Progressives: "Pursue our good policy agenda, it will win you an election!" WRONG Moderates: "Want to win elections? Pursue this bad policy agenda!" ALSO WRONG Basically nobody: "Pursue a good policy agenda, because policy outcomes don't really effect elections" CORRECT - ThreadSky

whstancil.bsky.social • 7 days ago

Progressives: "Pursue our good policy agenda, it will win you an election!"

WRONG

Moderates: "Want to win elections? Pursue this bad policy agenda!"

ALSO WRONG

Basically nobody: "Pursue a good policy agenda, because policy outcomes don't really effect elections"

CORRECT

Comments

lafourchette.bsky.social•7 days ago

(why is this so hard?)

crispybanks.bsky.social•7 days ago

If elections are truly all about branding then that means the demos has no actual beliefs, which means they can’t be relied upon to overthrow the system.

lafourchette.bsky.social•7 days ago

too much profit/benefit from being in/maintaining the system. that has become painfully evident.

crispybanks.bsky.social•7 days ago

The political consultant complex has to die.

crispybanks.bsky.social•7 days ago

And for centrists it means they have to actually engage with the fickle populace instead of doing more consultant work.

crispybanks.bsky.social•7 days ago

And by engage, that isn’t just listening to kitchen table issues. It means they have to actually win them over to their belief systems. And you don’t do that through focus group tested messaging, you do that by flooding the zone.

lafourchette.bsky.social•7 days ago

yes. with a coherent, consistent message that aligns with action.

podbastard.bsky.social•7 days ago

sound advice from an election winner

pbronez.me•7 days ago

Metamodern politics: a system for aligning vibes to policy outcomes.

hearththrob217.bsky.social•7 days ago

Trump and the Democratic leadership keep proving that people want politicians who will fight for good policies, not corrupt officials who always have an excuse—whether it’s tradition, party unity, or some other nonsense—as to why they can’t push for meaningful change.

connordpeters.bsky.social•7 days ago

Good comms > good policy, but Dems need both to win long-term.

Pelosi and Schumer forcing the Biden admin to boil down their post-COVID legislation is largely why Dems lost the house in 2022 and why 2024 went so bad.

ggordn3r.bsky.social•7 days ago

I've been thinking about this as the political corollary to that "faster horses" quote.

People know their problems, but cannot imagine or evaluate solutions very well. So the politician who describes their problems better will win regardless of whether their policy proposals would help or hurt.

chuckell.bsky.social•7 days ago

This seems very, very accurate.

caleb-j.bsky.social•7 days ago

So go with the candidates that can actually win elections (progressives) and reap the benefits of actually having decent policy as a side bonus.

joedisano.bsky.social•7 days ago

gospel

shtirlets.bsky.social•7 days ago

Will. How does this match up w us knowing that eg high inflation always improves challenger chances.

Are you arguing that most politicians have no say in meaningful macro levers? That most politics is outside that scope?

Or straight up, that my comment (high if > challenger wins) is incorrect?

mattveverka.bsky.social•7 days ago

Republicans: "Pursue a bad policy agenda, because policy outcomes don't really effect elections"

teeklin.bsky.social•7 days ago

Maybe just one time we try pursuing an actually good policy agenda and you can say I told you so until the cows come home if it doesn't work

Like, just one single time just for fun

Hasn't happened yet in my lifetime

antonio-torres.bsky.social•7 days ago

True. MAGA is better at media and messaging. It's not what, but HOW you say it. Most swing and independent voters cannot name a single policy position (their focus groups are facepalm-inducing) - it's all decided on vibes.

cmerlin.bsky.social•7 days ago

Do we think what's happening in the Canadian election is because libs magically delivered unprecedented improvements in material conditions? Or is it vibes have shifted?

glorialandy19.bsky.social•7 days ago

sad but true- FOX has proved it & Russia has used it- branding/marketing/messaging is the only way to move the electorate. Think out of the box. Ex: Americans love their sports. How can Dems leverage sports to relay the message & try to undo the damage FOX has done & continues to do daily? #StopFOX

gregornkny.bsky.social•7 days ago

Also, "what do you want to do when elected?" should be included.
Long Island Centre Democrats:
- nothing to restore abortion rights
- also nothing to unsteal the Supreme Court (in 4 years, when it might be possible)
- or to restore labor rights, or tax the rich
- But for bipartisan SALT reduction!

petradeasis.bsky.social•7 days ago

Moderates have good policies: e.g. women's rights. They just haven't been able to convince people the importance of them.

