retook the House of Delegates 52-48 (seats, not vote %), and won the executives with less than 51% of the vote each.

See also:




Ultra-long account of the Virginia elections found here:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Notes on the State of Northern Virginia: Or How the Multicultural Bourgeoisie Ushered in the Coming Herrenvolk

My canvassing partner that has knocked on probably 2000 doors between this year and 2016 after working on Saturday and Sunday canvassing basically the same area that I did, refused to canvass today that was how bad it was. Young Kim (alias he okayed) who is an Asian American said it was hopeless with these voters. He is the one usually talking me off the ledge. He talked about how everyone he sees he hates after the conversations he had this weekend and how they went out and voted today.

This is a combination of two posts I wrote starting around 7:30 pm Election night. I cross posted it on the other VA thread, not even realizing this one had started.

I canvassed Fairfax County over the weekend and today. My anecdotal evidence was that Terry had lost as of 6 pm. If people want to know what I think were problems, I would be happy to share, but I don’t want to get downvotes like when I stated Warren was DOA in November of 2019. I talk to actual Democratic voters, leaners, and independents. LGM doesn’t really understand actual voters in GE and primaries. I am really burned out at the moment, but can share some of my experiences if people are really interested.

I am still hoping I am wrong, but it doesn’t look good from my perspective. VB is bad, NoVA didn’t vote in the numbers and the percentages to make up for the rest of the state. I don’t think Hampton, Newports News and Richmond area can make up for it.

Ok a little about me if it helps. Feel free to skip over this section if it is TMI. I will bold the beginning of the section on canvassing.

I grew up in the Midwest until my teenage years, and I have lived in various parts of VA since, except for a few months at a time in other parts of the country. The first time I canvassed was for Bobby Scott when he ran against Herb Bateman in the Va 1st District House race of 1986. I canvassed a little until the 1992 Clinton campaign when I canvassed hard. I got a DNC internship in 1994 and was shipped out to the Midwest. After that clusterfuck, I didn’t canvass again until 2000. I canvassed for Kerry in 2004, Obama in 2012, Clinton in 2016, and a Democratic congressional candidate in 2018. I would have done much more in 2020, but Covid scared me. I also questioned if it would even be beneficial or turn off voters. I try not to have too much responsibility over others in terms of elections, if possible, after 1994. I like being able to canvass 5 days a week or none with it not being a job. I’m a Gen X slacker.

I am a white male Cis, which I have never admitted to in the comments section. I feel like identifying has a limiting effect on what one writes here. People too easily dismiss it as being misogynistic, patriarchal, or heteronormative without trying to understand what is being stated. I try to be empathetic and understanding of most viewpoints, and I can easily be mistaken at times as someone that is arguing with someone, when I am trying to critique their approach in terms of is it effective or not. This is also the first time I have ever been even quasi specific about where I canvass.

In 2016, I had a bad feeling early about Trump. I thought Democrats nationwide and across the country were really complacent about his prospects. I started canvassing early, for me at least, around late summer. It was brutal compared to previous times. I thought Obama 2012 was a bit of a slog, but I could understand it in terms of he was no longer the blank canvas and fresh faced candidate of ‘08. He was a known commodity by that election.

2018 was the first time I think since 1994, I had done much in a midterm. In some ways, it was better than 2016, but in other terms it was worse. There was more belligerence. More implied threats of violence, threats to call the police, get off my property threats.

I canvassed a little bit for Warren in the Fall of 2019. She was not getting any traction. I stopped volunteering thinking it was futile. I went out the Sunday before the VA Primary, hoping her debate performances had turned things around, but she was weaker than she had been in November. I remember being linked to this Buttigieg supporter for most of the afternoon. When I went home that evening, I heard on the radio, that Buttigieg was dropping out. I felt like there was no hope for Warren, and I didn’t want to be that Buttigieg guy on Monday. So I again quit going out and ended up voting for Biden, because Warren had no chance.

I canvassed a little in 2017 and worked the polls that year for the Democrats. Ok this year.

I don’t think Terry ran a very good campaign from ads and media perspective. He wanted to run a national campaign on the economic package the Democrats had assured him would be done by the Fall/Labor Day. I blame Biden for overselling the prospects. Terry reacted too much, and ran on stale stuff like $15 an hour. Not that it is not important, but it is boilerplate stuff that doesn’t have much impact. Most voters that vote in off year elections are well off and it is not on their radar.

I have no idea what message Terry was running on. Covid was important over the summer. He should have run ads that showed how good Virginia’s response to the pandemic was compared to the other southern states. He should have hammered home Youngkin’s anti vaccine stance was what got Texas and Florida in the mess they were in and showed that Youngkin’s lack of action would lead us down the same path of death and economic stagnation. Then he should have pivoted to how Virginia was able to navigate the pandemic much stronger than those states. That being vigilant on Covid was the path to economic recovery.

In terms of the voters I spoke with, the biggest issue was the school boards. Terry was seen as being against parents. He never made a forceful ad that he was concerned about violence and intimidation against other parents and school board members. It was soft and cuddly horseshit. I don’t even know exactly what happened at the Loudon county schools, but the voters seemed to know. It was very bad and the Democrats covered it up. My sense was that there was a sexual assault between two teens that had consensual sex two times previously. For some reason the boy that sexually assaulted the girl was wearing a dress during the incident, but had never identified as a female. Apparently, the crime was not dealt with and the boy was moved to another school where he assaulted two more girls. This was McAuliffe’s and Mark Herring’s, our current state AG and candidate for the office this election, fault in their minds, when this is and was a local issue.

One issue that I don’t think gets mentioned enough in the national media and seemingly never on LGM is that Virginia is basically a conservative state that went Democratic for past 15 years of election cycles due to specific factors. They almost always back the opposite party of the one holding the White House in the Gubernatorial race. The fact that Terry McAuliffe was able to buck that trend in 2013 was more of a fluke as opposed to how strong a candidate he was. In addition, Cuccinelli was a horrible candidate that had a long paper trail of odious beliefs that were not popular. Youngkin was a political cypher that could be whatever you thought he should be, and he was for parents!

I have never bought Ben in RVA’s happy talk about how glorious the political landscape of Virginia currently is or will be. We have a ton of fissures in the Democratic Party, and much of relatively easy wins were due to many Republicans and Independents voting against Trump and the Republican Party that was lead by him. People don’t really understand how damaging the Northam, Fairfax, and Herring imbroglio from a few years back caused lasting damage among the rank and file and different factions. The 2020 election results papered it over. I remember in 2018 being at the Tim Kaine election celebration after they had declared him the winner and thinking 2021 was going to be a shitstorm with Herring and Fairfax duking it out for the Governor’ Mansion. That was before the photos and allegations had hit. I never liked Fairfax due to his anti-unionism. He seemed like a glad handling empty suit when I met him that night. I like Herring. Herring seemed angling for the Governor’s spot ever since he was elected AG eight years ago, but he didn’t seem to have built up enough of a base like Northam. So I assumed Fairfax would beat him out by 5-10 points in the primary. It never happened.

Most of the voters I talked with were tired of being “blackmailed.” They lived in a world that they could vote for the Republican that seemed nice. They wanted to be happy to vote for someone, they were all special snowflakes: Middle Eastern, South Asian, South East Asian, Latino, Caucasian, African American, Straight, Gay, all of them Katie. This is not a sustainable coalition. Another issue is that we need more people that can translate for languages like Tagalog for Filipino voters, Spanish for Latino voters, etc. I don’t why the Democratic campaigns national, state, and local can’t figure this out. Pay them. I would rather spend millions on translators than wasting money on ineffective ads that are more inefficient the more times they run.

As I type this Juanita Tolliver just appeared on MSNBC or wherever my DVR is in terms of when she actually appeared. I remember last week how she talked about how VA had the gold standard for GOTV. “They got this,” she stated or words to that effect. I thought she was wrong at the time about our GOTV operation, but if she is correct we as a nation are royally f’d.

We have to get better at so many things, and these issues are ones that we have been dealing with since the late 1980s and early 1990s. Vendors that give us out of date data. Campaigns that don’t value the work of the volunteers. People don’t get trained properly and then go out and do more harm than help. We need to spend so much more money on the people and quit spending so much money that just has no or extremely limited value on Inside the Beltway status quo commercials that do nothing but feeding the consultants and local media. Why was it so difficult to have a commercial with two good old types, a Harry and Louise type of commercial, where a couple is talking about voting for Youngkin and remembering the last time they voted for a seemingly nice Republican. Then they mention Governor Ultra Sound and his imprisonment on corruption charges. The final line could be “Maybe we should stick with the Democrats.”

Also, I don’t think the Democrats did enough to play up the fact that abortion rights are back up for debate, along with other privacy issues. The fact that Democracy itself is on the table was never mentioned. I don’t know what stops Youngkin along with a Republican state legislature from putting in Republican electors if they need them in 2024. He stated he wanted to audit the 2020 election which is code with I’m ok with the next coup.

Ok these are some samples of voters supposedly inclined to support the Democrats going into the weekend.

I am posting all demographic information to point out that all our problems are not just with white males and females, and not to shame anyone or demo. They were all American legally entitled to vote. It is across the board with our coalition. They don’t know, don’t care, or happy our Democracy is at stake. I may or may not have shaded their ages up or down an age group to protect some anonymity.

Mid 30’s South Asian man: I could go either way. I always vote for the Democrats but I don’t like being blackmailed. I want to be happy.

He hated paying taxes. Thought the Fairfax county schools were taking way too much money. Just incensed they worked in a nice office building. I mentioned my parents were teachers (it was my grandparents but I got flustered or was trying to sell him on seeing them as people). He backtracked about he liked teachers, but administrators were horrible. Hated the ACA. Swore it raised prices for him. He has no idea what it was like pre-2009, because mom and dad were paying for his healthcare. Just a petulant spoiled millennial. Grew up upper middle class outside of Philly. He hated free college and student debt loan forgiveness. I explained that it was only for community college, and currently I didn’t think it was still on the table.

He was a little more amenable about that part, but still adamant that debt forgiveness was evil.

