Be willing to fight dirty--remember those ads about Republicans pushing granny off a cliff by cutting off her Medicare? Or the guy saying Romney's venture capital actions made it so his wife couldn't afford cancer treatment? Sure, it'll get complaints--complaints just pass the message around more. Show graphic video of cops wounded at 1/6, saying "GOP Candidate X doesn't want repercussions for the thugs who did this". And air this stuff well before campaign time, so it gets maximum play and maximum attention before the airwaves are already flooded.
1.) Whenever our side tries to fight dirty, another faction inevitably complains "We have to be better than them." or "We can't just be against something. You have to be for something."
2.) As for maximum ad play that takes money and if you haven't noticed, people on our side are always telling Dems what kind of money we aren't allowed to take. No PAC money, no money from anyone working at a pharmaceutical company, no money from billionaires, no fundraisers in wine caves, no big speaking fees for Dems out of office, etc... So exactly who is going to pay for the media blitz?
I was in Lowe's last Sunday around noon. I needed to pick up a vacuum cleaner belt, paint brushes and some water softener salt. The place was crowded! Some kind of big appliance sale was going on - people were waiting for an associate to help them . They seem to be pretty well staffed. I don't think anyone was waiting very long. There seemed to be a lot of product on the shelves .I was in the vacuum section looking to find a belt. They had a whole bay full of roomba style floor cleaners. Those things ain't cheap! Prices start at $275 but if you want you can spend eleven hundred bucks easy ! They were all in stock .There were three different couples shopping them . Everybody there was white and they seemed very well fed . It was Sunday afternoon so I imagine that quite a few of them , when they were done with their Appliance shopping,would make their way over to the Golden Corral buffet for Sunday dinner. There they can sit down with their families amidst the heaping plates of food and discuss how downtrodden they are .Ain't That America?
Well as for (1) I am among the first to say "when they go low, kick em" and have no patience for those saying we have to be better for them. I'll allow that we do have to be "for" something--some voters need more than just being scared of Republicans--but that doesn't mean we shouldn't hit as hard as possible and appeal to voters' emotional spots.
As for (2) I have never argued against taking money from any legal source. Billionaire wants to fund us? Great! Collect massive small dollar donations? Great! And the money IS there--our side spends billions in a given election cycle. We just have to put it to good use (aside from effective messaging, it's also important to invest in a solid downballot ground game). Anyone calling for "no PACS" and "no billionaire money" is asking for unilateral disarmament.
Todd isn't a passive observer. He's theoretically a journalist who helps craft the political narrative.
Say that louder, SER, and ditch the passive, apologetic construction. Chuck Todd isn't just some random talking head. He is management. His official title isn't "host" or "analyst." His official title is Political Director.
He doesn't "help craft the political narrative" so much as he "determines the political narrative at a major news network."
If you're gonna denounce these corrupt propagandists, at least do it properly.
I pointed out last night that Todd's narrative is exactly the same as what, on some days, seems to be half the comments here. Dems are weak. Spineless. This was too little, too late. Shouldn't have split the tracks. Shouldn't have done it as two tracks from the start. Progressives are at fault and inciting intra party warring. Or moderates are. Either way it's all lost.
If our own side does this, is in fact the ones that set up the narrative that the main stream media tends to run with, why is anyone surprised when they run with it. It's what people seem to want to hear. If it will reinforce preconceived biases it's what people will watch because it doesn't challenge what they already know to be true.
As for (2) I have never argued against taking money from any legal source.
But a lot of people here have. The purity around money makes it harder to do what needs doing. The very people who say "no corporate PAC money" are also the ones who want us running commercials year round. Look at the 2020 primary. Warren was telling everyone not to take PAC money then once everyone else was out of the race, she took PAC money.
When people talk about Dems problem with messaging, they don't mention how much of the problem is self-inflicted by lefty purists. This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.
