General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPeople who say 'DU does not reflect Dem voters' are right.
But probably not in the way they mean it.
I keep seeing that statement used to attempt to proclaim that 'liberals' are 'too far left', and that the Party needs to be much farther to the 'right' to win elections. But the reality isn't a matter of 'left' or 'right'. It's a matter of what folks consider when they vote.
People who are more 'active' politically, more 'wonky', are more issue driven, and usually not 'single issue' even then, even if they strongly believe in prioritizing the issues the country faces.
But your run of the mill voter just isn't. They're not choosing who they vote for based upon some imaginary 'right-left spectrum'. They don't go to the polls and say 'I'm going to vote for the most liberal candidate' or 'I'm going to vote for the most conservative candidate'.
In large part, they first go to the polls and vote for incumbents. An incumbent, no matter how godawful they may be, has proven that they were able to get elected, which gives them a major advantage, both in primaries and generals. In the primary, no matter what they did while in office, they already can say 'I can win, I did it before'. Not to mention they're going to start off with more name recognition and probably a decent sized 'warchest' to help them outspend opponents. So it's no surprise that a Mary Landrieu can win her primary, both against more conservative or more liberal opponents. Her primary win doesn't really have much to do with her degree of 'conservativeness' or 'liberalness'. In the general, they still have several advantages - name recognition and money being the biggest ones, but they've already run the campaign before - they know what helped and what hurt.
But the people who can vote, who might vote, who will vote... Vote for a variety of reasons. Some do indeed vote on a scale of 'right vs left', but they're not the only voters out there by far, and you can't consistently win elections simply by chasing that one subset of voters. You have to also win the votes of voters who aren't wonks, who aren't activists, who aren't, in fact, largely 'issues driven'. People who vote based on personal charisma, personality, apparent confidence and competence, and all the other factors that go into the 'optics' of politics. The voters who can be drawn into voting against their own best interests by a warm smile, a line of patter about 'compassionate conservatism' or other non-issue, non-reality based reasons.
And this is where the 'We've got to run more conservative candidates in these districts/states' people simply miss the boat. They're focused solely on the 'left/right' spectrum, and don't think optics actually matters much. They think "progressives" 'can't win' because they're 'too far left', and completely ignore all of the voters who vote for reasons other than issues. But every election, voters come out and vote for people who are, on the issues, absolutely lousy in terms of representing those voters.
Why? Because those winning candidates actually cared about optics. They presented themselves as strong-willed, firm in resolve, willing to stand behind their beliefs. It doesn't matter that some of those beliefs are totally insane. They're actually willing to embrace them, and to proclaim that they'll DO something. Even if that something is going to hurt the same people who turn around and vote for them.
So sure, they'll lose the votes of 'issues voters' who disagree with them on the issues, but they'll win the votes of those voters who may disagree with them on issues, but see them as having the better 'character', not being a wishy washy type who weasels around and doesn't actually believe in the very things they say they're for.
So no, DU doesn't really reflect the voting public, not because 'We're too far left', but because we focus a lot more on issues and the 'left-right spectrum' than the average voter.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)It is incumbent upon each of us to choose to exercise as much effort as we deem fit to gain what manner of control we might desire over our own lives by seeking to understand those mental processes and social patterns, even if the control we gain is minimal indeed.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)Machiavelli, only far more sophisticated. After WWI he determined that the word "propaganda" had acquired such a negative connotation that he invented the euphemism "public relations" to replace it in politics and expanded its use into mass marketing.
And until we all understand this we will be manipulated by it.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)at another site about police shootings. We DO tend to be more involved and informed. My problem is that even when I try, others just DON'T want to be informed. I've hear it over and over and over... I'm too obsessed and perhaps I am, but at times I wonder just whose losing the sleep over this.
The answer is... ME! So frustrating!
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)We're attempting to change established mindsets and worldviews, rather than focusing on raising inquisitive children who want to understand 'why' things happen, and will question authority on its own. We attempt to alter the views of those who have been taught to 'work within the system', to 'trust the system', to 'obey authority' because it 'is' authority, not because it stands upon some moral, ethical, or intellectual basis. 'Teaching to the test' is yet another example of one of the many ways those in power have come up with to work to turn children into obedient drones who will not challenge the status quo.
Yes, we do need to change adult minds, but because of the ways in which they've already been molded, we need to work more simply towards getting them to question what they accept as right, rather than trying to convince them it is wrong.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)live in homes of adults who have their own mindset. I HAVE been able to push many to vote and give some reasons why, but it's just baby steps. Gotta keep working, I KNOW! I'm addicted to "more information" can't run away from it, believe me I tried. Lasted about a week once! LOL!
I know, none of this is funny but it's is a full time job that does take time.
former9thward
(31,984 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 8, 2014, 12:23 PM - Edit history (1)
People will be able to tell the names of most people on their favorite football team and the stats because they care about it. People do not care about politics, therefore have no interest in becoming informed. They have no interest in politics because they do not see it affecting their lives.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)of a different era, it saddens me that we did move forward, but somehow in some ways did nothing at all. Heady times of action, of being part of a movement that brought us together even with some of the same problems we see today, I realize and it saddens me that I will probably have to live with the memories. I've been able to "see" that clearly but a hard pill to swallow.
