Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) urged her Democratic colleagues to stop attacking the "oligarchy," arguing that the word did not resonate with most Americans.
“She said Democrats should stop using the term ‘oligarchy,’ a phrase she said doesn’t resonate beyond coastal institutions, and just say that the party opposes ‘kings,'”
Doesn’t resonate beyond the coastal institutions such as… Iowa? and Montana? Where Bernie and AOC did giant rallies?
This milquetoast Republican-lite act doesn’t really resonate anywhere including coastal institutions. Look at the results of the last election cycle. The difference is that on the coasts there are enough people with money that’ll vote to keep the status quo going. Life is good enough here that the people here can still – and just barely – imagine a future.
In the middle of the country where everyone’s broke and things are thoroughly hopeless, they see little difference between keeping the status quo going and burning it all to the ground.
That’s exactly where and why Trump’s “take the country back” rhetoric works. The country is screwed up and pretty obviously not going to be made dramatically better by silly little neoliberal plans such as a tax break for opening a new small business or whatever.
So, I’m honestly asking: how is this republican lite? The headline conveys that she’s saying to tone down attacks on the oligarchy, but then her words in the article make it clear she’s advocating for a change of wording, not message.
Agree or disagree on the wording change, I don’t see how “we need to stop trump and the oligarchs” is progressive, and “we need to stop trump and the wannabe kings” is milquetoast republican-lite.
As for the other parts, would your definition of the middle of the country striken with economic issues happen to include Michigan? The state that just elected her? Maybe when she’s talking about things people in focus groups shared she might be talking about people from the state she represents?
So, I’m honestly asking: how is this republican lite?
Sure:
Detailing her plan, Slotkin – a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) – argued that the Democratic Party needed to lose its “weak and woke” reputation and “fucking retake the flag,” adopting a “goddamn Alpha energy” inspired by Detroit Lions coach Dan Campbell.
So, we need to wave flags, stop being “weak and woke”, and be alphas.
This shit is something you’d hear at a fucking Trump rally.
Edit: BTW, notice how we’re not talking about any actual issue here, just optics and messaging. That’s because the policy agenda is still the same weak sauce, tried and failed neoliberal policy playbook that has taken the country far enough off of the rails to make the people easily lured in by right-wing populism, demagoguery, and fascism.
You literally criticized her for saying the democratic party needs to work on being seen as weak, and then a paragraph later criticized them for being weak.
Do you disagree that the perception of the Democrats as weak hurts them? Do you think it’s wrong to frame opposition to trump as supporting the country?
I don’t think you’re saying that only Republicans can say they care about the country, have an assertive plan, or be proactive and energetic.
I think letting the Republicans own national pride and define what a “real American” is has been a major loss, and finding a way to say to voters that you have a patriotic duty to resist fascists is correct.
That your response to someone saying we need to use “caring about the country” to try to get people to stop fascists from tearing it apart is “This shit is something you’d hear at a fucking Trump rally” is exactly the problem.
This is seriously just looking for a reason to be mad at the Democrats. You’re clearly upset at them for their failures, but you’re also seemingly upset at those amongst them saying they should work on their failings that helped create those failures?
Even if meaningful policy changes could be enacted anytime in the next decade, do you think it has a chance of happening if the people in front of it are seen as meek, deferential, and not caring about the country?
And yeah, it’s a set of remarks pertaining to part of a speech, one of the topics of which is a change in messaging strategy. I don’t think every set of remarks made by a politician needs to be entirely focused on policy. It’s a speech that was given to party volunteers about the need to change strategy because what they’ve been doing hasn’t been working.
You literally criticized her for saying the democratic party needs to work on being seen as weak, and then a paragraph later criticized them for being weak.
That’s because she’s more worried about messaging and optics than doing the actual work required to stand up to Trump. It’s not about perception. It’s not about messaging. They look weak and are perceived as weak because they are weak, and act weakly in opposition. She thinks (as you seem to) that it’s primarily (or entirely) a perception problem. It isn’t.
Clearly you think it’s a perception problem, since all you’re doing is talking about perception. Why haven’t you been talking about policy this entire time?
Isn’t that a silly statement?
Making a statement about messaging isn’t the same as saying the only thing that matters is messaging.
I think that there is a perception problem, but that doesn’t mean I think that there’s nothing else. And weirdly, I can talk about the one without denying the other exists.
Clearly you think it’s a perception problem, since all you’re doing is talking about perception. Why haven’t you been talking about policy this entire time?
Um because that’s what the lady in the article talked about the whole time.
Making a statement about messaging isn’t the same as saying the only thing that matters is messaging.
Again:
Detailing her plan, Slotkin – a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) – argued that the Democratic Party needed to lose its “weak and woke” reputation and “fucking retake the flag,” adopting a “goddamn Alpha energy” inspired by Detroit Lions coach Dan Campbell.
It’s not just a statement… it’s the “plan”. A messaging adjustment is the plan.
They’re perceived as all talk because that’s all most of them do. Their plans are to talk some more. I’d rather them get caught trying to do something…basically anything at all at this point.
That’s why I’m pro AOC, pro Corey Booker, pro David Hogg primarying safe district Blue dogs, and pro Van Hollen. Talking head centrist Democrats can get fucked as far as I’m concerned.
There’s some statement or another from one of them every time a Democrat attempts anything. With friends like these you don’t even need enemies.
One of the main talking heads of the DNC was saying that Democrats should roll over and play dead, and on the CR they did exactly that.
that’s what the lady in the article talked about the whole time.
No, that’s what this article quoted her about for their entire article.
Clearly my first statement didn’t land the way intended, since you missed me calling it “silly” immediately afterwards.
Criticizing you for failing to talk about policy in a conversation that isn’t about that is silly. Much like I think it’s silly to criticize someone for not talking about policy because in a particular context they’re talking about something else.
Did she call it “the plan”, or was that the article, which is an article about an article about an interview about an upcoming speech?
From the actual interview, she refers to a set of speeches directed at party volunteers and organizers as a “war plan”, and indicated they will cover many topics, including messaging. Not quite the same as “the plan” being a change in messaging.
They’re perceived as all talk because that’s all most of them do
That’s what politicians do. Most of the politicians you went on to say you liked just … Talk. They talk until people do what they’re talking about.
I feel like the thread of this conversation has been lost. I don’t actually care to have a referendum on the Democrats or their strategy, and I’m relatively neutral towards slotkin.
I still disagree that saying Democrats have a perception problem they need to work on is being a “Republican lite”, and think it’s odd to criticize both for being passive and not doing anything, but also for saying they should stop being passive and do something.
It really feels like you’re just looking for a reason to be angry, and it doesn’t actually matter if it’s here or not, since you already have a notion of what you’re angry about.
It really feels like you’re just looking for a reason to be angry, and it doesn’t actually matter if it’s here or not, since you already have a notion of what you’re angry about.
This really feels like projection, bud. I’m with Democrats that want to do shit. To the point where I just donated to hoggs cause and skipped kamala’s.
Sure, politicians mostly talk, but some also put their skin in the game while others sit on the sidelines and say what they’re doing wrong.
Maybe the focus groups say it would be 10% more effective for AOC to use the word King rather than oligarch, but you know what matters more? The movement showing the fuck up in the first place.
I’m not sure I can remember a single time a progressive politician put out a navel-gazing messaging statement into the media. It’s almost exclusively done by the centrists who want to pretend they’re just helping out while using it to try to derail progressive campaigns that are gaining attention. And it’s the last thing you should do publicly if one of the aesthetics you’re chasing is “being alpha”.
Doesn’t resonate beyond the coastal institutions such as… Iowa? and Montana? Where Bernie and AOC did giant rallies?
This milquetoast Republican-lite act doesn’t really resonate anywhere including coastal institutions. Look at the results of the last election cycle. The difference is that on the coasts there are enough people with money that’ll vote to keep the status quo going. Life is good enough here that the people here can still – and just barely – imagine a future.
In the middle of the country where everyone’s broke and things are thoroughly hopeless, they see little difference between keeping the status quo going and burning it all to the ground.
That’s exactly where and why Trump’s “take the country back” rhetoric works. The country is screwed up and pretty obviously not going to be made dramatically better by silly little neoliberal plans such as a tax break for opening a new small business or whatever.
So, I’m honestly asking: how is this republican lite? The headline conveys that she’s saying to tone down attacks on the oligarchy, but then her words in the article make it clear she’s advocating for a change of wording, not message.
Agree or disagree on the wording change, I don’t see how “we need to stop trump and the oligarchs” is progressive, and “we need to stop trump and the wannabe kings” is milquetoast republican-lite.
As for the other parts, would your definition of the middle of the country striken with economic issues happen to include Michigan? The state that just elected her? Maybe when she’s talking about things people in focus groups shared she might be talking about people from the state she represents?
Sure:
So, we need to wave flags, stop being “weak and woke”, and be alphas.
This shit is something you’d hear at a fucking Trump rally.
Edit: BTW, notice how we’re not talking about any actual issue here, just optics and messaging. That’s because the policy agenda is still the same weak sauce, tried and failed neoliberal policy playbook that has taken the country far enough off of the rails to make the people easily lured in by right-wing populism, demagoguery, and fascism.
You literally criticized her for saying the democratic party needs to work on being seen as weak, and then a paragraph later criticized them for being weak.
Do you disagree that the perception of the Democrats as weak hurts them? Do you think it’s wrong to frame opposition to trump as supporting the country?
I don’t think you’re saying that only Republicans can say they care about the country, have an assertive plan, or be proactive and energetic.
I think letting the Republicans own national pride and define what a “real American” is has been a major loss, and finding a way to say to voters that you have a patriotic duty to resist fascists is correct.
That your response to someone saying we need to use “caring about the country” to try to get people to stop fascists from tearing it apart is “This shit is something you’d hear at a fucking Trump rally” is exactly the problem.
This is seriously just looking for a reason to be mad at the Democrats. You’re clearly upset at them for their failures, but you’re also seemingly upset at those amongst them saying they should work on their failings that helped create those failures?
Even if meaningful policy changes could be enacted anytime in the next decade, do you think it has a chance of happening if the people in front of it are seen as meek, deferential, and not caring about the country?
And yeah, it’s a set of remarks pertaining to part of a speech, one of the topics of which is a change in messaging strategy. I don’t think every set of remarks made by a politician needs to be entirely focused on policy. It’s a speech that was given to party volunteers about the need to change strategy because what they’ve been doing hasn’t been working.
That’s because she’s more worried about messaging and optics than doing the actual work required to stand up to Trump. It’s not about perception. It’s not about messaging. They look weak and are perceived as weak because they are weak, and act weakly in opposition. She thinks (as you seem to) that it’s primarily (or entirely) a perception problem. It isn’t.
Clearly you think it’s a perception problem, since all you’re doing is talking about perception. Why haven’t you been talking about policy this entire time?
Isn’t that a silly statement?
Making a statement about messaging isn’t the same as saying the only thing that matters is messaging.
I think that there is a perception problem, but that doesn’t mean I think that there’s nothing else. And weirdly, I can talk about the one without denying the other exists.
Um because that’s what the lady in the article talked about the whole time.
Again:
It’s not just a statement… it’s the “plan”. A messaging adjustment is the plan.
They’re perceived as all talk because that’s all most of them do. Their plans are to talk some more. I’d rather them get caught trying to do something…basically anything at all at this point.
That’s why I’m pro AOC, pro Corey Booker, pro David Hogg primarying safe district Blue dogs, and pro Van Hollen. Talking head centrist Democrats can get fucked as far as I’m concerned.
There’s some statement or another from one of them every time a Democrat attempts anything. With friends like these you don’t even need enemies.
One of the main talking heads of the DNC was saying that Democrats should roll over and play dead, and on the CR they did exactly that.
No, that’s what this article quoted her about for their entire article.
Clearly my first statement didn’t land the way intended, since you missed me calling it “silly” immediately afterwards.
Criticizing you for failing to talk about policy in a conversation that isn’t about that is silly. Much like I think it’s silly to criticize someone for not talking about policy because in a particular context they’re talking about something else.
Did she call it “the plan”, or was that the article, which is an article about an article about an interview about an upcoming speech?
From the actual interview, she refers to a set of speeches directed at party volunteers and organizers as a “war plan”, and indicated they will cover many topics, including messaging. Not quite the same as “the plan” being a change in messaging.
That’s what politicians do. Most of the politicians you went on to say you liked just … Talk. They talk until people do what they’re talking about.
I feel like the thread of this conversation has been lost. I don’t actually care to have a referendum on the Democrats or their strategy, and I’m relatively neutral towards slotkin.
I still disagree that saying Democrats have a perception problem they need to work on is being a “Republican lite”, and think it’s odd to criticize both for being passive and not doing anything, but also for saying they should stop being passive and do something.
It really feels like you’re just looking for a reason to be angry, and it doesn’t actually matter if it’s here or not, since you already have a notion of what you’re angry about.
This really feels like projection, bud. I’m with Democrats that want to do shit. To the point where I just donated to hoggs cause and skipped kamala’s.
Sure, politicians mostly talk, but some also put their skin in the game while others sit on the sidelines and say what they’re doing wrong.
Maybe the focus groups say it would be 10% more effective for AOC to use the word King rather than oligarch, but you know what matters more? The movement showing the fuck up in the first place.
I’m not sure I can remember a single time a progressive politician put out a navel-gazing messaging statement into the media. It’s almost exclusively done by the centrists who want to pretend they’re just helping out while using it to try to derail progressive campaigns that are gaining attention. And it’s the last thing you should do publicly if one of the aesthetics you’re chasing is “being alpha”.