It’s not that there isn’t a liberal media. It’s the fact the “fourth estate”, the gatekeepers of information are so bone stupid and easy to manipulate that it’s almost worse than being politically biased. I genuinely think Chuck cilliza Todd doesn’t know any better.
I’m trying to think of the once in my 42 years the conventional wisdom has ever been in Democrats favor, even in 2008 when a black presidential candidate won an overwhelming electoral majority.
Oh, horsepuckey. Clinton spent a frelling BILLION DOLLARS to lose to a poo-throwing orangutan. The Dems can spend all the money they want, but if the ad is some talking head speaking in generalities and somedays then it's going to get ignored.Show the effects of Republican policies, like New Orleans under water, and then the iffects of Obama's spending on rebuilding the levees. There are literally hundreds of thousands of TV-ready visuals contrasting the two.
Well, I'm with you on those "money purity" folks who are in the same category as the "gerrymandering is bad so we shouldn't do it, even when Republicans are doing it" folks. I'm all for "good government reforms" once they are applied to both sides, otherwise it's just laying down arms.
And HOW we spend the money is important too--a dollar goes a lot farther on a downballot race to get neighbors handing out voting info and talking to neighbors door to door than it does on an ad that is getting lost in the noise of the last days before the election when everyone's mind is already made up, and an ad in 2023 when few political ads are up and voters haven't made up their opinions yet will go a lot farther than an ad in October 2024.
"Show the effects of Republican policies, like New Orleans under water, and then the effects of Obama's spending on rebuilding the levees. There are literally hundreds of thousands of TV-ready visuals contrasting the two."
White voters don't care. They see that as a handout to Black people who should've had more sense than to live in a flood zone. Which by the way, is exactly how they will see the BBB.
In Virginia we passed all kinds of policies: end death penalty, legalize weed, raise in minimum wage, etc. White voters didn't care because...CRT.
Be willing to fight dirty--remember those ads about Republicans pushing granny off a cliff by cutting off her Medicare? Or the guy saying Romney's venture capital actions made it so his wife couldn't afford cancer treatment? Sure, it'll get complaints--complaints just pass the message around more. Show graphic video of cops wounded at 1/6, saying "GOP Candidate X doesn't want repercussions for the thugs who did this". And air this stuff well before campaign time, so it gets maximum play and maximum attention before the airwaves are already flooded.
Todd is a putz, and has been for many years.
1.) Whenever our side tries to fight dirty, another faction inevitably complains "We have to be better than them." or "We can't just be against something. You have to be for something."
2.) As for maximum ad play that takes money and if you haven't noticed, people on our side are always telling Dems what kind of money we aren't allowed to take. No PAC money, no money from anyone working at a pharmaceutical company, no money from billionaires, no fundraisers in wine caves, no big speaking fees for Dems out of office, etc... So exactly who is going to pay for the media blitz?
I was in Lowe's last Sunday around noon. I needed to pick up a vacuum cleaner belt, paint brushes and some water softener salt. The place was crowded! Some kind of big appliance sale was going on - people were waiting for an associate to help them . They seem to be pretty well staffed. I don't think anyone was waiting very long. There seemed to be a lot of product on the shelves .I was in the vacuum section looking to find a belt. They had a whole bay full of roomba style floor cleaners. Those things ain't cheap! Prices start at $275 but if you want you can spend eleven hundred bucks easy ! They were all in stock .There were three different couples shopping them . Everybody there was white and they seemed very well fed . It was Sunday afternoon so I imagine that quite a few of them , when they were done with their Appliance shopping,would make their way over to the Golden Corral buffet for Sunday dinner. There they can sit down with their families amidst the heaping plates of food and discuss how downtrodden they are .Ain't That America?
he think he smart. Paycheck proves it.
Well as for (1) I am among the first to say "when they go low, kick em" and have no patience for those saying we have to be better for them. I'll allow that we do have to be "for" something--some voters need more than just being scared of Republicans--but that doesn't mean we shouldn't hit as hard as possible and appeal to voters' emotional spots.
