2 ms·

The problem isn’t that the candidates are appalling. They’re not. It’s that the left is shit at messaging.

palmotea 8mo ago
> The problem isn’t that the candidates are appalling. They’re not. It’s that the left is shit at messaging. The "the left is shit at messaging" is an excuse to distract from having a bad message (or at least a message with bad parts), so that message doesn't get revised into something better. Basically: "we don't want to change so we can win, so lets hope all we have to do is say stuff better." Here's something to think about: > And the stakes of politics are almost always incredibly high. I think they happen to be higher now. And I do think a lot of what is happening in terms of the structure of the system itself is dangerous. I think that the hour is late in many ways. My view is that a lot of people who embrace alarm don’t embrace what I think obviously follows from that alarm, which is the willingness to make strategic and political decisions you find personally discomfiting, even though they are obviously more likely to help you win. > Taking political positions that’ll make it more likely to win Senate seats in Kansas and Ohio and Missouri. Trying to open your coalition to people you didn’t want it open to before. Running pro-life Democrats. > And one of my biggest frustrations with many people whose politics I otherwise share is the unwillingness to match the seriousness of your politics to the seriousness of your alarm. I see a Democratic Party that often just wants to do nothing differently, even though it is failing — failing in the most obvious and consequential ways it can possibly fail. (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/18/opinion/interesting-times-ross-douthat-ezra-klein.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/18/opinion/interesting-times...)
tim333 8mo ago
[flagged]
- krapp 8mo ago
  I mean yes, the "impression" you get is bar for bar that of the standard right-wing Trump voter, down to the bad-faith interpretation. People who think the way you do in the US were always going to vote for Trump and were never going to vote for a Democrat, regardless of their platform. If you're pointing out that the left's message didn't appeal to to the right, that seems tautological.
  - tim333 8mo ago
    But a candidate could still be a democrat / somewhat left while having decent border control, meritocracy and thinking trans is a bit weird.
    - bigyabai 8mo ago
      That candidate would get dropped by the DNC faster than a GOP candidate that criticizes Israel.
      - krapp 8mo ago
        No they wouldn't, the DNC loves to alienate their base and try to appeal to the center and the right. That's what lost Harris the race. Not (as Trumpist propaganda will tell you) her radical leftist social agenda, but her utter abandonment of anything even resembling leftist principles in an attempt to bring Republicans into the fold.
tstrimple 8mo ago
I don't think it really matters what Democratic messaging is when Republicans effectively control all broadcast media. It didn't matter how much Kamala didn't talk about trans issues. It was how much Republicans said she did. No basis in reality like most things they push. But they can push it effectively because the billionaire owners of large media corporations support it. Stephen Colbert can't even interview James Talerico on CBS. Part of the so-called "Liberal Media" owned and controlled by right wing billionaires.
mrguyorama 8mo ago
How do you "message" to people who abandoned Fox News for NewsMax when Fox admitted that "The election was stolen" was always a bald faced lie? Almost all of America makes zero attempt to hear anything a democrat says, opts into being force fed literal republican propaganda on all News channels and now X and Facebook, and then complains that the democrats didn't "message" well.

> The problem isn’t that the candidates are appalling. They’re not. It’s that the left is shit at messaging. The "the left is shit at messaging" is an excuse to distract from having a bad message (or at least a message with bad parts), so that message doesn't get revised into something better. Basically: "we don't want to change so we can win, so lets hope all we have to do is say stuff better." Here's something to think about: > And the stakes of politics are almost always incredibly high. I think they happen to be higher now. And I do think a lot of what is happening in terms of the structure of the system itself is dangerous. I think that the hour is late in many ways. My view is that a lot of people who embrace alarm don’t embrace what I think obviously follows from that alarm, which is the willingness to make strategic and political decisions you find personally discomfiting, even though they are obviously more likely to help you win. > Taking political positions that’ll make it more likely to win Senate seats in Kansas and Ohio and Missouri. Trying to open your coalition to people you didn’t want it open to before. Running pro-life Democrats. > And one of my biggest frustrations with many people whose politics I otherwise share is the unwillingness to match the seriousness of your politics to the seriousness of your alarm. I see a Democratic Party that often just wants to do nothing differently, even though it is failing — failing in the most obvious and consequential ways it can possibly fail. (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/18/opinion/interesting-times-ross-douthat-ezra-klein.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/18/opinion/interesting-times...)

tim333 8mo ago

[flagged]

krapp 8mo ago
I mean yes, the "impression" you get is bar for bar that of the standard right-wing Trump voter, down to the bad-faith interpretation. People who think the way you do in the US were always going to vote for Trump and were never going to vote for a Democrat, regardless of their platform. If you're pointing out that the left's message didn't appeal to to the right, that seems tautological.
- tim333 8mo ago
  But a candidate could still be a democrat / somewhat left while having decent border control, meritocracy and thinking trans is a bit weird.
  - bigyabai 8mo ago
    That candidate would get dropped by the DNC faster than a GOP candidate that criticizes Israel.
    - krapp 8mo ago
      No they wouldn't, the DNC loves to alienate their base and try to appeal to the center and the right. That's what lost Harris the race. Not (as Trumpist propaganda will tell you) her radical leftist social agenda, but her utter abandonment of anything even resembling leftist principles in an attempt to bring Republicans into the fold.

tstrimple 8mo ago

I don't think it really matters what Democratic messaging is when Republicans effectively control all broadcast media. It didn't matter how much Kamala didn't talk about trans issues. It was how much Republicans said she did. No basis in reality like most things they push. But they can push it effectively because the billionaire owners of large media corporations support it. Stephen Colbert can't even interview James Talerico on CBS. Part of the so-called "Liberal Media" owned and controlled by right wing billionaires.

mrguyorama 8mo ago

How do you "message" to people who abandoned Fox News for NewsMax when Fox admitted that "The election was stolen" was always a bald faced lie? Almost all of America makes zero attempt to hear anything a democrat says, opts into being force fed literal republican propaganda on all News channels and now X and Facebook, and then complains that the democrats didn't "message" well.