4 ms·

This is why I think having a ground game is absolutely critical for winning elections - it provides this feedback loop to campaign officials to be able to modif

This is why I think having a ground game is absolutely critical for winning elections - it provides this feedback loop to campaign officials to be able to modify their strategy based on what actual voters are thinking about. I've knocked on doors, and worked phones for various campaigns, and you learn a lot. The most important thing you learn, is that voters, and especially undecided voters are extremely ignorant (they are undecided for a reason) and are extremely susceptible to believe misinformation, or rumors. If you're not out there talking and debating with them, no one's going to knock them out of their bubble. The Biden's campaign decision to not knock on doors, talk to voters, and get them registered just seems like a disastrous error to me. And yes, I know there's a pandemic going on, but there are safe ways to talk to people in person.

vmception 6y ago
In some demographics they did that. They just fail to address what people actually care about, it is a chronic party-wide problem. The parties never address or even acknowledge the criticisms about them. Choosing to instead imagine that everyone that doesn't believe what they do, already, actually believe the opposite. When people really just weigh different things and factor different things in, and aren't consciously thinking about whatever another person considers a trigger. Critical error. Blocking half of the people in the country and then being surprised that half the country didn't believe the same thing you did is not a productive use of energy.
- xvedejas 6y ago
  Why would a candidate engage in criticism of their own party, when that is the surest way for the candidate to get primaried? Our two-stage election system does not reward self-criticism. Consider how that might change if voters were allowed to vote in all parties' primaries, at the same time.
  - vmception 6y ago
    Correct, and it is at least important for the people to realize that. When moderates and centrists can only be found way passed the downvote threshold for visibility, when the reality is that they are the only ones listening to the spectrum and can perceive what's going on, saying the least inflammatory things, but are perceived as a false negative by both parties because they don't sound like a party member.
    - saeranv 6y ago
      But Biden is a moderate? Pretty much every presidential democratic nominee has been a moderate.
- heurist 6y ago
  It's more complicated than that. In tight races like this you need your party to fall in line, including the larger "extreme" factions. Push too hard away from them and you lose them as voters (e.g. Bernie's supporters in 2016). It's also hard to re-orient a party comprised of thousands of politicians and tens of thousands of operatives in an autonomous media ecosystem moving moving billions of dollars annually to influence public opinion, not to mention an adversarial opposition of roughly the same size and intelligence. There's a narrow space in which an individual campaign can draw battle lines, implement strategies, communicate intent, and maneuver around obstacles. Parties may have a bit more leeway due to coordination but at some point you're trying to herd cats (or otherwise riding a wave over which you have no control).
- wahern 6y ago
  > The parties never address or even acknowledge the criticisms about them. The Democratic party did address and acknowledge criticisms in 2016, which is why the party leadership put their thumbs on the scales for Clinton over Sanders. Indeed, it's why they have super delegates to begin with--to prevent a Trump-like nominee. But doing that burned them. The Republican leadership also tried to push back against Trump, at least very early on, but everybody fell into line fairly quickly once it became clear Trump was the front-runner. At the end of the day a party can't simply wish away its fringe subgroups. At best it can occasionally give their leaders a cold shoulder, like Pelosi did with Ocasio-Cortez. For Democrats the cancel culture fringe and (much larger) equality-in-outcome movements cause tremendous difficulty in keeping moderates from straying, yet there's no easy way to assuage those moderates' fears. The Republicans can keep winning with their white majoritarian populism even in a diverse America because the criteria for being "white" is rather flexible, especially for non-African Americans. For the plurality of Americans who have very short term memories, and who perceive everything as a zero sum game, the easiest default choice is choose what would be good for the "white" majority, or at least what they image it as. So long as minorities, particularly latino and asian, make some minimal progress--and with a growing share of the population that's inevitable--the GOP can continue to coast on their fear, uncertainty, and doubt strategy. "White" and majority will be synonymous in perpetuity. Republicans don't have to change, and with Trump they finally figured that out. People keep repeating this mantra that the parties don't reflect the majority of Americans when what they really mean is that the parties don't reflect their own concept of America and American sentiments, and their own particular set of preferences. Even when we can all agree on general goals--liberty & justice for all--what matters are the particulars, and Americans have pretty radical and divergent ideas about the particulars. For example, most people agree we need stronger job security, especially for blue collar, semi-skilled labor. But the word "union" has become a dirty word even among many Democrats, and conservatives have preferences for "less regulation" and the "free market" at least as strong as they do for job security, preferences which are fundamentally contradictory.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    > So long as minorities, particularly latino and asian, make some minimal progress--and with a growing share of the population that's inevitable--the GOP can continue to coast on their fear, uncertainty, and doubt strategy. This perception is mistaken: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/135/2/711/5687353 https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/135/2/711/5687353 > White and Hispanic children have fairly similar rates of intergenerational mobility. As a result, incomes for Hispanic and Asian immigrants rapidly converge with those of whites. Cubans and Vietnamese who came here in the 1960s and 1970s as refugees are already fully converged economically with whites. Economic convergence within a generation or two is not universal. Muslim immigrants to France suffer from multi-generational poverty. Asians and Hispanics have very real incentives to be wary of changing the current economic system. At least to the specific aspect of reaching economic parity with whites, it works extremely well. (There is a fair debate to be had about income inequality and social mobility writ large. I’m focused here on race.) Also, unions are bad for immigrants, who tend to be excluded from the seniority system.

