3 ms·

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.

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.
  - Sabinus 3mo ago
    >But I don’t really care who wins anyway, I’m not sure why I’m even engaging here. The democrats are so far from the 2008 version that you don't care if they lose? That Trump's activities are as bad as Biden's?
    - iamnothere 3mo ago
      As I said earlier, Republicans are doing a pretty good job of dismantling the empire, and I care about that more than whatever either party is offering domestically (not much). So if they win, so be it. 2008 Dems had a large “liberaltarian” presence, which isn’t perfectly aligned with my views, but it was close enough that I was often in favor of their policies. Current Dems just want the war machine to focus more on Russia while sticking it to red states at home. Antiwar sentiment in the party died after the entry of “CIA Democrats” like Spanberger, who now have outsized influence within the party. I don’t see much good coming out of a Dem victory until they are expelled.
      - estearum 3mo ago
        "Current Dems just want our country to honor its commitments" is quite a criticism! Maybe I'm just some war hungry lunatic, but I actually think that when the US tells a country it will defend its sovereignty in exchange for it not having nuclear weapons, it's very important that we honor those commitments. That's probably because I prefer deterrence, and intermittent war required to assert deterrence, more than I like the idea of every nation in a race to build nuclear weapons and then every neighbor doing scrambling to prevent nuclearization. Basically a warmonger then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
        iamnothere 3mo ago
        You also probably believe in strong regulation of the internet (including possibly ID verification), open borders, and other positions I don’t accept. As I said, I’m not a fan of the current party, and I hope that the right continues to degrade state capacity until neither side has much left to work with.

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.
- Sabinus 3mo ago
  >But I don’t really care who wins anyway, I’m not sure why I’m even engaging here. The democrats are so far from the 2008 version that you don't care if they lose? That Trump's activities are as bad as Biden's?
  - iamnothere 3mo ago
    As I said earlier, Republicans are doing a pretty good job of dismantling the empire, and I care about that more than whatever either party is offering domestically (not much). So if they win, so be it. 2008 Dems had a large “liberaltarian” presence, which isn’t perfectly aligned with my views, but it was close enough that I was often in favor of their policies. Current Dems just want the war machine to focus more on Russia while sticking it to red states at home. Antiwar sentiment in the party died after the entry of “CIA Democrats” like Spanberger, who now have outsized influence within the party. I don’t see much good coming out of a Dem victory until they are expelled.
    - estearum 3mo ago
      "Current Dems just want our country to honor its commitments" is quite a criticism! Maybe I'm just some war hungry lunatic, but I actually think that when the US tells a country it will defend its sovereignty in exchange for it not having nuclear weapons, it's very important that we honor those commitments. That's probably because I prefer deterrence, and intermittent war required to assert deterrence, more than I like the idea of every nation in a race to build nuclear weapons and then every neighbor doing scrambling to prevent nuclearization. Basically a warmonger then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
      - iamnothere 3mo ago
        You also probably believe in strong regulation of the internet (including possibly ID verification), open borders, and other positions I don’t accept. As I said, I’m not a fan of the current party, and I hope that the right continues to degrade state capacity until neither side has much left to work with.