No matter what Loomis and most or many LGM people think, free college and debt forgiveness are not the no-brainer slam dunks they think it is. I had a white lady in her late 60s really go off on me about it as well. That was her only gripe that I had to endure. I have had people bitch about in previous cycles and just out of the blue in normal conversation. I think the proposals are fine, but we may need to rework it and our messaging is horrible on it.

Mid 30s White lesbian woman. I voted for Youngkin. I don’t know why? I usually vote Democrats, but McAuliffe had no plan for anything.

Direct quote, or the best of my recollection

She was really spacey. Was really excited at first to explain her vote. She looked like the woman who sees starbursts when she throws her baby at Trump, she was so giddy. She may have thought I was a pollster or Republican canvasser. I asked her what plans Youngkin had that excited her. No response. I asked if Youngkin supporting auditing the 2020 election concerned her. She was absolutely positive he would not find any shenanigans or discrepancies, because she had worked elections before. I tried to explain that it was a dog whistle for overturning the votes. She got really pissed and told me she didn’t have time for this. I thanked her for her time and sharing her thoughts.

White guy early 30s: I voted for Princess Blanding. I voted for Trump in 2020, because I hated Biden. I voted for Hillary in 2016.

Direct quote, or the best of my recollection

I asked him if he would vote for Trump in 2024, and he said no way he just hated Biden. I have no idea if he was for real, which I usually have a good sense about. He was so confused and all over the place ideologically, I suspect this was the real person. He was really upset about the school board issues. He may have known more about it than me to be honest. However, he didn’t really understand that McAuliffe was talking about the threats of violence and intimidation that was taking place at the school board meetings and the anti vaccine part of the problems. I explained to him that canvassing had gotten progressively worse with people answering the door strapped with guns, and implying they would use them if I didn’t get the hell out there. I have also been threatened to leave the entire area if I knew what was good for my well being. These were in 2016 and 2018. This election I didn’t go too far out past the Beltway or outside of Fairfax County. He had no problem with it and thought that was their right. Walking around with a glock strapped to your waist is normal and perfectly acceptable home behavior in his estimation.

Late 20’s Asian woman: I don’t like your aggressive campaign tactics. Get off my property.

Direct quote, or the best of my recollection

She seemed to have a problem hearing me through my mask, and I honestly had a problem with hearing her as she seemed to be whispering the whole time. She didn’t really seem to want to engage or was very hesitant to talk with me. I wish she had realized she could end the conversation at any time. I asked her what was important to her in the election, if there was an issue or topic that really was important to her. She didn’t understand the question. I tried to talk about overturning the election and the insurrection of 1/6. I phrased it like “having you been paying attention” which was my mistake I will admit as I was getting exasperated trying to make any connection. That was when she expressed her desire for me to leave and I thanked her for her time and left as quickly as possible. I don’t think language was an issue as she spoke impeccable English, better than me. From my experience Asian Americans are the most hesitant to talk with strangers canvassing. We need to work on this. It is not just me, as my usual canvassing buddy has the same problem and he is Asian American as well. He speaks passable Korean so he can get past it with Korean speakers for the most part.

Late 50s or early 60s white guy: We should have gone with someone else. I really like Terry but he is yesterday’s news. I really like term limits. Me: Who did you vote for in the primaries? Him: I didn’t vote. I guess I can’t complain. Me: (Yeah)

Direct quote, or the best of my recollection

Probably the best person I met. He was ok with bill negotiations in Congress. Very pro vaccine as he had gotten it in March of 2020 and got the shots asap and recently got the boosters. He agreed with me that McAuliffe should have played to that strength which polled well. He thought Youngkin was another DeSantis and was worried Covid could come back in the state if we didn’t stay on top of it getting everyone vaccinated. Let’s continue to get back to normal which should have been McAuliffe’s campaign slogan.

Late 20’s White male: I was planning on voting. I was seeing where the day took me. Now I am running late for work. I guess I won’t vote. Oops.

Direct quote, or the best of my recollection

That was my entire conversation with him. As it was well past 6 on Election Day and polls closed at 7 with no way to get to their local precinct by 7pm closing, I called it a day on that high note. These are voters we have to depend on to keep Democracy on life support.

The nationalization of elections was also felt in New Jersey, where the incumbent governor won a close reelection in a traditionally-Democratic state (though his margin will increase by a few points once all votes are counted).

At least progressives won big in Boston and some other cities.

I'm waiting for the margins in New York State (the constitutional amendments) to solidify, since of course New York takes an exceptionally-long time to finalize results, but so far we can confirm that the electoral proposals have all been decisively defeated (with 25% turnout rofl), which is annoying, but not harmful as they were more symbolic nice-to-haves than anything. In positive news New York will adopt a constitutional right to clean air and water. Analysis of historical antecedents and how it might be put into action here.

I think this is a hard pill to swallow for a lot of activists, but voters simply do not want to defund the police. I think activists need to recognize that due to rising crime rates people dont want to defund the police. Time to find another, better slogan. I mean India Walton got beaten by a write-in candidate in Buffalo, even after getting endorsed by people like Schumer and Gillibrand.

Meh, the measure wasn't exactly "defunding", it won 44% of the vote, and Back the Blue initiatives and candidates throughout the country suffered defeats. Don't fight the last battle.

[Hooahguy]

The nationalization of elections was also felt in New Jersey, where the incumbent governor won a close reelection in a traditionally-Democratic state (though his margin will increase by a few points once all votes are counted).

Interestingly enough, we might be having the Orthodox Jewish community to thank for Murphy's reelection.

I'm waiting for the margins in New York State (the constitutional amendments) to solidify, since of course New York takes an exceptionally-long time to finalize results, but so far we can confirm that the electoral proposals have all been decisively defeated (with 25% turnout rofl), which is annoying, but not harmful as they were more symbolic nice-to-haves than anything. In positive news New York will adopt a constitutional right to clean air and water. Analysis of historical antecedents and how it might be put into action here

I know very little about the NY state ballot initiatives, but any insight as to why the voting reform stuff failed?

Meh, the measure wasn't exactly "defunding", it won 44% of the vote, and Back the Blue initiatives and candidates throughout the country suffered defeats. Don't fight the last battle.

I was framing it more against the idea/slogan than against that specific measure. My point being that its an unnecessary albatross.

[Montmorency]

I can't say, though the word is that there was heavy Republican advertising against Proposals 1, 3/4, and comparatively-little Dem advertising in support (though numerous politicians, such as Chuck Schumer, did formally endorse).

Proposals 2/5 (2 is the environmentalist amendment) got little attention from either party it seems.

More directly, part of the story has to be that turnout in NYC was lower than in the rest of the state, though this is the norm (NYC has at least 40% of the registered voters of the state, but only a third of the votes processed are from NYC so far). In the end the proposals didn't even get a majority in NYC though.


Edit: Interesting Virginia exit polling:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elect...3PK2ZNXGJRNMMQ

McAuliffe improved on minority voters from Biden, but went 38-61 with White voters, compared to 45-53 in 2020. This is actually a decline with non-college Whites, as college White margins were conserved from 2020, whereas NCW went from 38-62 to 24-76 Dem.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Dems are up against a classic persuasion problem, and Social Judgement Theory says they have not done enough to prepare the ground. link

Scrapping the police is outside the non-committal zone for many and in the rejection zone. "Defund the police," as a slogan, is catchy but damning to shifting thinking on the issue.

I think the Dems face this problem en masse. Did Trump shift people to the left as a backlash -- a fair number. Did he completely change the political map among the 'purples' -- no. The Dems are pitching their efforts too far towards the rejection zone and too far out of the acceptance zone for many of the more middle-of-the-road. Add in Biden's apparent ineffectualness in corralling his own party and it is not a strong recipe for making major changes.

Nor does it help that the Trump wing can actually counter with simplistic 'back-the-blue,' 'no-nanny-state' or 'socialism is evil' slogans and sentiments. These fit on single line bumper stickers and are therefore within the reading abilities of some of the Trump core.

And THEN you can add in the legalized corruption that RS is on about...

[Montmorency]

That frames the problem as one of media representation. As we've noted here in the past, contrary to that stalwartly-smug stereotype of the "liberal" media, the mainstream outlets have and will always be quick to defer to Republicans while criticizing and misrepresenting Democrats.

For the Democrats' part, few on Capitol Hill have offered any threat to police prerogatives so far, let alone defunding. Fiscally, conservative Democrats like Sen. Sinema and Rep. Gottheimer are to the right of pre-Trump Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio on tax rates and carveouts. Meanwhile, strong majorities continue to poll in favor of the original, more generous, legislative package endorsed by the Biden administration, though most do not believe that its provisions would benefit "people like them" - not even most Democrats in some polls! What space for maneuver is there, and how to deliver the People what they putatively want, when the flank of the party is disloyal or venal, the bulk of the electorate is burdened by apathy, confusion, under- and misinformation, and an adversarial clickbait media would rather peddle gobsmacking lies about inflation than prioritize responsibility and education?

But I suspect the vagaries of media and messaging more often suppress Democrats at ballot than persuade the public as such against them. Take note: According to Virginia exit polling, Democrats gained some ground with Hispanics and Asians, held steady with college-degree Whites (though there may have been some exchange between men and women), and lost double digits with non-college Whites. Virginia Republicans won as much as 3/4 of that demographic. In other words, a mix of declining turnout (McAuliffe lost 750K votes from 2020, to Youngkin's 400K) and vote-switching among this single demographic (at least 1/3 of voters in Virginia) was dispositive.

And it seems the most liberal non-college Whites, the old labor left of the northern states, are Boomers and Silents; the advance of time will only aggravate this point of weakness, at least until late in the century (and who's projecting to then?).

The reality is that a durable mix of structural factors - both demographic sociopolitics and the thermodynamics of a disengaged electorate, known to characterize American politics since the beginning - can be counted on to produce genuinely-predictable results such as in the late contest.

