Current Events > AOC takes swipe at DNC says they targeted 'white moderates'.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Balrog0 posted...

Joe Biden is right and AOC is wrong with respect to which strategy is better to win the presidency

That didn't work last time .

---

A lot of people are assuming policy is a major factor in who wins elections when all the research says it isn't. You should be talking about how charismatic, attractive, etc. they are. What is important are emotional factors and their media campaigns to utilize them as well as targeting the few areas and demographics that can decide the election. Policy is just an additional vehicle to appeal to them emotionally. Rational voting behavior isn't common enough to target and isn't going to be swayed easily by a campaign.

---

ssjevot posted...

I lived in the US and voted in that election. I voted in elections before that as well. Running on platitudes isn't running on a progressive platform. It's running on platitudes. His record and policy positions were moderate. Biden is running on a much more progressive platform comparatively. A lot of people then believed he stood for things he never claimed to stand for, but I mean that's pretty common. A lot of people when interviewed about Trump and Hillary's policies had zero idea what either stood for. Most people have no idea about policy and it doesn't have a very big impact on voting behavior according to political science. Emotional aspects are much more important. Obama was both charismatic and attractive. Hillary was possibly the most unlikable candidate Democrats have ever run and no policy matters in the face of that.

He had very little record in 08. People weren't f5ing r/pol reading up on platforms in 08. The way he delivered what turned out to be platitudes (figured out in 2012 and thus tanked) worked in 08 to inspire progressive populism. Speeches on protecting whistle blowers, general economic populism, shutting down the bay and forever wars, the leaked speech about single payer. Actually you're making my point on policy and defeating your own in the 2nd point of your post. He inspired bold change and was definitely painted as a radical in 08, sorry you don't remember, but he was not advertised as nibble around the edges of Bush's America in 08. Then Trump stole Obama's economic populism shtick which is why there were so many Obama to Trump voters.

And as for Biden being the smart winning strategy, basically no one was interested in him in the primary til Clyburn and co cleared the field for him. Less than 50% of democrats above age 65 consider themselves voting for Biden rather than just voting against Trump.

Jeff_Garcia7 posted...

People hate Hillary, Broseph.

What part of she over performed in progressive areas don't you understand? What part of the electoral college don't you understand? Obama won because he appealed to white moderates, not because he ran up the score in California.

Terminally online leftist don't realize they are less than 1% of the electorate and none of the blue collar moderates in the midwest like your platform.

Part of me believes that we do need to appeal to moderates in order to win
The other part of me thinks that progressives just need better messaging. Leftist policies like healthcare for all, raising the minimum wage, raising taxes on the rich, legalizing marijuana, abortion, gay marriage, etc. are very popular policies, they're just not getting people to vote on it (unlikable candidates like Hillary, people falling for "both sides are the same" propaganda, deliberate misinformation from conservatives, etc.) and should be embraced by the party as a whole

---

ssjevot posted...

A lot of people are assuming policy is a major factor in who wins elections when all the research says it isn't. You should be talking about how charismatic, attractive, etc. they are. What is important are emotional factors and their media campaigns to utilize them as well as targeting the few areas and demographics that can decide the election. Policy is just an additional vehicle to appeal to them emotionally. Rational voting behavior isn't common enough to target and isn't going to be swayed easily by a campaign.

this is an advantage to trump

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

What part of she over performed in progressive areas don't you understand? What part of the electoral college don't you understand? Obama won because he appealed to white moderates, not because he ran up the score in California.

Terminally online leftist don't realize they are less than 1% of the electorate and none of the blue collar moderates in the midwest like your platform.

Hillary was considered progressive by approximately no one. Progressives were scared of Trump, sure, but lefties get the blame for staying home and giving us Trump so idk which one you all roll with these days.

I literally can't make this any simpler.

Hillary did better in progressive areas than Obama did.
Obama did better in conservative areas than Hillary did.

Your argument as to why one lost and the other won does not match up with reality. You are arguing against data.

Jeff_Garcia7 posted...

He inspired bold change and was definitely painted as a radical in 08, sorry you don't remember, but he was not advertised as nibble around the edges of Bush's America in 08.

Maybe FOX News called him a radical, but I don't watch FOX News so I never recalled anyone calling him a radical back in 08, no. I probably wouldn't have taken them seriously if they did. I remember the Democratic field then and he was definitely not the radical one on stage. You had people like Kasich far to the left of him, and straight up actually radical people like Gravel. I don't know if Gravel even stands for anything other than being radically opposed to everything. He ended up running as a libertarian later on despite being all about welfare state policies in 08. Anyway, the point is no Obama wasn't running as a radical that election as far as I can recall.

---

Centrists: Actually Obama's policies were moderate so he counts as a moderate
Also Centrists: Voters don't care about policy they just look to see who can inspire with good speeches

lmaoooo

And those good speeches on change inspired the base. It wasn't pandering to white moderates that got Obama a big W. If it was he would've performed even better in 2012 after running the country as a white moderate. But he didn't.

ledbowman posted...

this is an advantage to trump

Yes it is. Which is why it's good Biden is appealing to low information emotional swing voters in the right areas and not people who live in places that can't get any bluer.

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

I literally can't make this any simpler.

Hillary did better in progressive areas than Obama did.
Obama did better in conservative areas than Hillary did.

Your argument as to why one lost and the other won does not match up with reality. You are arguing against data.

Economic populism is how you actually attract the majority of swing "conservatives" I agree. Won't work on the 14 rich elderly never Trump republicans but they're irrelevant.

Jeff_Garcia7 posted...

Centrists: Actually Obama's policies were moderate so he counts as a moderate
Also Centrists: Voters don't care about policy they just look to see who can inspire with good speeches

lmaoooo

And those good speeches on change inspired the base. It wasn't pandering to white moderates that got Obama a big W. If it was he would've performed even better in 2012 after running the country as a white moderate. But he didn't.

I am not a centrist. Wanting Biden to win and Trump to lose doesn't mean I like Biden. I massively dislike him and his policies. I just dislike Trump far more. I actually think the best thing a progressive could do is pretend to have moderate policies get elected and then just do whatever they want. Because that's how the game is played, play to win or don't get any policies passed at all, those are the only options. And the goal of the policies is again just to appeal emotionally. Your best bet is a bunch of vague meaningless platitudes. You know like Obama.

---

Jeff_Garcia7 posted...

It wasn't pandering to white moderates that got Obama a big W.

It literally was.

Voter data is public you are free to look at it instead of making up a narrative.

Jeff_Garcia7 posted...

Hillary was considered progressive by approximately no one. Progressives were scared of Trump, sure, but lefties get the blame for staying home and giving us Trump so idk which one you all roll with these days.

You seem to be forgetting or just outright ignoring the part where Russia interfered in the election. Had Trump not colluded with a foreign power to cheat then he wouldn't have "won" in the first place.

Not to mention all the Bernie Bros that voted for Trump out of spite because they threw a bitch fit that he lost to Hillary. We have Russia and progressives to blame for Trump being president.

---

Jeff_Garcia7 posted...

Hillary was considered progressive by approximately no one. Progressives were scared of Trump, sure, but lefties get the blame for staying home and giving us Trump so idk which one you all roll with these days.

Trump was considered the more moderate candidate in 2016 by the general electorate, which fwiw doesn't distinguish between liberal and progressive


---

ssjevot posted...

Maybe FOX News called him a radical, but I don't watch FOX News so I never recalled anyone calling him a radical back in 08, no. I probably wouldn't have taken them seriously if they did. I remember the Democratic field then and he was definitely not the radical one on stage. You had people like Kasich far to the left of him, and straight up actually radical people like Gravel. I don't know if Gravel even stands for anything other than being radically opposed to everything. He ended up running as a libertarian later on despite being all about welfare state policies in 08. Anyway, the point is no Obama wasn't running as a radical that election as far as I can recall.

The 08 campaign was the iconic hope and change poster. His name was Barack Hussien Obama, the first black president. He was repellent to the never Trump republican type. Hillary literally stated that she stayed in the primary because someone could shoot Obama. All of the memes in 08 were about voting for the vp because some wacko is going to shoot Obama for being a radical and McCain is too old. Obama lost his progressive appeal in 2012 because it became obvious he was actually a moderate. Why did he not perform as well if being a moderate is a winning strategy for dems? He lost a lot of the youth buzz.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

It literally was.