vmception 6y ago

In some demographics they did that. They just fail to address what people actually care about, it is a chronic party-wide problem. The parties never address or even acknowledge the criticisms about them. Choosing to instead imagine that everyone that doesn't believe what they do, already, actually believe the opposite. When people really just weigh different things and factor different things in, and aren't consciously thinking about whatever another person considers a trigger. Critical error. Blocking half of the people in the country and then being surprised that half the country didn't believe the same thing you did is not a productive use of energy.

xvedejas 6y ago
Why would a candidate engage in criticism of their own party, when that is the surest way for the candidate to get primaried? Our two-stage election system does not reward self-criticism. Consider how that might change if voters were allowed to vote in all parties' primaries, at the same time.
- vmception 6y ago
  Correct, and it is at least important for the people to realize that. When moderates and centrists can only be found way passed the downvote threshold for visibility, when the reality is that they are the only ones listening to the spectrum and can perceive what's going on, saying the least inflammatory things, but are perceived as a false negative by both parties because they don't sound like a party member.
  - saeranv 6y ago
    But Biden is a moderate? Pretty much every presidential democratic nominee has been a moderate.
heurist 6y ago
It's more complicated than that. In tight races like this you need your party to fall in line, including the larger "extreme" factions. Push too hard away from them and you lose them as voters (e.g. Bernie's supporters in 2016). It's also hard to re-orient a party comprised of thousands of politicians and tens of thousands of operatives in an autonomous media ecosystem moving moving billions of dollars annually to influence public opinion, not to mention an adversarial opposition of roughly the same size and intelligence. There's a narrow space in which an individual campaign can draw battle lines, implement strategies, communicate intent, and maneuver around obstacles. Parties may have a bit more leeway due to coordination but at some point you're trying to herd cats (or otherwise riding a wave over which you have no control).
wahern 6y ago
> The parties never address or even acknowledge the criticisms about them. The Democratic party did address and acknowledge criticisms in 2016, which is why the party leadership put their thumbs on the scales for Clinton over Sanders. Indeed, it's why they have super delegates to begin with--to prevent a Trump-like nominee. But doing that burned them. The Republican leadership also tried to push back against Trump, at least very early on, but everybody fell into line fairly quickly once it became clear Trump was the front-runner. At the end of the day a party can't simply wish away its fringe subgroups. At best it can occasionally give their leaders a cold shoulder, like Pelosi did with Ocasio-Cortez. For Democrats the cancel culture fringe and (much larger) equality-in-outcome movements cause tremendous difficulty in keeping moderates from straying, yet there's no easy way to assuage those moderates' fears. The Republicans can keep winning with their white majoritarian populism even in a diverse America because the criteria for being "white" is rather flexible, especially for non-African Americans. For the plurality of Americans who have very short term memories, and who perceive everything as a zero sum game, the easiest default choice is choose what would be good for the "white" majority, or at least what they image it as. So long as minorities, particularly latino and asian, make some minimal progress--and with a growing share of the population that's inevitable--the GOP can continue to coast on their fear, uncertainty, and doubt strategy. "White" and majority will be synonymous in perpetuity. Republicans don't have to change, and with Trump they finally figured that out. People keep repeating this mantra that the parties don't reflect the majority of Americans when what they really mean is that the parties don't reflect their own concept of America and American sentiments, and their own particular set of preferences. Even when we can all agree on general goals--liberty & justice for all--what matters are the particulars, and Americans have pretty radical and divergent ideas about the particulars. For example, most people agree we need stronger job security, especially for blue collar, semi-skilled labor. But the word "union" has become a dirty word even among many Democrats, and conservatives have preferences for "less regulation" and the "free market" at least as strong as they do for job security, preferences which are fundamentally contradictory.
- rayiner 6y ago
  > So long as minorities, particularly latino and asian, make some minimal progress--and with a growing share of the population that's inevitable--the GOP can continue to coast on their fear, uncertainty, and doubt strategy. This perception is mistaken: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/135/2/711/5687353 https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/135/2/711/5687353 > White and Hispanic children have fairly similar rates of intergenerational mobility. As a result, incomes for Hispanic and Asian immigrants rapidly converge with those of whites. Cubans and Vietnamese who came here in the 1960s and 1970s as refugees are already fully converged economically with whites. Economic convergence within a generation or two is not universal. Muslim immigrants to France suffer from multi-generational poverty. Asians and Hispanics have very real incentives to be wary of changing the current economic system. At least to the specific aspect of reaching economic parity with whites, it works extremely well. (There is a fair debate to be had about income inequality and social mobility writ large. I’m focused here on race.) Also, unions are bad for immigrants, who tend to be excluded from the seniority system.