So, absolutely no. They shouldn't capitulate or be defensive. They should say unapologetically that they support women's rights. It is the moral & right thing to do.

petradeasis.bsky.social•7 days ago

Biden cut child poverty in half.

Old messaging: We're sorry. We could've have done better. We didn't get rid of child poverty.

New messaging: We cut child poverty in half. Did you hear that out in the back? We cut child poverty in half.

whstancil.bsky.social•7 days ago

AFFECT god ugh

dcmayo.bsky.social•7 days ago

So you're saying that to win elections, it's more important for Dem politicians to effect good affects than to affect good effects.

johncastiglione.bsky.social•7 days ago

Brilliant

humanspareparts.bsky.social•7 days ago

bars

boys-n-berry.bsky.social•7 days ago

Well, if you *really* get in the weeds about it, the existence of small-d democratic states is a policy outcome, and in that sense they do effect elections

whstancil.bsky.social•7 days ago

Lol I love this workaround

cmerlin.bsky.social•7 days ago

"effect" would have been correct since you mean they move election results.

whstancil.bsky.social•7 days ago

The thing that people can't seem to get through their heads is this:

It's not that good policy wins elections, it's not that bad policy wins elections, it's that Thing A is unrelated to Thing B. There is no correlation between the variables. The null hypothesis is correct.

realcinematik.bsky.social•7 days ago

Voters don't judge policy. They barely judge elite perception of policy. What they judge (if you can even call action without reflection a judgment) is how they personally feel about some mental collage of everything they've seen/heard/read/experienced mediated by their own biases...

realcinematik.bsky.social•7 days ago

& perception errors. There's a reason propaganda works, it supplies a mental model that allows people not to have to think about the intricacies of shit that doesn't immediately affect their everyday lives. And it's why the response must be friendly-coded propaganda, without shame or defensiveness.

realcinematik.bsky.social•7 days ago

Evil people found the cheatcode to hack voters' minds: simple, consistent, & persistent propaganda that reinforces their interests & the group dynamics among their supporters most likely to result in them voting for what the evil people want. Dem pols need to get way more comfortable propagandizing.

whstancil.bsky.social•7 days ago

sigh

kyleely.bsky.social•7 days ago

You should to pass good policy but the key to winning is marketing said policy

ridleydm.bsky.social•7 days ago

Exactly. Good policy alone doesn't win elections. Good policy wins elections if you talk about it right. You can win elections without actually enacting good policy, but it's harder and less satisfying because you have to be dishonest.

aliashandler.bsky.social•7 days ago

THANK YOU. Do WHATEVER it takes to win elections, say whatever you have to say, get aggressive, and then pursue policy when you’re in power.

jslez.bsky.social•7 days ago

I’ll buy “good policy is neither necessary nor sufficient”, but when you’re fighting for something meaningful and good you can win over the people you need who organize their communities

that is a causal connection it’s just not the naive direct one people often seem to imagine

loganb.bsky.social•7 days ago

I sort of agree in that this has been how local governance in blue has worked for decades: ignore policy, hand out money to favored interest groups, do the right press releases.

But the problem is it’s slowly killing us.

grahamiancummins.bsky.social•7 days ago

The fact that most voters don't respond to policy could offset the fact that most politicians think voters are idiots who want bad policy!

That is... unless the politicians are bastards who want bad policy and just made up a doubly false model of voter preferences to justify persuing it.

lucyksy.bsky.social•7 days ago

This sounds like a half baked idea.

antifabatman.bsky.social•7 days ago

I believe Obama had great communication with a relatively poor policy record. Biden had a phenomenal policy agenda (save for Palestine) but terrible communication. FDR was great at both, won Democrat majorities for decades after being out of power for 12 years. We need a charismatic progressive imo

reiserechner.bsky.social•7 days ago

FDR also had the south. After the civil rights act Democrats lost the south and never regained it.

goldstar971.bsky.social•7 days ago

CRA is another example of policy changing outcomes.

antifabatman.bsky.social•7 days ago

I agree, but I think there's other ways to bring back some of that constituency. A strong farmer-laborer movement that pushes rural voters against big ag and big retail may be a strategy. Also, if we could just capture Texas politics, it'd be over with the electoral college advantage Dems would have

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply