It helps they target low intellegence voters who often cling to single issues. Democrats tend to be a little more thoughtful, and a little more diverse in their interests. You can't just shout 'no illegals!' and call it a day.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
benjipwns
Banned
If only we lived in Evilverse.
Stuck here, the Democrats have horrible messaging capability. They fall into the trap of trying to respond to Republican messaging, allowing Republicans to have framed the issue, and do it in an ad hoc and piecemeal fashion to boot.
benjipwns
Banned
Maybe that was the wrong way to phrase it. You will literally see this same exact "our problem is we just can't get the message out, they run a tight lockstep ship over there! they target low information voters! they drown out our more nuanced and complex position with a flood of talking points! we always compromise and never fight back!" whining all over pro-GOP sites.
On the other hand, if there's so many problems with messaging despite billions spent on messaging networks, maybe it's the message that's the problem?
On the other hand, if there's so many problems with messaging despite billions spent on messaging networks, maybe it's the message that's the problem?
If people at pro-GOP sites claiming things like "we always compromise and never fight back" then I would suggest they are out of touch with reality. The track record of a Republican majority Congress of the last 6 years should be sufficient empirical evidence to counter that claim (not that empirical evidence matters in certain conservative circles).
Republicans have great messaging, but to their detriment it's a message that typically only appeals to a conservative minority of the population. But they sucker the Democrats into futile efforts to counter that message with that group on the terms the GOP set rather than using their platform (and their dollars) to reach a broader and unfortunately more apathetic proportion of the population.
I'll also add that the GOP is masterful at turning those few efforts where the Democrats try to lead the conversation against them, by cherry picking quotes and labeling/relabeling Democratic concepts with negative language. Democrats dabble in this, but they never seem to have the gumption to run with it for long.
benjipwns
Banned
Right right, the Republicans have unfairly stacked their team and they're expertly working the refs constantly after years of honing their game while playing dirty, nay outright filthy, if only the Democrats could sack up and take it to them hard, get a little dirty if need be, they'd win this big game and get the momentum to run for the championship.
If they can't pull it off, they need to look at what new players they can bring in who can do the things they need. Upcoming classes are looking strong if they can make the right picks they might be able to overcome all the disadvantages they have to face in the uphill battle for the top of the standings. Maybe even be able to win honorably, if the Republicans and their allies in the league office will let em.
The underdog narrative/fantasy is a common one among sports fans.
If they can't pull it off, they need to look at what new players they can bring in who can do the things they need. Upcoming classes are looking strong if they can make the right picks they might be able to overcome all the disadvantages they have to face in the uphill battle for the top of the standings. Maybe even be able to win honorably, if the Republicans and their allies in the league office will let em.
The underdog narrative/fantasy is a common one among sports fans.
Democrats don't need to "sack up" to win. They already won given they have majority support on most issues given a 2 term Democratic President, Democratic majority Senate, and opinion polls trending in favor of progressive opinions over time.
They just need to stop trying to counter the losing strategy the Republicans are employing (all out blitz, every play) and be confident in their own playbook so they can start moving the ball by yards at a time (an actual passing game) instead of inches (32 dive, every play)*.
* am I doing it right?
Your analogy lost me here. I have no idea what it means.
If you actually read my posts at all, you'd notice I don't consider the Democrats underdogs at all.
This falls under the LGBT umbrella. So while it is still more controversial I suppose, it won't exactly be surprising.
Which is very odd. You'd think this would have happened long before gay marriage acceptance.
America has a strange way of going about things.
I expect full rights or close to it within my lifetime. After gay marriage it will be an easier sell.
Orbis Tabula
Member
We do get into dangerous territory when Republicans can be blamed even for bills that pass without them. "They control the message so well!" may be true, but even if it is, it's the kind of argument that weakens the Democrat position. It makes me feel kind of dirty, like when people respond to any arguments against the existence of God with "Well God just made it look that way." I can't put my finger on the problem I have with the argument, I'm sure it has a name. But it just feels forced.
The big problem in those cases isn't the Republicans. It's the conservative Democrats.
speculawyer
Member
I really don't think it is the Republican ability to control messaging well . . . I think it is more that their base is made up of a lot of authoritarians and dogmatic believers that are willing to follow easily without critically questioning thing. And much of the time, the Republican 'leaders' are not really leading but instead running out in front of a mob and acting like they are a leader. All sides do this to some degree but I kinda think the Republican leaders do it a bit more.
I think the Republicans WANT to change some of their message because they know it is a long-term losing strategy. The gay bashing and the xenophobia are long-term paths to failure. But they can't lead their base, they just follow it.
Lucky Forward
Member
Republicans are still trying to connect with the gals.
New GOP Idea That Can Close the Gender Gap: Bring Policy Down to a Womans Level
New GOP Idea That Can Close the Gender Gap: Bring Policy Down to a Womans Level
speculawyer
Member
Wait . . . that link didn't go the The Onion.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Marist polls in Michigan and Colorado are decent news for Democrats. Peters, Udall, and Hickenlooper all leading by 6-7 points, Snyder only leading by 2.
