Would still be more effective than...whatever it is that they're doing.
this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2025
5 points (100.0% liked)
The Onion
6458 readers
701 users here now
The Onion
A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.
Great Satire Writing:
- The Onion
- Clickhole
- McSweeney's
- Reductress
- The Chaser
- The Hard Times
- The Needling
- Tattletale Times
- The Beaverton
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Genuinely curious what people want the Democrats to specifically do right now, apart from vague calls of "something" and "more" and "better." At least on a federal level, aren't they pretty much powerless at this point? What even can they do?
-
Figure out what they stand for, stated in two sentences. (From that old chestnut that says that you don't understand a thing if you can't explain it in two sentences, or less.)
-
Learn from the experts (PR people, psychologists, neuroscientists, screenwriters, etc.) how to state it in ways that resonate with people.
-
Then, do it. Convince all of us that they care, and are trying. Build coalitions around the message, and strengthen civil society.
The greatest damage from this administration's lawlessness does not come from tearing down government agencies, it's the corrosive effect of hopelessness in the minds and hearts of the citizens as we look around and feel like we're alone, and that nobody else actually cares about our laws, traditions, and principles.
They already did number 2, exclusively, and its part of the problem.
"We're second worst, you have no choice but to vote for us, and we will only move right" might have resonated with you.
When did that happen? Their messaging is pretty widely regarded as terrible.
Because it was so rehearsed and prepared. They needed the opposite, which is what trump and JD Vance did. Podcasts and shows where they just had casual conversations. The experts and linguists and whatever else were a horrible idea.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Harris's message was along the lines of (from a Lemmy comment, TBF), "address disparate health care outcomes that predominantly impact Black men." Nobody even knows what that means, much less has the ability to remember it. Or, she had some talking point about a several-thousand-dollar tax credit. (I don't recall how much or for whom.) That is, they talked like policy wonks, not in terms like "dignity" and "providing for your family" that reach people emotionally.
Their opponents said highly memorable-but-evil things like, "Haitian immigrants are eating the pets." I mean, like that, but good. Or, when you think of Obama, there's one word that immediately comes to mind. Like that.
ETA: I just remembered one of Harris's other leitmotifs for the campaign: "We're not going back." Just awful messaging. Democrats constantly, constantly, go for the negative formulation, which is terrible messaging. For one, saying you're not your opponent lets your opponent control the terms of the debate. Also, our memories and subconscious minds are bad with negatives. Like the famous pink elephant example, if I were to say, "I'm not a professional dogcatcher," a week from now, you might have the vague recollection of u/SwingingTheLamp and dogcatchers, or maybe just dogs. If I were smart, I'd say, "u/SwingingTheLamp is such a sexy guy" instead.
This particular example doesn't suffer from that problem, but on the other hand, it doesn't say anything of importance. So we're not going back, great, we already knew that, but where are we going? It doesn't say anything emotionally-impactful about the future and Harris's role in it. By contrast, "make America great again" is much better slogan, because it makes a promise about the future. And a vague one, so you can seamlessly fill in whatever you think "great" looks like, and you can actually envision a perfectly-tailored picture of the future. Harris == discontent about the past; MAGA guy == good-feels about the future.
They need to have rehearsed and prepared talking points because that's the only way they'll actually come across as standing for anything other than the status quo, which is deeply unpopular. Most democrats probably don't even know what they even theoretically stand for without a corporate donor explicitly telling them what to do, and most of them can't do improv on the level of even being able to make shit up or lie in the absence of that, much less to charmingly lie by omission or tell the truth by technicality.
- Vote no on everything like Republicans did when Obama/Biden tried good things
- Filibuster every bill like Republicans
- Give motivated members of Congress more power, like AOC
- Retire the old blood of the DNC and have people with ideas from after 1982 enter office (my state allows office vacancies to be filled by appointment until election)
- Listen to the Americans who voted for you to stop Trump and stop whining about that in private meetings
- Stop voting yes on anything Trump wants
- Don't ratfuck young faces because they are running in seats with old people
- Don't say everything is okay and normal despite the fact it's clearly not, it didn't work both times they ran on it as a platform
All great ideas. Have you mentioned them to the Democrats? They are depressingly poll-driven, but it's probably worth directly reaching out. My local congress people are probably sick of my shit by now, but if so -- good.
Well since they think a mean worded tweet is all you need to stop Trump, I figured a mean worded comment is just as good /s
When eighty million Americans sat out the election they sent a pretty clear message that they're okay with whatever Trump and Co wants to do.
No, they sent a message saying "Both of these choices suck, badly."
When eighty million Americans sat out the election they sent a pretty clear message that they're okay with whatever Trump and Co wants to do.
Bo, the6 sent the message of "both of these are atrocious human beings, so I will support neither "
By choosing neither they threw their full support behind the winner which was Trump.
There is blood on their hands from the choice they made.
I always find it telling when someone blames the people who couldn't stomach to vote for an openly corrupt, genocidal party, instead of blaming the leadership of the party for being openly corrupt and genocidal.
load more comments
(11 replies)
Not lining up to bend over for republicans would be nice a nice start. Even a quarter the obstructionism as the republican party has put forth when Democrats are in charge would be appreciated.
Certainly, but like -- what specifically? If you could pick one specific thing they should do/have done, what would it be?
I mean, I'm not an expert by any means but haven't the republicans been able to very efficiently stifle democrat majorities before? If they just follow that playbook (delaying things, being pains in the ass, constant insistence on funky rules) they can at least annoy the shit out of them and hopefully slow things down. They're way too polite for that tho, they'd rather just let it happen and hope they come out okay in the end then to risk the wrath of the annoying orange and his minions.
One thing they could do is stop voting with republicans to confirm Trump's appointees. Have you seen. how well the Republicans obstruct? They can get everybody in their rank and file out on network TV to call for banning a book by title while the democrats can't even get their best faces on TV to call what's happening with NY's mayor blatant quid pro quo corruption
EDIT: Trump energy chief says there are upsides to ecological collapse
Only if the appointees are bad (which, since it's Trump and "stuff up the deep state" project 2025, there's probably a lot of bad appointees). If we obstruct appointees that are good, we'll just keep seeing the pendulum swinging when a new party comes into power.
I don't believe you're making that argument in good faith. Every one of his nominees have been ridiculous caricatures of stereotypical MAGA car salesman
view more: next ›