3 ms·

>The Democratic campaign was A+ in execution. Objectively untrue; Harris lost. >You can't force people to understand economics You're correct. So you have t

>The Democratic campaign was A+ in execution. Objectively untrue; Harris lost. >You can't force people to understand economics You're correct. So you have to reformat the message. The Dems failed to do this. I can tell you have never been a teacher: teachers are forever having to change their messaging because different people understand in different ways.

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
This teaching thing is a terrible comparison. As a teacher you have a captive audience with a (somewhat) agreed upon goal: the student(s) are going to learn something. This is absolutely not the model for candidate<->electorate relationships in any way. If anything, the elector(ate) wants the candidate to simply tell them things that confirm what they think they already know.
- aydyn 2y ago
  Are you serious? The entire nation was fully captivated this election cycle.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    Captivated is not captive, and even if it is etymologically adjacent, most of the electorate did not expect to have to learn about stuff like econometrics ...
    - aydyn 2y ago
      Then I meant captivated AND captive. Why are you being pedantic?
      - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        How was anybody captive? I didn't see a single campaign ad or watch a single rally, except for a couple of brief excerpts that I chose to. You're missing the critical point: it's not about captive, it's just that this helps with the critical point, which is an expectation of learning taking place, rather than worldviews/prejudices confirmed.
        aydyn 2y ago
        I see, I missed that nuance in your point.
intended 2y ago
> Objectively untrue; Harris lost. Yeah, sometimes if you play by the rules you lose. > So you have to reformat the message. They did, and it didnt matter. The argument here is essentially: 1) IF the dems communicated correctly, they would have won 2) They did, and it didnt matter. 3) If they had communicated correctly they would have won. Correct communication here is a place holder for winning. Consider the many things the Dems did pull off, including Biden dropping out, and the massive massive outreach and funding they used to get the message out. Consider that Trump is definitionally reprehensible, as just a human being, forget the standards America used to have as a presidential candidate. Seriously - tell me you think that Trump <the person> is actually what you want in a Republican candidate. Every single time, Trump supporters have to resort to some variant of "he didn't really mean that", to defend him. There is FAR more incorrect in Dem electioneering than just communication. I think the fundamentals of how elections are held have changed. You dont really need policy any more.
- ImHereToVote 2y ago
  They could have also not perpetrated a genocide. I haven't committed a single genocide during the biden term. How hard can it be?
  - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
    Pretty much any US president would've supported Israel similarly.
    - ImHereToVote 2y ago
      They don't have to though. It's easy, just don't send weapons to a perpetuate a genocide. A child could pull it off.
      - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
        Sure, I don't disagree but that's not the policy of the US under many, many presidents.
TimTheTinker 2y ago
> Objectively untrue; Harris lost. I would fault the Democratic party platform itself, not the campaign. It's valid to say the campaign was executed well and that the failure was due to disagreement with the Democrat party line. Trump has a policy platform they agree with more -- that's something that is not easily overcome by how the campaigns are run. E.g. "secure the border". Trump fought to build a wall during his first term. To voters who want a more secure border, that speaks louder than anything either candidate can say (or not say) during their campaigns about what they will or won't do.

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago

This teaching thing is a terrible comparison. As a teacher you have a captive audience with a (somewhat) agreed upon goal: the student(s) are going to learn something. This is absolutely not the model for candidate<->electorate relationships in any way. If anything, the elector(ate) wants the candidate to simply tell them things that confirm what they think they already know.

aydyn 2y ago
Are you serious? The entire nation was fully captivated this election cycle.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  Captivated is not captive, and even if it is etymologically adjacent, most of the electorate did not expect to have to learn about stuff like econometrics ...
  - aydyn 2y ago
    Then I meant captivated AND captive. Why are you being pedantic?
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      How was anybody captive? I didn't see a single campaign ad or watch a single rally, except for a couple of brief excerpts that I chose to. You're missing the critical point: it's not about captive, it's just that this helps with the critical point, which is an expectation of learning taking place, rather than worldviews/prejudices confirmed.
      - aydyn 2y ago
        I see, I missed that nuance in your point.

intended 2y ago

> Objectively untrue; Harris lost. Yeah, sometimes if you play by the rules you lose. > So you have to reformat the message. They did, and it didnt matter. The argument here is essentially: 1) IF the dems communicated correctly, they would have won 2) They did, and it didnt matter. 3) If they had communicated correctly they would have won. Correct communication here is a place holder for winning. Consider the many things the Dems did pull off, including Biden dropping out, and the massive massive outreach and funding they used to get the message out. Consider that Trump is definitionally reprehensible, as just a human being, forget the standards America used to have as a presidential candidate. Seriously - tell me you think that Trump <the person> is actually what you want in a Republican candidate. Every single time, Trump supporters have to resort to some variant of "he didn't really mean that", to defend him. There is FAR more incorrect in Dem electioneering than just communication. I think the fundamentals of how elections are held have changed. You dont really need policy any more.

ImHereToVote 2y ago
They could have also not perpetrated a genocide. I haven't committed a single genocide during the biden term. How hard can it be?
- disgruntledphd2 2y ago
  Pretty much any US president would've supported Israel similarly.
  - ImHereToVote 2y ago
    They don't have to though. It's easy, just don't send weapons to a perpetuate a genocide. A child could pull it off.
    - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
      Sure, I don't disagree but that's not the policy of the US under many, many presidents.

TimTheTinker 2y ago

> Objectively untrue; Harris lost. I would fault the Democratic party platform itself, not the campaign. It's valid to say the campaign was executed well and that the failure was due to disagreement with the Democrat party line. Trump has a policy platform they agree with more -- that's something that is not easily overcome by how the campaigns are run. E.g. "secure the border". Trump fought to build a wall during his first term. To voters who want a more secure border, that speaks louder than anything either candidate can say (or not say) during their campaigns about what they will or won't do.