Voter data is public you are free to look at it instead of making up a narrative.

And you'll see that losing the the youth buzz but gaining nothing by being moderate is what sank dems in 2012 compared to 08.

Jeff_Garcia7 posted...

The 08 campaign was the iconic hope and change poster. His name was Barack Hussien Obama, the first black president. He was repellent to the never Trump republican type. Hillary literally stated that she stayed in the primary because someone could shoot Obama. All of the memes in 08 were about voting for the vp because some wacko is going to shoot Obama for being a radical and McCain is too old. Obama lost his progressive appeal in 2012 because it became obvious he was actually a moderate. Why did he not perform as well if being a moderate is a winning strategy for dems? He lost a lot of the youth buzz.

Because sitting presidents usually become less popular over time. Though I'm not sure I agree that hope and change is a message of economic populism (I think uhc was, and he wanted some form of that, but Obamacare wasn't popular at the time, so that also factors in!!)

---

shockthemonkey posted...

Thats absolutely insane to think about

He said he was open to a new top tax rate on rich people and that he would protect Medicare and social security. Pretty easy to forget or not care about that now

---

I agree with whoever said policy doesnt matter to the general electorate, so I dont get the debate over whether Obama was considered moderate or progressive. He tapped into the zeitgeist at the time which is exactly what Trump did, and that zeitgeist consists of whatever white people as a whole feel is important. Biden would probably lose this election if anyone other than Trump had been in office the past 4 years (he still could).

---

Balrog0 posted...

Because sitting presidents usually become less popular over time. Though I'm not sure I agree that hope and change is a message of economic populism (I think uhc was, and he wanted some form of that, but Obamacare wasn't popular at the time, so that also factors in!!)

And it wasn't popular because it was a literal right wing plan with politically poor design. Again, pivoting hard to the right and enacting no "change" with a supermajority is what sank dems in 2012. Follow through and you won't become less popular and lose. Was no trouble for fdr's terms.

Most voters are moderates, so good for them.

Gamerguymass posted...

Not to mention all the Bernie Bros that voted for Trump out of spite because they threw a bitch fit that he lost to Hillary. We have Russia and progressives to blame for Trump being president.

MOre Hillary people voted for McCain, then Sanders people voted for Trump.

---

ssk9716757 posted...

I agree with whoever said policy doesnt matter to the general electorate, so I dont get the debate over whether Obama was considered moderate or progressive. He tapped into the zeitgeist at the time which is exactly what Trump did, and that zeitgeist consists of whatever white people as a whole feel is important. Biden would probably lose this election if anyone other than Trump had been in office the past 4 years (he still could).

It's funny to hear them say Obama won as a moderate because of policy, then say in the same breath voters don't care about policy lol.

Jeff_Garcia7 posted...

And it wasn't popular because it was a literal right wing plan with politically poor design. Again, pivoting hard to the right and enacting no "change" with a supermajority is what sank dems in 2012. Follow through and you won't become less popular and lose. Was no trouble for fdr's terms.

I think fdr is more to do with the tendency of people to like war time presidents and of war time presidents to expand their executive power, sort of like why bush easily wins reelection in 2004. Though it's probably not super helpful to look at premodern elections anyway

---

Balrog0 posted...

I think fdr is more to do with the tendency of people to like war time presidents and of war time presidents to expand their executive power, sort of like why bush easily wins reelection in 2004. Though it's probably not super helpful to look at premodern elections anyway

Yes that's why Bush and his wars were so popular heading into 08 and he would've won a 3rd term if possible.

Oh wait never mind the guy running on change and ending wars won in a landslide. As a cherry on top, his middle name was literally Hussein. Fighting for economic security for Americans with wildly popular programs got fdr staying power.

Jeff_Garcia7 posted...

Yes that's why Bush and his wars were so popular heading into 08 and he would've won a 3rd term if possible.

Oh wait never mind the guy running on change and ending wars won in a landslide. As a cherry on top, his middle name was literally Hussein. Fighting for economic security for Americans with wildly popular programs got fdr staying power.

You keep bringing up his name, as if that was a major issue to moderates. It wasn't moderate whites who had an issue with Obama's race or name.

Esrac posted...

You keep bringing up his name, as if that was a major issue to moderates. It wasn't moderate whites who had an issue with Obama's race or name.

I vividly remember moderate white dems were screaming and crying about his perceived electability troubles in 08 because of his name.

Jeff_Garcia7 posted...

Yes that's why Bush and his wars were so popular heading into 08 and he would've won a 3rd term if possible.

Oh wait never mind the guy running on change and ending wars won in a landslide. As a cherry on top, his middle name was literally Hussein. Fighting for economic security for Americans with wildly popular programs got fdr staying power.

I mean opinions varied about the war over time and were at their lowest point in 2008. They had stabilized and it had become more popular by 2012. The main thing weighing the GOP down in 2008 was obviously the recession, though.

Jeff_Garcia7 posted...

I vividly remember moderate white dems were screaming and crying about his perceived electability troubles in 08 because of his name.

One of his arguments against Hilary was that he polled better than she did against McCain.

---

shockthemonkey posted...

So how do we get people to vote for the progressives in the primary?

If you want progressives to win all dem primaries overnight in a landslide. Block Fox, CNN, and MSNBC from your local boomer's TV programming and make it boderline mandatory to vote. Younger people and progressive are already starting to turn out more, it's just that elderly people came out in unprecedented numbers to vote for whoever people on TV told them would anger Trump the most.

More polling stations in poor areas and colleges would be a nice start. An easier way to register, my red state has a ton of hoops. We're getting more surprise Ws every day lately. Hope we have enough time for it to run its course. I'm disappointment it didn't happen sooner but people in general are doomers about politics for understandable reasons.

People are wrong about her being right, only the statement in the topic title is right. The thing about muslim representation is ridiculous and saying that the strategy of targeting on-the-fence white people is a bad one is just suicidal ideation

---

Muslims make up 1% of the population.....

I have zero problems with them but you may as well gripe about the lack of filipinos on stage

I agree with that assessment.
People who advocate "change" poll better, but the majority of options continue to be "more or the same" types. Additionally, those people are backed by the party. For instance, in my state's senate race, the DNC poured money into the campaign of a boring guy who was barely different than a republican. The two leftist women who had just a few thousand in their campaign funds beat him.

---

shockthemonkey posted...

So youre arguing on one hand that progressive values win and then the other hand that we need to change the entire system for progressives to win.

Progressive excitement wins yes, especially in the general against Republicans with larger turnout.

Democratic primaries, which is what you asked about, are much different. Turnout is pathetic so elderly people can really flex their rich guy on CNN talking points at the polls about how we need to vote for a guy that Republicans will like. Dem boomers would have no problem voting for Bernie over Trump. They won't vote for him in the primary because MSNBC said he can't possibly win. Just as an example of the dynamics.

I mean when youre right youre right

---

lmao

This is great.

---

Jeff_Garcia7 posted...

They won't vote for him in the primary because MSNBC said he can't possibly win. Just as an example of the dynamics.

People foolishly never realize this. It's called manufacturing consent, when people say Bernie didn't get a fair shake they don't mean his votes were getting shredded or some shit, they mean that everyone and their grandma has an interest in making him out to be a fantasy candidate who promises a free ponie to everyone, of course he's gonna get kneecapped when the newspeople say you're throwing your vote away if you get behind him. If they just reported the news instead of endorsing/denouncing then we'd be good

---

lol I swear progressives have more excuses for why they lose than they do serious policy proposals

it's a democracy and you're out numbered. the internet isn't real life. this isn't rocket science.

Well... are white moderates not the ones who decide the election? I was under the impression they were.

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

lol I swear progressives have more excuses for why they lose than they do serious policy proposals

it's a democracy and you're out numbered. the internet isn't real life. this isn't rocket science.

Tell 'em again, maybe they'll get the picture.

---

Jabodie posted...

Well... are white moderates not the ones who decide the election? I was under the impression they were.

They are but most progressives have convinced themselves that online marxist communities are a good representation of the electorate and there's no way Bernie could have possibly lost without some kind of conspiracy.

TheVipaGTS posted...

well...she's right

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

lol I swear progressives have more excuses for why they lose than they do serious policy proposals

it's a democracy and you're out numbered. the internet isn't real life. this isn't rocket science.

True. Thank fuck the world is so simple like this, we might be living under a Trump presidency rather than a Hillary one right now if it were any other case.

---