The more immediate problem - as I mentioned earlier - is the persistence of global economic dislocation. The course of that single issue over the coming year, or else its narrativization, will determine the results of the midterms, within the limits imposed by (unfavorable) structural parameters. It was widely acknowledged by analysts in November 2020 that Democrats would have a hard time holding onto their Congressional majorities, and there's been no ground gained since then. Politically-passive and weakly-aligned citizens just can't be bothered to regard the Republican Party as illegitimate, any more now than before. . Discourse is fuzzy and exciting, but we're executing a boring old maths formula here.

[Montmorency]

I suppose I'll be the first to comment on the news.

Yesterday or over the past week, there was apparently a shift in Biden's calculations. From what I understand he made clear to Pelosi that he wanted the bipartisan infrastructure deal passed without delay, and Pelosi whipped the caucus to see the vote through, which they did more or less unanimously. Progressive caucus chair Jayapal expressed confidence in Biden's promise to find enough votes in the Senate for the administration's signature Build Back Better agenda. As you may recall, over the past season the progressive half of the Democratic House majority insisted that the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the larger Build Back Better package be passed in tandem to avert a full reneging on the latter by party conservatives.

Conservatives succeeded in removing disfavored components, and expanding tax breaks for affluent blue state residents, cutting BBB's topline in half from the original $3.5 trillion (itself down from $6 trillion in groundwork negotiations in the spring); it remains unclear if they will all commit to voting up the final product catered to them.

Meanwhile, more serious Democrats continue to release their own proposals, such as Senator Wyden's billionaire tax (though IMO closing the stepped-up basis carveout and instituting a wealth tax would be more effective.)




Away from the halls of power: "76 percent of meat processors have nerve damage in their hands and amputations of fingers or other body parts happen about twice per week in US meat plants, in case you were wondering why they're having trouble getting workers." One of Biden's regulatory actions this year was to retract a rule change in 2020 that would have allowed meat processing management to drive their workers even more recklessly fast. @ReluctantSamurai

[Montmorency]

Seriously, what could Democrats do to persuade people?

[spmetla]

Seriously, what could Democrats do to persuade people?

The Democrats would need to divorce themselves from their most unpopular stances as they are losing the 'culture war' not the soundness of policy. Years of Republicans propaganda as well as the actions/statements of a few more extreme 'progressives' have made the the Democrats the party of 'uncontrolled migration' to intentionally change the current demographics as well as the party that is out to 'undermine social values' through LGBTQ rights, 'wokeness,' and by thinking that freedom of religion doesn't just mean christian denominations.
The conservative values of a large part of the country reject the above and those efforts of tolerance as ways to change america into something else. They are reactionary in nature as the change no matter how morally correct is too fast for them to cope with.

Having mottos such as 'defund the police' instead of 'police accountability' doesn't help as that scares away the centrists as well.

Though Dem policies are actually the ones that help the working class the Dems are rejected by so much of the working class because they don't like the perceived values of those 'vile liberals' out to make their sons gender neutral gays that are ashamed of their country.

This article by Jacobin Magazine seems to hit a lot of the key points.
Everyone Hates the Democrats
Progressives and moderates accuse each other of being unable to appeal to working-class voters — and maybe they’re both right.
https://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/every...-the-democrats

On this question, the progressive and centrist wings of the party are more divided than ever. Conservative Blue Dog Democrats like Abigail Spanberger blame radical rhetoric for the party’s poor results in Congress: “we need to not ever use the words ‘socialist’ or ‘socialism’ ever again. Because while people think it doesn’t matter, it does matter. And we lost good members because of it.”

In response, our left-wing leaders like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez contend that the Democrats will fail to mobilize their most enthusiastic voters if big-ticket progressive ideas get dropped from the agenda. They argue that the party’s biggest liability was its unimaginative, uninspiring, and thoroughly orthodox economic conservatism. Joe Biden’s promise that “nothing will fundamentally change” might have won over some moderates disgusted with Trump, but it failed to inspire voters to elect a Democratic majority.

Centrism is a dead end that promises nothing but razor-thin victories, divided government, and an ever-shrinking share of working-class votes. But getting “woke” also means alienating most voters — of all colors — and handing the Republicans easy layup victories at the polls. Still, it will probably take more than a rhetorical adjustment to regain the confidence of working people.

Struggling Americans want jobs, health care, decent schools, safe neighborhoods, and somebody — anybody — in Washington to listen. But why would they listen? Democrats today represent the richest House districts in the country, and Republicans consistently send the wealthiest individuals to Washington. The median income in Congress is 500 percent greater than that of the nation at large — half of our federal legislators are millionaires.

I think the support that Trump got seems to discount the idea though that workers want to necessarily vote for someone that's also a worker but more someone that shares their world view and values. Everyone seems to hate political correctness so Trump saying offensive and stupid things someone won him support. Trump railed against Europeans which so much of the country seems to see as freeloading socialists that are being overun by muslim migration and too weak to stop that and that won him support. His stance on immigration and america first economics are of course the two major issues that brought him support even if his implementation of both were stupid and counter-productive because people liked what he said and blamed the 'deep state' for any failures to get result.

I've told my Republican friends enough that if they were immigration friendly and not so outwardly hostile to poor blacks and hispanics that they'd win those votes right over as most working class hispanics that I know are staunch Catholics and reject the social values of the democrats.

[rory_20_uk]

Double post

[rory_20_uk]

If these issues are less important to individuals than say gun rights or pro life then it doesn't matter. Then add in the electoral college.

Also, what percentage of democrats are truly concerned about these issues rather than themselves.

Oh, the NYT has investigated this. In essence people are happy to talk the talk, but refuse to walk the walk

[Montmorency]

I was referring to conservative Democratic politicians, and I was being ironic; I've made my opinion on Biden's approval rating plain. But I can work with this.

The basic complications for the thrust of this sort of attitude are:

1. It's old and prevalent enough that it reads more as wishcasting than an appraisal of political ecology
2. There are things the Democratic party stands for, and it should not and could not change those things to attempt to appeal to those who hate Democrats most
3. Low-propensity (some of whom are swing) voters are closer to the Democratic party on cultural values
4. If someone can be swayed to fascism by the mere existence of disagreeable viewpoints, their political behavior is seldom going to be sensitive to contrary political messaging from a party with which they happen to associate those viewpoints

The Democrats would need to divorce themselves from their most unpopular stances as they are losing the 'culture war' not the soundness of policy. Years of Republicans propaganda as well as the actions/statements of a few more extreme 'progressives' have made the the Democrats the party of 'uncontrolled migration' to intentionally change the current demographics as well as the party that is out to 'undermine social values' through LGBTQ rights, 'wokeness,' and by thinking that freedom of religion doesn't just mean christian denominations.
The conservative values of a large part of the country reject the above and those efforts of tolerance as ways to change america into something else. They are reactionary in nature as the change no matter how morally correct is too fast for them to cope with.

Having mottos such as 'defund the police' instead of 'police accountability' doesn't help as that scares away the centrists as well.

Though Dem policies are actually the ones that help the working class the Dems are rejected by so much of the working class because they don't like the perceived values of those 'vile liberals' out to make their sons gender neutral gays that are ashamed of their country.

I think the support that Trump got seems to discount the idea though that workers want to necessarily vote for someone that's also a worker but more someone that shares their world view and values. Everyone seems to hate political correctness so Trump saying offensive and stupid things someone won him support. Trump railed against Europeans which so much of the country seems to see as freeloading socialists that are being overun by muslim migration and too weak to stop that and that won him support. His stance on immigration and america first economics are of course the two major issues that brought him support even if his implementation of both were stupid and counter-productive because people liked what he said and blamed the 'deep state' for any failures to get result.

This is of course what movement conservatives believe, to varying degrees - but they're the third of the country who are almost always opposed to liberal politics, and have been since liberalism was invented. Losing the culture war on Christianity and LGBTQ since the Clinton-Bush era is one of the major fonts of rage, but those people are veritably the enemy, not persuadable voters. They have fundamentally-contrary affective and ideological commitments to the majority of the population, and I would condemn them prescriptively as well. Unfortunately, their identity is still so normatively established that they are never - unlike Democrats - expected to obsess over reaching across the aisle. There is little evidence that if Democrats simply assimilated to Republicanism they would win more votes - it's been tried before to limited effect - but at any rate it is no more to be countenanced within the Democratic base than for Ted Cruz to find it in himself to don a pussy hat and demand justice for defrauded refugees.

To be sure, there are many competing movements within the Democratic coalition, and not all of them can get what they want. On some "culture war" issues Republicans do have an advantage rooted in asymmetric activation, such as with guns and immigration. That is, the proportion on the right who consider those top issues is clearly larger than that on the left, regardless of the putative popularity of any given liberal policy, so moving left on policy in those domains wouldn't be electorally-advantageous; either success or mere formal espousal would invite more counter-mobilization than mobilization. But the observation only implies reinforcing the status quo on particular issues, while investing in organization and activation elsewhere. On guns, Americans will have to just accept rising levels of societal brutalization and violence, but in marginal, material, terms the cost of thousands of extra deaths and tens of thousands of injuries compared to a reachable alternative is not intolerable in the face of competing priorities. Vaccinating all Republicans alone would probably be as salutary to the country as a moratorium on new gun manufacturing (though it seems neither is remotely achievable...)*. Similarly, while the current immigration regime is deplorable, even the Obama-era status quo would still maintain many of the latent benefits. When I say "benefits" I refer more to what this country as such can extract than with regard to the interests of the general population of people looking to come to America for whatever reason; still, a more active executive than we've had could readily erode the most egregious features of the system for the duration of their tenure (such as working to reduce wait times, detentions, and abuse).

*Now of course there's not so much a gun problem per se in this country, it's bound up... But it's become evident that you can't get after right-wing extremism through guns; it will have to be the other way around.

But when it comes to the basic societal status of women and non-whites and workers, that much constitutes an existential and civilizational conflict that brooks no capitulation from either side, and it would be insulting to recommend as much. Substance aside, the only reason liberals have any optimism is, again, we've been winning the argument consistently at the most basic level. Even the Republican bench of politicians is facially more diverse than the Democratic party's was during the Reagan era! The greatest failure of the American general public would be in failing to care enough to vehemently resist Republican counterrevolution, not in approving it in principle.

In my opinion, the bigger picture here is that actual Democratic policies and ideas are popular, Republican ones are not, but the Republicans are longtime experts in generating moral panics (viz. the deficit, Communism, political correctness, etc.) to attach a negative perception to Democrats. The very existence of people who think police are not to be trusted, or that abortion is a human right, is risible as a point of contention in a supposedly-free country when these are given short shrift on one political end, while on the other side it is mainstream for fascists in high office to openly advocate the elimination of the listed and their like.
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/09/10538...video-backlash

Shouldn't Democrats contest lies and slanders and perversities rather running to embrace them, if they intend to viably represent a political movement? I'm not saying one has to share something like this whenever Republicans are mentioned, but come the hell on.




Here is Senator Mitch McConnell's wife - previously a corrupt and unqualified Secretarial sinecure in the Bush and Trump Cabinets - spouting unvarnished Bolshevik propaganda that has become the Republican party line. Is the media or any coordinated Democratic effort going to make hay out of this 'gaffe' or use it to undermine the image of the Republicans? Will she be denounced as an un-American freak in the public discourse? No, it's not even news.
https://twitter.com/EveAsks/status/1457770645429702656 [SHORT VIDEO]

Will radical Marjorie Taylor Greene be excoriated as a race-baiter or communist for praising Black radical Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, treatment Obama received despite his profound lack of connection to these very longtime bogeymen of the conservative movement?
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...k-in-politics/ [VIDEO]

Yet in Virginia, McAuliffe's much less extreme opinion that parents should have limited input on school operations was made into a campaign meme - noteworthy regardless of whether or not that line of attack was enough to open the Republican's winning margin.


(For an example of what comes with parental input in education:)

Spotsylvania School Board orders libraries to remove 'sexually explicit' books

The Spotsylvania County School Board has directed staff to begin removing books that contain “sexually explicit” material from library shelves and report on the number of books that have been removed at a special called meeting next week.

The directive came after a parent raised concerns at the School Board’s meeting Monday about books available through the Riverbend High School’s digital library app.

The board also requested a report next week on the process by which books are selected for inclusion in digital and hard copy library collections at the different school levels and indicated that it will consider a division-wide library audit.

The criteria for pulling books from circulation this week is “sexually explicit,” but the board plans to refine how material is determined to be “objectionable” for a further review of library holdings.

The board voted 6–0 to order the removal. Berkeley District representative Erin Grampp was not in attendance for the vote on that issue.

Two board members, Courtland representative Rabih Abuismail and Livingston representative Kirk Twigg, said they would like to see the removed books burned.

“I think we should throw those books in a fire,” Abuismail said, and Twigg said he wants to “see the books before we burn them so we can identify within our community that we are eradicating this bad stuff.”

It's more likely the room for improvement for Democrats lies in lack of action or weak action, than in excessive action or a lack of censoriousness. When does it stop making sense to demean Democrats for Republican excesses? When does strategy distill from personal preference?

During the summer, as I linked a few posts earlier, the Republican operative Chris Rufo announced across major media that he would attempt to condition the phrase "critical race theory" with association to all discourse on race, in order to manufacture stigma against what used to be bipartisan consensus ideas even a generation ago (shades of "public schools and Social Security are socialism"). To the extent one believes some shameful subset of people would digest this premeditated formula, how would it be either moral or effective to respond by, having accepted the opposition's terms, pivoting to rhetoric against racial inclusivity as an unacceptable attack on White safe spaces? I just don't see how anyone could argue, after all we've seen over the past 15 years, that perpetually cringing, crouching, and caving to far-right ravings would win Democrats more votes than going on the offense. It would be one thing if the electorate were the same as in the 1950s, but it's not. Maybe most Whites still don't really want their children attending mixed schools, but even so they tend to accept that discussing the role of slavery or Jim Crow in our history does not constitute lese majeste against Whiteness. Helping the Republicans by agreeing with them that it does would be destructive at every level.

This article by Jacobin Magazine seems to hit a lot of the key points.
Everyone Hates the Democrats
Progressives and moderates accuse each other of being unable to appeal to working-class voters — and maybe they’re both right.
https://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/every...-the-democrats

As a mere example of the basic flaws in these sorts of criticisms of Democrats, the Jacobin set are demonstrably hated by a much larger proportion of the population than the Democratic Party is - so where's the beef? In extreme cases I've seen it rise to the level of self-delusion, a contention that if some voters will reject a $15 minimum wage if it comes packaged with feminist ideas such as non-discrimination, they would, for example, welcome a nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy so long as you "don't mention the war." Any exemplary voter with such a high level of sensitivity and commitment to social reaction will never support leftist politics, which at that grade are inherently socially progressive. They wouldn't vote for a Jacobin socialist even if he went so far as to regress to heartfelt 1920s values and call for the expulsion of women and Blacks from labor unions! They would easily vote for someone with the same views who better understands that we ought to be grateful for what the "successful" and the "job creators" have to bestow on us. It's just incoherent.