Also in Georgia Michelle Nunn has outraised her two GOP opponents by 550k... combined. She has over 9 million dollars on hand.
Also in Georgia Michelle Nunn has outraised her two GOP opponents by 550k... combined. She has over 9 million dollars on hand.
RustyNails
Member
Snyder leading by 2 points is accounting for PD stuffing the ballots for him.
Déjà vu. I swear I remember reading some other Republican saying some demeaning shit about "talking in ways women can understand/appealing to women's emotions" exactly like this not too long ago.
Somehow, I think the strategy of claiming women can't understand logic, math, and reason the way a man does is not going to do them any favors with the gender gap...
WayneMorse
Banned
Ohio and Michigan are pretty much in the same boat. Kasich and Snyder are pretty much neck and neck with Fitzgerald and Schauer respectively, but there's a huge number one undecideds who have no idea who Fitzgerald and Schauer are.
umm, 51% isn't nearly enough people, imo. It doesn't seem like it's backfiring nearly as much as it should. And it's a partisan group, so I'm taking the numbers with a grain of salt too.
The 30% that supports it is the base getting riled up, which was the goal, and the 46% who say it makes them less likely to vote for them are likely just the Democratic voters who weren't going to vote for them anyway. It doesn't seem like Independents really give much of a shit either way, which isn't good for Democrats.
RustyNails
Member
41% of people agreeing with the lawsuit is more worrying.
This was my exact thought after reading the quote.
speculawyer
Member
Meh. That is the 30% that still loved Bush as he was leaving office plus a mix of 10% made up of racists, war-mongerers, tax-haters, gun nuts, theocrats, sovereign citizens, etc.
But they really lose their no wasteful spending and no frivolous lawsuit cred when they do stunts like this. It just shows those claims of principal are just garbage.
And the GOP wonders why they have a problem with women.
hydragonwarrior
Member
OMG If dem's should pounce on this like no fucking tomorrow. It sounds like a simple gaffe but you can power your base easily for at least a week with hilarity like this.
Do ittttt
That would be fine if it wasn't a woman who made the comment.
That doesn't change a whole lot in this case. It's still sexist and incredibly insulting to women. Shit, my high school's valedictorian was a girl.
The Librarian
Banned
The GOP's attempt to reach teens by seeming cool is to put sunglasses on their logo...I laughed;
neurosisxeno
Member
Which hasn't worked, ever.
Um. Fairly certain that's a parody account.
I mean yea, Poe's Law, but I'm pretty sure.
It's a joke account.
Run by a writer for The Onion.
Still funny.
And kinda scary that I had to google it to make sure.
But reality is giving it a run for its money, I mean shit -
Nah, it's gotta be a joke twitter account. I mean, some of the first tweets I saw were "Who else is #hungover? -- Not from #alcohol of course, just #patriotic excitement!" and "#Teens: What is #Homestuck? If it's anything like #HomeSCHOOL then #CountUsIn!." No way those aren't satirical. But really, when you take a step back and really think, this is pretty much exactly how an while male conservative would try to be cool and appeal to teens.
It's like mistaking an Onion article for a real one, there's that moment where you're just completely gobsmacked on an existential level.
Edit: Guess there's proof. Point still stands; that this seems like something the GOP would try, and exactly the way they would try to do it, is just too close for comfort.
PhoenixDark
Banned
speculawyer
Member
http://news.yahoo.com/100-kansas-gop-endorse-democrat-governor-200443953.html
What's the matter with Brownback? He is a theocratic idiot, that's what.
I know you're joking (and if you're not, you're you, so...), but I wanted to share this article anyways since it was interesting; http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...estruction-millennials-conservatives-backlash
(TL;DR: Even if the GOP's policies appealed to young voters, which they don't, the way in which they conduct themselves drives them away).
PhoenixDark
Banned
Come on. Stacey Dash.
What you quoted calls for the abolishment of the bourgeois conception of family, not family.
If you were going to misrepresent what was written you should have just stopped at the opening sentence and hoped no one on the planet had ever heard of The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.
Redacting this paragraph also probably would have helped you in your cause.
Avon Barksdale
Member
She's only few years younger than Obama.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
It calls for the end of family. Redefine that as you will as the 'bourgeois conception of family'. Its the family as commonly described two parents and their kids (and by extension the extended family from there). The manifesto calls for the end of monogamous marriages and sees two parents households as seemingly only due to capitalism. It doesn't call for equal marriages or more rights for women in marriages it calls for the end of the idea of two parents and having a special relationship with their kids.
I didn't misrepresent what was written.
Wow. Should have asked him a self-reference paradox, would have broke down on the spot.
God damn Rick Scott is creepy looking.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked