this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
25 points (61.1% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2341 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Following the Democrats’ recent election losses, some, including Senator Bernie Sanders, argue that the party failed by “abandoning” the working class.

However, critics counter that Democrats under Biden implemented one of the most pro-working class agendas in decades, passing union-supportive policies, job-creating infrastructure bills, and increasing wages.

Despite these efforts, Democrats saw little electoral benefit, especially among nonwhite working-class voters, as cultural grievances took precedence for many working-class voters.

Analysts suggest that the party’s best path forward may be to focus on college-educated suburban voters rather than attempting to win back working-class Republicans.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 20 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Her messaging still sucked.

It was this. I was really engaged this season. I was fully on board to support her, but towards the end, I had to remind myself why I was excited. I was already going to support her, and I had forgotten what made me excited more than once.

If that happened to me, a fervent supporter of what she represented, everybody else who was more lukewarm forgot completely. She was the candidate of change at the beginning and was Joe Biden 2.0 by the end.

If Dems don't figure out how to capture excitement in their next attempts, if they can't energize the young who are so naive they follow Instagram influencers without a second thought, they're gonna keep losing to these terrible but charismatic Republicans.

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

She was a prosecutor and was mostly using court room style arguments that appeal to reason.

And that works great in court and for high information voters, but doesn't connect with people's emotions.

Trump connected with people's frustrations and grievances and basically argued that Harris and Biden were to blame. There's no rational argument that can counter an appeal to emotion.

[–] vividspecter@lemm.ee 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

This is pretty much it. The disengaged public needs simple, three-word slogans and they need to stick on message, relentlessly (and it needs to connect emotionally as you said).

And while it goes against every instinct of those who are college educated, you need to say things with over the top confidence. Hedging makes sense in the academic world, but average people trust people with excessive confidence.

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

They needed a blend of both. Explain in detail your plan, but pair it with simple slogans and sound bites. That way you cover all your bases, the low information voters get motivated by the sound bite and the high information voters by your detailed plans (assuming they're good). You can of course have a terrible plan that loses the high information voters even if your sound bites are keeping people engaged.