The single biggest political mistake by the Democratic Party IMO

[MAGAnificent]

The biggest political mistake by the Democratic Party in my opinion is not targeting, appealing to, Republican voters.

I could just explain this but want to use an analogy instead.

Imagine there are cigarette companies who put out advertising saying 'smoking is good for you, and smoking opponents are trying to kill you denying you rights'.

As a result, millions of American smoke, not only killing them, but causing other problems such as overburdening our healthcare insurance.

Should opponents respond by screaming 'YOU FREAKING IDIOTS ARE A SMOKING CULT YOU IDIOTS"? I didn't ask if it's true, I asked if it will help compared to other things.

When you see people victims of a con job's lies, isn't a message more about trying to convince them of the truth a better thing than that?

In politics, this is very hard, because our mass media has become so silo'd, that Republicans can hear very little other than Republican propagandists, but they usually still hear some.

Here's the thing. Republican voters aren't going anywhere. Morally, they are American citizens and deserve good government from Democrats. Politically, they are millions of voters who are going to go and vote for who they want.

We're not talking about changing Republican Party owners/donors; their agenda is set. The only way to change their messaging is by political force - when the country reacts badly to right-wing proposals. This is why Republicans post-FDR in the 1950's had to sound a LOT more moderate.

But Republican voters - especially 'Republican leaning independents' - can be persuaded more than that. They aren't 'hired' to lie, they're just 'suckers'.

I'm not saying to make this the higher priority for Democrats; that priority still belongs on things like 'get out the vote' of the Democratic base. But there should be a different approach to Republican voters, based on respect for them as Americans - not their Republican opinions - welcoming, informing, debunking.

At the end of the day, Democrats are selling a product good for most of those voters, and Republicans are selling them a con job that's bad for them. Why should the Republicans just get a free ride? They should have the more difficult message.

Too often, Democrats conflate their opposition to terrible Republican messages with opposition to Republican Americans who have adopted the messages.

Democrats should talk to Republicans, respectfully, with truth, not 'write them off' and pander to Democratic voters by just demonizing Republican voters. Can anyone show me FDR demonizing Republican voters? JFK?

What will the democrats appeal to Republicans or conservatives with? The last notable democrat president to appeal to conservatives was John F Kennedy, who was a conservative by todays standards. the republican and democrat voters were not all that different then. Unfortunately since then, the democrats have gone completely off the rails Do you think they will appeal to conservatives with the gender identity nonsense? Climate change extremism? Defund the Police? BLM? ANTIFA?

 

[Deuce]

How, though? How do you "appeal to" people who are abandoning democracy?

 

[Gateman_Wen]

You might want to give that record player a shove. It's skipping.

Only in your head my friend, only in your head.

 

[Ginger Ale]

Sigh. You're arguing a straw man. I said he spoke respectfully to them without giving an inch on policy. You say he 'talked to those who would listen' and claim you're disagreeing. I asked you to post where he insulted right-wing voters in his approach, and you haven't. Instead, you're still twisting what I said trying to make speaking respectfully to them into giving them wrong things. It created hate for him, but had nothing to do with his assassination.



On the one hand, I hope you're right and think you might be. On the other, it's not good enough. the fact that the Georgia Senate race that should be 98%-2% is close, shows that there is a huge problem even if the Democrat wins. The same issue is the case nationally, just very clear there.



You're not making sense here. You're changing the meaning of the word "they" from John Birchers to black people. They're totally different issues.

I'll repeat: JFK's approach that included speaking respectfully - not just "calmly" as you changed it - to Republican voters helped lead to the radicalized groups being more fringe with fewer supporters. You claim that JFK not giving in on policy meant he didn't speak to them respectfully. I disagree.



We need to have good government because it's right, not because of a threat of riots. It's very simple why Republicans are attacking the right to vote: because they are corrupt plutocrats seeking power who aren't concerned with democracy or morals.



Again, we need to not rely on this 'in the streets' as the political argument. It's one issue, but ultimately weak. If you're at the point you're counting on riots, you've lost. What we need is to battle the plutocrats effectively, which is what the OP suggests, attacking their tactic of gaining voters with lies about Democrats, by not helping them.



You're right about the issue of democracy being more important than policy issues.

But of course we have to operate on policy issues, including the budget, inflation policies, and so on in the meantime. We don't say "no more laws, no more budgets, no more fed, nothing until the issue of democracy has no attacks". So that's more anger than practical. Anger is appropriate, but not hyperbole about not governing.

You're exhausting me now. Do you really think that those who disagreed with JFK about segregation didn't take what he said as disrespect? This is the problem I think you fail to address, those who disagreed with JFK took what he said as an insult. Can you imagine what Trump would have said in a debate with JFK?



What exactly do you think MAGAs would say after JFKs speech here? ^^ He's saying pretty much what Biden said in his debate?
In this debate, Nixon is politely calling JFK a liar. Those days are gone is my point. Where we disagree is that I don't think this is because of how Democrats are conducting themselves.

How exactly would you address these people?


What would you say to this?


To this?


The idea that we have to legitimize speech that twenty years ago would have been considered INSANE is ridiculous.

I personally just disagree with you, and I don't think we need to handle it for them, I think we need to get out and vote. There's nothing I can do or say that would change these people's minds, nothing.

I can't convince them that what Trump and these MAGAs say is bad for them, nor would I try. Sorry if that doesn't jive with your message. You can't please everybody. I just disagree with you.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

the democrats have gone completely off the rails

WTF?

 

[Craig234]

You're exhausting me now.

Well, it's tiring after correcting the re-writes on what I say over and over. If I write five things I disagree with you that you didn't say, do you want to clarify each one? I do think that many opponents of JFK did not feel he disrespected them. And sorry to say but JFK did lie.

 

[gbg3]

The bottom line is the OP talks a wonderful game about the benefits of the ideologies agreed with, goes to great lengths (that some here have listed in real detail) on thread after thread of vilification and cancel culture mentality, then turns around and talks about engagement of some that might not always agree.

Yet this is the same OP that goes along with the litmus test inundated far left segments of our political groups.

I question that credibility, especially given the alliance to Sanders like mentality who is perhaps the very pinnacle of division oriented cancel culture mentality.

I offer all of it is worth pointing out when we get one thread about potential ecumenical intentions wedged between a sea of thread designed to divide only to also ignore half the forum (just as Democrats ignore half the country.)

I must say I felt kind of bad about writing how your final sentence was unfortunate or unnecessary, after I read a bunch more of the thread. As you said here, I saw posts where numerous posters listed real detail.
Even though I've been here a long time, I still don't tend to remember repeated tendencies of too many posters (those which I don't already have on my ignore list or have already learned to ignore). Once I kept reading, I felt bad for saying that about your last sentence. Sorry about that and it seems you have a very fair point many have recognized.

 

[memberya2]

The biggest political mistake by the Democratic Party in my opinion is not targeting, appealing to, Republican voters.

I could just explain this but want to use an analogy instead.

Imagine there are cigarette companies who put out advertising saying 'smoking is good for you, and smoking opponents are trying to kill you denying you rights'.

As a result, millions of American smoke, not only killing them, but causing other problems such as overburdening our healthcare insurance.

Should opponents respond by screaming 'YOU FREAKING IDIOTS ARE A SMOKING CULT YOU IDIOTS"? I didn't ask if it's true, I asked if it will help compared to other things.

When you see people victims of a con job's lies, isn't a message more about trying to convince them of the truth a better thing than that?

In politics, this is very hard, because our mass media has become so silo'd, that Republicans can hear very little other than Republican propagandists, but they usually still hear some.

Here's the thing. Republican voters aren't going anywhere. Morally, they are American citizens and deserve good government from Democrats. Politically, they are millions of voters who are going to go and vote for who they want.

We're not talking about changing Republican Party owners/donors; their agenda is set. The only way to change their messaging is by political force - when the country reacts badly to right-wing proposals. This is why Republicans post-FDR in the 1950's had to sound a LOT more moderate.

But Republican voters - especially 'Republican leaning independents' - can be persuaded more than that. They aren't 'hired' to lie, they're just 'suckers'.

I'm not saying to make this the higher priority for Democrats; that priority still belongs on things like 'get out the vote' of the Democratic base. But there should be a different approach to Republican voters, based on respect for them as Americans - not their Republican opinions - welcoming, informing, debunking.

At the end of the day, Democrats are selling a product good for most of those voters, and Republicans are selling them a con job that's bad for them. Why should the Republicans just get a free ride? They should have the more difficult message.

Too often, Democrats conflate their opposition to terrible Republican messages with opposition to Republican Americans who have adopted the messages.

Democrats should talk to Republicans, respectfully, with truth, not 'write them off' and pander to Democratic voters by just demonizing Republican voters. Can anyone show me FDR demonizing Republican voters? JFK?

I agree that its good to convince republicans but we know alot of them wont listen
the only way for biden to get his agenda done is to be aggressive and fight
just like the other side does.

Democrats have been trying to compromise and work with the other side
it accomplishes nothing democrats gotta use their power and fight for their agenda
republicans wont stop fighting so why would democrats give up and say lets work together.

Republicans will never agree to anything from the other side democrats voted to fund the police
republicans are still upset at democrats even though they conceded and did what they wanted
by voting to fund it i dont think it matters what democrats do or how much they concede.

They will always find something to be upset about even if democrats do everything that they want.

 

[memberya2]

Well, you can start by talking directly to your fellow liberals on this forum. I suggest you call them out by name for their divisive rhetoric.

How are democrats divisive i cant make a thread without a republican calling me a filthy liberal
you even call people biden pukes and you think what you say unites people?

 

[Mycroft]

How are democrats divisive i cant make a thread without a republican calling me a filthy liberal
you even call people biden pukes and you think what you say unites people?

Talk to the OP. It's his contention.

I just gave him a suggestion.

 

[Jacksprat]

How are democrats divisive i cant make a thread without a republican calling me a filthy liberal
you even call people biden pukes and you think what you say unites people?

President Biden called Trump a fascist. There is no compromise with fascists.

 

[memberya2]

President Biden called Trump a fascist. There is no compromise with fascists.

Exactly republicans wont compromise so why would democrats
democrats compromise all the time and it accomplishes nothing.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I must say I felt kind of bad about writing how your final sentence was unfortunate or unnecessary, after I read a bunch more of the thread. As you said here, I saw posts where numerous posters listed real detail.
Even though I've been here a long time, I still don't tend to remember repeated tendencies of too many posters (those which I don't already have on my ignore list or have already learned to ignore). Once I kept reading, I felt bad for saying that about your last sentence. Sorry about that and it seems you have a very fair point many have recognized.

We all good, I just felt the need to better explain it is all.

 

[Bullseye]

The biggest political mistake by the Democratic Party in my opinion is not targeting, appealing to, Republican voters.

I could just explain this but want to use an analogy instead.

Imagine there are cigarette companies who put out advertising saying 'smoking is good for you, and smoking opponents are trying to kill you denying you rights'.

As a result, millions of American smoke, not only killing them, but causing other problems such as overburdening our healthcare insurance.

Should opponents respond by screaming 'YOU FREAKING IDIOTS ARE A SMOKING CULT YOU IDIOTS"? I didn't ask if it's true, I asked if it will help compared to other things.

When you see people victims of a con job's lies, isn't a message more about trying to convince them of the truth a better thing than that?

In politics, this is very hard, because our mass media has become so silo'd, that Republicans can hear very little other than Republican propagandists, but they usually still hear some.

Here's the thing. Republican voters aren't going anywhere. Morally, they are American citizens and deserve good government from Democrats. Politically, they are millions of voters who are going to go and vote for who they want.

We're not talking about changing Republican Party owners/donors; their agenda is set. The only way to change their messaging is by political force - when the country reacts badly to right-wing proposals. This is why Republicans post-FDR in the 1950's had to sound a LOT more moderate.

But Republican voters - especially 'Republican leaning independents' - can be persuaded more than that. They aren't 'hired' to lie, they're just 'suckers'.

I'm not saying to make this the higher priority for Democrats; that priority still belongs on things like 'get out the vote' of the Democratic base. But there should be a different approach to Republican voters, based on respect for them as Americans - not their Republican opinions - welcoming, informing, debunking.

At the end of the day, Democrats are selling a product good for most of those voters, and Republicans are selling them a con job that's bad for them. Why should the Republicans just get a free ride? They should have the more difficult message.

Too often, Democrats conflate their opposition to terrible Republican messages with opposition to Republican Americans who have adopted the messages.

Democrats should talk to Republicans, respectfully, with truth, not 'write them off' and pander to Democratic voters by just demonizing Republican voters. Can anyone show me FDR demonizing Republican voters? JFK?

How exactly do you target Republican voters when your platform goes against everything they support.

 

[Jacksprat]

Exactly republicans wont compromise so why would democrats
democrats compromise all the time and it accomplishes nothing.

I remember one day when President Obama said he would compromise with the GOP. That very day, later, a GOP leader said they would never compromise with Obama.

 

[btthegreat]

In that case perhaps a political debate site is not your best use of time.

Why not? There is a difference between debating and persuading. As I understand the OP, Craig is talking about persuading Republican voters. I personally think that is a completely lost cause in this hyper-partisan enviromment. I am not trying to persuade them.

 

[Ginger Ale]

I remember one day when President Obama said he would compromise with the GOP. That very day, later, a GOP leader said they would never compromise with Obama.

Yep. What did compromising get us? Definitely didn't get us the public healthcare option he ran on. What it got us was mandatory healthcare that resembles car insurance. That's what compromising with Republicans gets you.

I know if we had a cheaper public option Republicans would use it, love it, and then tell us they hate it like they do social security. Makes no difference explaining to them how they will also benefit, that it's their quality of life will be better. I just vote in every election now, no matter how small, and it won't ever be for a MAGA.