Unfortunately, my family can't feel my angst and more and more just don't want to go there. I can no longer speak of what could or should happen because as you said their interests are elsewhere. My 2 children live close and we get together for holidays and other events, but talk of what's going on around us isn't something they want to hear.
The subject almost always gets changed and I'm on the outside looking in. Reality Bites and I'm so weary and sadden by what I see!
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)While I completely agree that the electorate, in general and at large, does not pay much attention to the right/left spectrum when voting ...
I really don't/haven't see(n) any (many) DUers, even the most 3rd of "3rd-Way Centrist corporate lackeys", saying "We've got to run more conservative candidates" ... But we consistently see DUers arguing that "we've got to run more progressive candidates."
I have seen arguments that "we can't win with more progressive candidates" - which is a slightly different argument.
(Your right/left spectrum bias is showing ... )
I recall a DUer posting a particularly insightful OP in which he/she stated, essentially, the same thing you are postulating: "policy doesn't drive attract/voters, politicians driver voters, and those politicians then drive policy" ... and that OP was widely panned - though I suspect, most of the push-back was because they read the OP as saying, "We've got to run more conservative candidates", which it did not.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)What I'm referring to is the notion that we cannot win with 'more liberal' candidates than any given conservative who lost. That we have to have someone who is 'more conservative' than those 'more liberal' candidates.
In the Landrieu threads currently up, there are plenty of DUers (Edit: or possibly a few DUers making similar comments repeatedly.) proclaiming that no candidate 'more liberal' than Landrieu can win that seat back, and that we will need someone 'more conservative' to do so.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Not having Liberal candidates to vote for could step away from their computers and throw their hat in the ring.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)But I went to a Dem party meeting instead, and found out they were going to actually run someone against him, so I stood aside so as not to steal votes from the party machinery candidate.
But maybe you're right, maybe I should have run anyway. It certainly wouldn't have cost the Dem a seat, since he lost in a landslide.
former9thward
(31,984 posts)You would not be stealing of votes there.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)pretty run-of-the-mill
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Even my known registered (r) friends are more left than DU on many issues.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)The problem is folks on the left and right speak to people who think like themselves, i.e. friends, get their own views shouted back at them, and consequently think everybody thinks like they do.
I am in my fifth decade of life and have lived in Tallahassee, Orlando, Miami, and Los Angeles among other places and have met less than a handful of people to my left. I am in the quadrant with Mandela and Gandhi on the political compass test and I am often outflanked on my left at DU.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I told this story once before . My friend and I made three business calls in one day to three Central Florida Chambers of Commerce. At the first one the chamber director told us it would be hard to make sales to his members because" many of their names end In precious stones" , i.e., they were Jewish. At the second chamber the receptionist told my friend/business partner and I she stopped going to the local ABC because "the patrons had become too dark." The third was a pleasant surprise-no racial comments...
Even here in liberal L A i hear many thinly veiled racial/racist comments.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)My best (male) friend is almost diametrically opposite to me on virtually every political issue we discuss. He even voted for Romney.
My last boss maxed out donations to Republican candidates back pre-CU, and he and I could discuss politics civilly and even come up with areas of agreement in many places despite my being a socialist.
I know it's a meme the media loves to push, that everyone has gone hardcore ideologue, but I just don't see it in the real world.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)When my friend's politics are similar to mine we discuss politics.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I find it easier to talk politics offline with someone I truly respect and like, even if my politics are at odds with theirs, than I do with more 'casual acquaintance' types. But then, I'm more interested in outcomes than means, policy more than personality and party. I also find it easy to discuss with others of a technocratic bent, who are willing to actually try things and see what works and what doesn't, collecting data all along.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Most of my real life friends are garden variety liberals. If a person is homophobic, racist, anti-semitic, et cetera he or she probably isn't going to be my friend.
Not much in life is absolute but I do believe my "bubble" argument is reasonably correct. Folks surround themselves with folks like themselves.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Republicans ran on that this year.
Vote for us or the blacks will take over.
Dumbasses all over America believe that.
Ask them. They're not hard to find. They're currently cheering.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Only around 38% actually voted in the whole country, but the majority of those who did vote were the republicans that have been brainwashed probably did feel the way you stated about blacks taking over. The problem is republicans are able to convince their idiot base to get out and vote no matter what, and that is the problem. When democrats can get the voters out to vote, democrats win. They just didn't get out in large enough numbers to change things this year.
kentuck
(111,079 posts)Can someone answer that? Obviously not the way we did it in the last election.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)The 'appeal' of conservatism is a 'return to the status quo', to stasis, to a perceived 'better time' in the past. So to motivate those who just want things to 'stay the same' or to 'return', you have to present them with 'threats'.
