3 ms·

Punitive campaigns seem to work best with the right wing base. There’s a large squishy center (and a sizable segment of the left) that doesn’t vote when things

Punitive campaigns seem to work best with the right wing base. There’s a large squishy center (and a sizable segment of the left) that doesn’t vote when things go too negative. If you want to contrast with a real world example, Obama won as an unknown candidate running on “hope and change” despite racial bias. But it’s probably better to lose if presenting a positive message would make you feel icky.

estearum 3mo ago
All available evidence points toward my claim: Americans don't really agree on how they want the future to look. However, they do agree on how they don't want it to look. The rampant corruption, state brutality, and criminality of MAGA is unpopular across the board.
- iamnothere 3mo ago
  Two things can be true at the same time: Americans dislike the status quo, and they don’t support angry/negative Democratic politicians for President. See also: claims that Sanders was “too angry” (lmao), the “Dean scream” smear campaign, characterizing Clinton as a cackling witch, etc.
  - estearum 3mo ago
    Yeah nah this is way too reductive. You'd need to share a much more thorough analysis than just "here are three candidates criticized for things that are arguably adjacent to angry/negative vibes" For example, Harris ran on a positivity campaign and lost. There are just way, way too many dimensions to modern politics to resolve into something like this – with the exception of the anti-MAGA sentiment which is widespread, highly salient, and highly motivating. Obviously that's fleeting and so in 16 years it will probably be wrong to say "anti-MAGA candidates always win, just look at 2028!"
    - iamnothere 3mo ago
      Well you should try it then. The right wing is doing a better job of disassembling the empire anyway, inadvertently, so I don’t mind too much if they win again. (FWIW the Dems had an internal report after ‘24 that mostly agreed with me.)
      - estearum 3mo ago
        Well thanks for confirming you're just making shit up from whole cloth. The Dems' 2024 report literally argues the opposite, over and over. It argues that Democrats did not engage in enough negative campaigning against Trump. > LESSONS FROM THE STATE CAMPAIGNS 1. Going Negative Works (Especially if Voters Know You). > The Trump campaign and supportive Super PACs went full throttle against Vice President Harris, but there was not sufficient or similar negative firepower directed at Trump by Democrats. > Voting is a choice. And negative messaging needs to be a part of the story as choices are framed for voters. > The Harris campaign appears to have relied on Trump being unacceptable rather than building an affirmative case for Harris. Base voters needed reasons to vote FOR Harris as well as against Trump. Without an effective contrast with a difficult (and unaffordable) status quo, the obvious contrast with Trump was not a sufficient motivator, especially since there was not sufficient negative messaging about how horrible Trump was (and still is) for and to most Americans. > Define lanes for communications ecosystem. Who will carry contrast and negative messaging so candidates go high as other entities go low. This was a major failing in 2024, and it cannot be repeated. Set the lanes and hold organizations accountable.
        iamnothere 3mo ago
        Ah, I had read a source that characterized it this way, but the truth is more complicated. The report itself said this, but it reflected only the view of the author; the notes from Dem leadership on the report disputed this point in particular and said there was no evidence for it. Apparently they disagreed with the report’s conclusions enough to suppress the release for a while. I misremembered this and a quick search to remind myself wasn’t adequate. Given the disagreement around the report, I don’t think it serves as a good source either way. Digging a little into it, the research seems to indicate that there’s not adequate evidence to draw any conclusions: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41253-019-00084-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41253-019-00084-8. Although there’s some evidence that negativity demobilizes voters and degrades democracy, which you probably don’t want. But I don’t really care who wins anyway, I’m not sure why I’m even engaging here. I guess I just want the 2008 Democratic party back.

estearum 3mo ago

All available evidence points toward my claim: Americans don't really agree on how they want the future to look. However, they do agree on how they don't want it to look. The rampant corruption, state brutality, and criminality of MAGA is unpopular across the board.

iamnothere 3mo ago
Two things can be true at the same time: Americans dislike the status quo, and they don’t support angry/negative Democratic politicians for President. See also: claims that Sanders was “too angry” (lmao), the “Dean scream” smear campaign, characterizing Clinton as a cackling witch, etc.
- estearum 3mo ago
  Yeah nah this is way too reductive. You'd need to share a much more thorough analysis than just "here are three candidates criticized for things that are arguably adjacent to angry/negative vibes" For example, Harris ran on a positivity campaign and lost. There are just way, way too many dimensions to modern politics to resolve into something like this – with the exception of the anti-MAGA sentiment which is widespread, highly salient, and highly motivating. Obviously that's fleeting and so in 16 years it will probably be wrong to say "anti-MAGA candidates always win, just look at 2028!"
  - iamnothere 3mo ago
    Well you should try it then. The right wing is doing a better job of disassembling the empire anyway, inadvertently, so I don’t mind too much if they win again. (FWIW the Dems had an internal report after ‘24 that mostly agreed with me.)
    - estearum 3mo ago
      Well thanks for confirming you're just making shit up from whole cloth. The Dems' 2024 report literally argues the opposite, over and over. It argues that Democrats did not engage in enough negative campaigning against Trump. > LESSONS FROM THE STATE CAMPAIGNS 1. Going Negative Works (Especially if Voters Know You). > The Trump campaign and supportive Super PACs went full throttle against Vice President Harris, but there was not sufficient or similar negative firepower directed at Trump by Democrats. > Voting is a choice. And negative messaging needs to be a part of the story as choices are framed for voters. > The Harris campaign appears to have relied on Trump being unacceptable rather than building an affirmative case for Harris. Base voters needed reasons to vote FOR Harris as well as against Trump. Without an effective contrast with a difficult (and unaffordable) status quo, the obvious contrast with Trump was not a sufficient motivator, especially since there was not sufficient negative messaging about how horrible Trump was (and still is) for and to most Americans. > Define lanes for communications ecosystem. Who will carry contrast and negative messaging so candidates go high as other entities go low. This was a major failing in 2024, and it cannot be repeated. Set the lanes and hold organizations accountable.
      - iamnothere 3mo ago
        Ah, I had read a source that characterized it this way, but the truth is more complicated. The report itself said this, but it reflected only the view of the author; the notes from Dem leadership on the report disputed this point in particular and said there was no evidence for it. Apparently they disagreed with the report’s conclusions enough to suppress the release for a while. I misremembered this and a quick search to remind myself wasn’t adequate. Given the disagreement around the report, I don’t think it serves as a good source either way. Digging a little into it, the research seems to indicate that there’s not adequate evidence to draw any conclusions: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41253-019-00084-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41253-019-00084-8. Although there’s some evidence that negativity demobilizes voters and degrades democracy, which you probably don’t want. But I don’t really care who wins anyway, I’m not sure why I’m even engaging here. I guess I just want the 2008 Democratic party back.