 

[Craig234]

I agree that its good to convince republicans but we know alot of them wont listen
the only way for biden to get his agenda done is to be aggressive and fight
just like the other side does.

Absolutely, but not 'just like the other side does', e.g., Biden shouldn't copy traitor trump's attempt to overthrow an election. This is about fighting better for Democratic policies and elections, countering the Republican propaganda and pulling people away from them.

Democrats have been trying to compromise and work with the other side

Why do people see the word 'compromise' in the OP when the explicit comment was 'treat them with respect as fellow Americans without conceding anything on policy'?

it accomplishes nothing democrats gotta use their power and fight for their agenda
republicans wont stop fighting so why would democrats give up and say lets work together.

See above. This is about not handing the Republicans voters by Democrats alienating them needlessly.

Republicans will never agree to anything from the other side democrats voted to fund the police
republicans are still upset at democrats even though they conceded and did what they wanted
by voting to fund it i dont think it matters what democrats do or how much they concede.

Once in a while there can be issues where Democrats face an especially high price - take, for example, early support for gay marriage when most DEMOCRATS were against it and Republicans could win elections by putting it on the ballot, and Obama at first said he was 'against it but evolving'. Under Bush Democrats had a big incentive to go carefully on it. But THIS ISN"T ABOUT POLICY COMPROMISE.

 

[Craig234]

Yep. What did compromising get us?

OP: with no compromise on policy. Ginger Ale: 'What did compromising get us?' And you talk about tired.

Definitely didn't get us the public healthcare option he ran on. What it got us was mandatory healthcare that resembles car insurance. That's what compromising with Republicans gets you.

That compromise was for a couple reasons, DEMOCRATS being slightly short of votes supporting better - just like now with Manchin and Senima - and Obama seeming to be overly willing to compromise. He saw the insurance companies kill Clinton's program and he wanted to give them enough to get them to support it, which he technically did. (I was not happy with his cuts)

 

[NatMorton]

So true. The strong (seemingly uncontrollable) need for some to go after the character, ethics, values, intelligence, etc., of another poster because of policy the other poster thinks is the better direction or a vote the other poster placed for a candidate - is definitely problematic IMO.

IMO, it's ultimately a sign of personal insecurity. Folks sometimes question their own value, but if they can convince themselves they are superior in someway to another then their fears are calmed ... for a time.

 

[NatMorton]

Who is for smaller government?

Certainly not the republicans. Since Reagan Republicans have embraced big government.

I am.

 

[NatMorton]

I agree that one should not make character assessments based on a persons view of policies. Your examples are spot on!

However, I think it is valid to make assessments of ones character based on who they actively support and defend. I understand that for some it is a matter of holding their noses and voting party but many, many others actively defend the indefensible or stay silent while buying into some very hateful theories designed to cause divisivness. In my mind, the events of the 6th is a good example as is the issues surrounding the documents at Mar a Lago. Anyone who defends or accepts either and would actually vote for Trump again has issues related to truth, integrity and the basic norms that govern a country committed to the rule of law and democracy.

While not attempting to equate their wrong-doings, it was not all that long ago when Democrats turned a blind eye to Bill Clinton's sexual harassment and obstruction of justice. Political loyalties can cloud good judgement.

 

[NatMorton]

And I could have predicted your response.

It’s always sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming “I can’t hear you!”

No, I don't think you'd be very good at predicting my responses. Based on what I've read from you, your thinking is too automated for that.

 

[Callen]

While not attempting to equate their wrong-doings, it was not all that long ago when Democrats turned a blind eye to Bill Clinton's sexual harassment and obstruction of justice. Political loyalties can cloud good judgment.

Yes, many did turn a blind eye, defend him and minimize it. I for one saw it as much more than a sexual encounter and a
lie to cover it up. It displayed a gross lack of judgment something that could be very dangerous for a President. He never should have been defended for his actions.

One can be critical of their electeds behaviours and even vote for them again. It is the inability to speak up against politicians, or concoct false defences, out of some sense of perverse loyalty when they have done something egregious that I find to be inexcusable. Not holding politicians accountable for their bad acts is probably one of the biggest threats to democracy.

 

[NatMorton]

Yes, many did turn a blind eye, defend him and minimize it. I for one saw it as much more than a sexual encounter and a
lie to cover it up. It displayed a gross lack of judgment something that could be very dangerous for a President. He never should have been defended for his actions.

One can be critical of their electeds behaviours and even vote for them again. It is the inability to speak up against politicians, or concoct false defences, out of some sense of perverse loyalty when they have done something egregious that I find to be inexcusable. Not holding politicians accountable for their bad acts is probably one of the biggest threats to democracy.

Don't underestimate the unwillingness to acknowledge the other side was right about something. For the zealot partisan, that is the most painful thing of all.