What do 'progressives' (in the loosest sense of the word) want? For things to 'get better' So we try to use 'Hope', and seek 'Change'. But those are tough to make into ongoing campaigns unless you actually deliver the kind of change people were hoping for once you get into power. If you simply fritter away that power, people get discouraged, and lose hope because what was important to them didn't change. What was the Democratic message of 2014? I'm not sure, but I didn't see a lot of hope for change in the advertising I saw. In fact, I barely even saw any pushback on lies from Republicans claiming that they were responsible for whatever good things might have happened to people. In Ohio, Kasich and Mandel laid claim to the new jobs in the state, and no one even tried to proclaim they were a result of the stimulus, or even pointed out that the new jobs still hadn't made up for the jobs lost thanks to conservative financial sector deregulation crashing the economy.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They prey on fear and anger and greed to get everyone to turn on one another.
Go watch "Needful Things".
treestar
(82,383 posts)It is not as easy as it is for Republicans.
But it is not this simple "run more progressive Democrats" that we hear so much of. If that were true, the people who vote in the primaries would have to be the ones to pick these "more progressive Democrats." And then even if you have a particularly progressive set of Democrats in a red state, and they band together to run this Progressive, they may not win the actual election. There's a naive faith that a red state is going to vote for a Democrat who is really, really progressive rather than a Republican. That's the basic claim behind it.
Omaha Steve
(99,593 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)the optics alone. Take EW, who has been in the Senate for only
2 years, yet her message resonates with people.
The problem is that the media do not bring that message, and
actually I think that a lot of the party dislikes it.
Being a populist today is not as easy as it used to be.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Sure you want the 'anyone with a D' crowd, but you also want people who do believe in making life better, because they've already got an advantage when it comes to the optics - they believe in what they say, so they've got real sincerity going for them. But it's true optics alone won't win the elections, even if they are a vital part of the campaign.
treestar
(82,383 posts)so she could get into the Senate. The other 99 Senators respresent what resonated with their people.
kentuck
(111,079 posts)Who are Democrats trying to appeal to? Democrats or Republicans? Or Democrats that think like Republicans? Or Republicans that think like Democrats?
Why run as a Democrat in the first place? Why not run as a Republican or an Independent if you know the Democratic Party cannot win?
But the dilemma seems to be that they cannot win without Democratic votes? Rather than expand this minority Party with their ideas, they prefer to dilute it with ideas that might appeal to some in the other Party, and win a majority, or plurality, in that manner.
I don't think we have thought through the consequences of such a strategy? But we are seeing the effects in every state in the South.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Dem/repub has become two sides of the same coin
thanks to the "new Democrats" or 3rd-Wayers.
Landrieu is a prefect example.
She is/was in it for the money class, not Democrats.
She will get a cushy job in at well paying institution
now that she has carried their water and done their business.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)try to emulate them a little more each cycle?
Curiously this tact is most often favored by those most infuriated and insulted that someone might consider the parties too similar when it is they who stridently, feverishly, and persistently push for exactly such an impression in the first place. Why do they get so frustrated that their plan works to exactly the expected result???
The whole thing is gobbledygook and double talking nonsense to advance the same old agenda that comes out every cycle, win or lose, rain or shine, day or night.
Johonny
(20,835 posts)Candidates generally focus on trying to get the people that do vote to vote for them. The DU is not running for office. It has no need to worry about voter turn out, voter demographics, declining youth and liberal vote in mid-terms,... but people running campaigns have to worry about these things. One could argue they spend so much time trying to appeal to the 5-10 % undecided voter that almost always votes for the "winning" party and often doesn't vote at all on political knowledge. You could argue the party should focus MORE on the under vote. Those people that do not vote but if they did would vote liberal. This is particularly true since the other party is focusing on making it harder for these people to vote. They are also focused on creating a feeling of helplessness to disengage these voters from the process.
It is the eternal struggle. When your polling numbers tell you your base isn't coming out-do you waste time appealing to people that aren't likely to vote for you, or waste time appealing to people that aren't going to show up... Both tend to be losers. The real solution is to find ways to connect with people at the grassroots and get people engaged in politics again. This takes real hard work that happens over longer lengths of time and not in 3 month periods. The DU could be a part of such a movement but so few party members and staff post here and very little organization occurs here.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)is every single day, starting with the one just after the last election. Retail politics, talking to people one on one, door to door. Convincing them to talk to their neighbours. Finding common ground for respect even with those with whom you disagree. Making voters each and every day, because you let them know you are listening to them, do understand their problems, and will actually try to solve those problems.
treestar
(82,383 posts)People refuse to acknowledge this. "The party" does not "move to the right." To get the country to move to the left, the party tries to win in states where it can. Turning red states blue is not an easy thing and the people who run are chosen by voters in the states, not by "the party" centrally. Making it so black and white and attacking people who see the complexities as "authoritarian followers" and the like does not help and simply evidences immaturity.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Hindsight, would Ashley Judd have been a better candidate than letting Bill Clinton elbow his way in with Grimes?
Here's a short term solution. Pick candidates that the people of the red states already love(without party affiliation). When voters have a cemented opinion on these candidates, trashing them could cause a big backlash.