As close as I am to the Jacobin left ideologically, many of them have often shown themselves to be more concerned with in-group self-satisfaction than with thinking about how to build power. That type is sprt pf the mirror image of centrist neoliberals in a way, ironically, but much less accomplished in the real world.

On the other hand, this recent Jacobin-sponsored public survey seems like a serious attempt to analyze electoral challenges. Despite it emphasizing some of the obstacles we've already known about, it may not tell conservatives what they want to hear either. (I'm not clear on how they operationalized "woke" though.)

Working-class voters prefer progressive candidates who focus primarily on bread-and-butter economic issues, and who frame those issues in universal terms. This is especially true outside deep-blue parts of the country. Candidates who prioritized bread-and-butter issues (jobs, health care, the economy), and presented them in plainspoken, universalist rhetoric, performed significantly better than those who had other priorities or used other language. This general pattern was even more dramatic in rural and small-town areas, where Democrats have struggled in recent years.

Populist, class-based progressive campaign messaging appeals to working-class voters at least as well as mainstream Democratic messaging. Candidates who named elites as a major cause of America’s problems, invoked anger at the status quo, and celebrated the working class were well received among working-class voters — even when tested against more moderate strains of Democratic rhetoric.

Progressives do not need to surrender questions of social justice to win working-class voters, but certain identity-focused rhetoric is a liability. Potentially Democratic working-class voters did not shy away from progressive candidates or candidates who strongly opposed racism. But candidates who framed that opposition in highly specialized, identity-focused language fared significantly worse than candidates who embraced either populist or mainstream language.

Working-class voters prefer working-class candidates. A candidate’s race or gender is not a liability among potentially Democratic working-class voters. However, a candidate’s upper-class background is a major liability. Class background matters.

Working-class nonvoters are not automatic progressives. We find little evidence that low-propensity voters fail to vote because they don’t see sufficiently progressive views reflected in the political platforms of mainstream candidates.

Blue-collar workers are especially sensitive to candidate messaging — and respond even more acutely to the differences between populist and “woke” language. Primarily manual blue-collar workers, in comparison with primarily white-collar workers, were even more drawn to candidates who stressed bread-and-butter issues, and who avoided activist rhetoric.

Progressives do not need to surrender questions of social justice to win working-class voters, but certain identity-focused rhetoric is a liability. Potentially Democratic working-class voters did not shy away from progressive candidates or candidates who strongly opposed racism. But candidates who framed that opposition in highly specialized, identity-focused language fared significantly worse than candidates who embraced either populist or mainstream language.
[...]
1. Respondents from all racial groups were equally or more favorable toward female and minority candidates than white candidates.
2. Respondents from all racial groups were strongly supportive of progressive civil rights and health care positions, but whites were less supportive than other racial groups.
3. Woke candidates were viewed less favorably than other candidates bywhites, but not by respondents of color.

I don't think it would be an insurmountable difficulty to say the same things and advocate the same ideas with polls-tested framing and wording. As I said, the more persistent issue, outside the scope of this report, is the long-term derogatory image that has been attached to the Democratic Party by long Republican and media activism; if you can't reestablish trust in the first place, what you say almost doesn't even matter. If you want better healthcare or more job security and I promise to deliver that, but you as a political subject have no confidence in the political class, in my party, or in government itself to effect solutions, you'll never take me seriously. Messaging is a hard row to hoe, but IMO Democratic politicians outside blue jurisdictions ought to try directly confronting these negative perceptions in an attempt to dispel them.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"I hear my Republican colleagues have been telling you the Democraps are the do-nothing party of manhaters and race baiters. Now let me tell ya..."

A Monty Python skit could be fashioned out of everything liberals have gotten to the common folk of the country, or everything the conservatives have taken.

Despite Democratic electeds missing their opportunities consistently (1/6 may even have been the last call), I maintain my insistence that they won't gain sufficient momentum until they declare rhetorical war on the Republican Party: They have to stentoriously proclaim that it's not worthy of collegial respect, it's not normal, and it's a threat to our way of life. As much shit as the media gets for amplifying Republican talking points, you can't blame them for not running ahead of Democratic talking points, which are infused with irresponsible fairmindedness towards the monstrous regimen. Yes, it is difficult. Even I would have a hard time establishing the right frame of mind to say what needs to be said if challenged in-person to produce the prescribed performance. But that's the whole game on the table there.

Bonus: If someone is of the character to perceive this policy by the Republican government of Idaho as an attack on their core American identity, they will never, ever, vote for liberalism, and they almost certainly never have. It's basically a premodern worldview. Don't even think about it.

[Montmorency]

If these issues are less important to individuals than say gun rights or pro life then it doesn't matter. Then add in the electoral college.

Also, what percentage of democrats are truly concerned about these issues rather than themselves.

Oh, the NYT has investigated this. In essence people are happy to talk the talk, but refuse to walk the walk

Property values and school demographics/selection are two areas in which very few on the broad left are willing to part with socioeconomic advantages.

You're right, but no offense, aren't you in the same boat with your constitutional pessimism about the possibility for improvement? The NYT too gets little of my approval for raising this issue given the density of conservative apologia and boosterism that it publishes - including such as what tends to militate against the movements to spread affordable housing and integrated schooling.