As for (2) I have never argued against taking money from any legal source. Billionaire wants to fund us? Great! Collect massive small dollar donations? Great! And the money IS there--our side spends billions in a given election cycle. We just have to put it to good use (aside from effective messaging, it's also important to invest in a solid downballot ground game). Anyone calling for "no PACS" and "no billionaire money" is asking for unilateral disarmament.
Todd isn't a passive observer. He's theoretically a journalist who helps craft the political narrative.
Say that louder, SER, and ditch the passive, apologetic construction. Chuck Todd isn't just some random talking head. He is management. His official title isn't "host" or "analyst." His official title is Political Director.
He doesn't "help craft the political narrative" so much as he "determines the political narrative at a major news network."
If you're gonna denounce these corrupt propagandists, at least do it properly.
I pointed out last night that Todd's narrative is exactly the same as what, on some days, seems to be half the comments here. Dems are weak. Spineless. This was too little, too late. Shouldn't have split the tracks. Shouldn't have done it as two tracks from the start. Progressives are at fault and inciting intra party warring. Or moderates are. Either way it's all lost.
If our own side does this, is in fact the ones that set up the narrative that the main stream media tends to run with, why is anyone surprised when they run with it. It's what people seem to want to hear. If it will reinforce preconceived biases it's what people will watch because it doesn't challenge what they already know to be true.
As for (2) I have never argued against taking money from any legal source.
But a lot of people here have. The purity around money makes it harder to do what needs doing. The very people who say "no corporate PAC money" are also the ones who want us running commercials year round. Look at the 2020 primary. Warren was telling everyone not to take PAC money then once everyone else was out of the race, she took PAC money.
When people talk about Dems problem with messaging, they don't mention how much of the problem is self-inflicted by lefty purists. This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.
It’s not that there isn’t a liberal media. It’s the fact the “fourth estate”, the gatekeepers of information are so bone stupid and easy to manipulate that it’s almost worse than being politically biased. I genuinely think Chuck cilliza Todd doesn’t know any better.
I’m trying to think of the once in my 42 years the conventional wisdom has ever been in Democrats favor, even in 2008 when a black presidential candidate won an overwhelming electoral majority.
Oh, horsepuckey. Clinton spent a frelling BILLION DOLLARS to lose to a poo-throwing orangutan. The Dems can spend all the money they want, but if the ad is some talking head speaking in generalities and somedays then it's going to get ignored.Show the effects of Republican policies, like New Orleans under water, and then the iffects of Obama's spending on rebuilding the levees. There are literally hundreds of thousands of TV-ready visuals contrasting the two.
Sorry.
Or how Chris Christie can have repeated access to all the major networks and shows, but somehow, there isn't sufficient time to put on a D.
DING! DING! DING!
Well, I'm with you on those "money purity" folks who are in the same category as the "gerrymandering is bad so we shouldn't do it, even when Republicans are doing it" folks. I'm all for "good government reforms" once they are applied to both sides, otherwise it's just laying down arms.
And HOW we spend the money is important too--a dollar goes a lot farther on a downballot race to get neighbors handing out voting info and talking to neighbors door to door than it does on an ad that is getting lost in the noise of the last days before the election when everyone's mind is already made up, and an ad in 2023 when few political ads are up and voters haven't made up their opinions yet will go a lot farther than an ad in October 2024.
"Show the effects of Republican policies, like New Orleans under water, and then the effects of Obama's spending on rebuilding the levees. There are literally hundreds of thousands of TV-ready visuals contrasting the two."
White voters don't care. They see that as a handout to Black people who should've had more sense than to live in a flood zone. Which by the way, is exactly how they will see the BBB.
In Virginia we passed all kinds of policies: end death penalty, legalize weed, raise in minimum wage, etc. White voters didn't care because...CRT.