Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I'm not arguing with any of this. I'm saying no such message exists.

TM

I think it’s doable. A daring Democrat could argue, “What’s wrong with a European social state? Why shouldn’t we strive for that?”

That argument could work. But I think Democrats wrongly see it as a doomed strategy.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think it’s doable. A daring Democrat could argue, “What’s wrong with a European social state? Why shouldn’t we strive for that?”

That argument could work. But I think Democrats wrongly see it as a doomed strategy.

That is a very complex message to our electorate who you apparently think has even the slightest understanding of what a European social state is.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

That is a very complex message to our electorate who you apparently think has even the slightest understanding of what a European social state is.

TM

Make it even simpler.

“More benefits, expanded safety nets, guaranteed retirement income and health care security.”

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I still think when the serious history book is written, Bernie will have been the ultimate deciding factor.

I think that when the serious history book is written, zoning decisions and parking-space requirements will have been the ultimate deciding factor.

The awesome thing about such a close election is that everyone gets to pick the thing that most interests them and explain that it was the critical factor.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think it’s doable. A daring Democrat could argue, “What’s wrong with a European social state? Why shouldn’t we strive for that?”

That argument could work. But I think Democrats wrongly see it as a doomed strategy.

Many Democrats, and their financial backers, don't want that. Especially if you call it "socialism."

But "we stand with the Dreamers" is a pretty simple message.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I still think when the serious history book is written, Bernie will have been the ultimate deciding factor. He was Trump’s co-cheerleader for populism. And populism turned the Democratic blue collar vote in the Rust Belt for Trump (because those folks liked Bernie’s candor, but couldn’t vote for a “communist.”)

I think this is right.

A big question is why did he get away with it? Why did his message resonate among a certain profile of Democrats (disproportionately young, and among the older ones, overwhelmingly white and male)?

I think there are two main answers: First, he had incredible message discipline, he could say the same simple stupid thing 1000 times and sound sincere the 1001st time. He really dumbed it down. Second, he used his socialism schtick and mass rallies to brand himself as a shiny new penny, even though his core messages were all out of the immediate postwar labor unionist/democratic party playbook. Really, Hubert Humphrey was elected to the Senate on the Bernie platform. I love Hubert, but making him into a shiny new penny took great skill.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Many Democrats, and their financial backers, don't want that. Especially if you call it "socialism."

But "we stand with the Dreamers" is a pretty simple message.

"We stand with the Dreamers" is too narrow. That won't get you enough voters. TM has my proxy on the rest of that issue. He pretty much nailed it.

Regarding financial backers of Democrats, many of whom are also financial backers of Republicans, you're right. They don't like "socialism." But what's the alternative? Oligarchy? Citibank nailed it in that famous 2008 investment paper - "The United States is a Plutocracy."

If we're going to have a society where 1% runs away with everything, another 20% do well, and everybody else just survives, with no retirement savings, we have to have some form of European Socialism. This is a tough argument to make, because people like the Kochs will malign and mischaracterize it, and it's hard to explain the numbers to dipshit American voters on both the right and left.

BUT, one thing we know is, right or left, Americans want their benefits. And they're desperate not to feel insecure about their futures.

So, just say it:

"More benefits, a bigger safety net, and security in terms of income and health care."

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Make it even simpler.

“More benefits, expanded safety nets, guaranteed retirement income and health care security.”

I think variations of this message are always there. But I'm not sure you can run on just this.*

TM

*Although, at this point, who knows?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think this is right.

A big question is why did he get away with it? Why did his message resonate among a certain profile of Democrats (disproportionately young, and among the older ones, overwhelmingly white and male)?

I think there are two main answers: First, he had incredible message discipline, he could say the same simple stupid thing 1000 times and sound sincere the 1001st time. He really dumbed it down. Second, he used his socialism schtick and mass rallies to brand himself as a shiny new penny, even though his core messages were all out of the immediate postwar labor unionist/democratic party playbook. Really, Hubert Humphrey was elected to the Senate on the Bernie platform. I love Hubert, but making him into a shiny new penny took great skill.

Agreed. A couple more to add...

The young love rebels, and they love candor. It's only when you get older that you truly appreciate how much lies are necessary to keep the world running. Bernie Bros also tended to be millennials screwed over by the job market after 2008. Many were flipping a coin: Trump or Bernie.

We've also been in a fuck-the-incumbents moment for a while now, which also reads as fuck-the-dynasties-and-the-pros.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

But "we stand with the Dreamers" is a pretty simple message.

We all do. But do you not understand that this is a losing message in states that we need to win--especially when it means shutting down the government over it?

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think this is right.

A big question is why did he get away with it? Why did his message resonate among a certain profile of Democrats (disproportionately young, and among the older ones, overwhelmingly white and male)?

I think there are two main answers: First, he had incredible message discipline, he could say the same simple stupid thing 1000 times and sound sincere the 1001st time. He really dumbed it down. Second, he used his socialism schtick and mass rallies to brand himself as a shiny new penny, even though his core messages were all out of the immediate postwar labor unionist/democratic party playbook. Really, Hubert Humphrey was elected to the Senate on the Bernie platform. I love Hubert, but making him into a shiny new penny took great skill.

I think the breakdown is generational. If you're old enough to remember the Cold War, "socialism" is basically communism & obviously bad. These kids don't have that baggage & learned how great socialism is in college.

Of course, both groups are wrong.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

"We stand with the Dreamers" is too narrow. That won't get you enough voters.

It's not enough on its own, but it's a start. The a Dems need more brightline differences from the GOP. "We're not bad like them" isn't usually enough (see, Clinton, H.)

Take "tax reform." The party position was "ours would be better" not this is the wrong priority and we would do X instead. They need to sell what goverment can do for people again, instead of how they're the smart small government party.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

I think the breakdown is generational. If you're old enough to remember the Cold War, "socialism" is basically communism & obviously bad. These kids don't have that baggage & learned how great socialism is in college.

Of course, both groups are wrong.

The kids also aren't as invested in the civil rights or feminist movements as the older generation, and while they've seen more immediacy and rapid change in gay rights, folks like Barney Frank don't necessarily reverberate for them.

There is something good about that - they want to take the hard-fought victories for granted and push on sometimes - but there are also all the dangers inherent in forgetting the past, and losing what was won by not valuing it enough.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

We all do. But do you not understand that this is a losing message in states that we need to win--especially when it means shutting down the government over it?

TM

I don't think it is, but which states do you have in mind?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I think variations of this message are always there. But I'm not sure you can run on just this.*

TM

*Although, at this point, who knows?

Trump ran on "Every 'True' American Gets a Pony."

Bernie ran on "Everybody Gets a Pony."

If it gets any simpler than that, it's spoken in grunts and clicks.