Biggest problem with Dem leadership and the consultant class and people with influence? They’re control freaks who insist on top down messaging that is optimized for safety.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Respectfully. Have you ever run a campaign? Worked with top Dem consultants? Because popping off like this makes it seem like you have no idea what you are talking about.
It's a difference between legislation and leadership. One is technical and detail oriented, the other is half showing up and being able to think quickly. We don't need to break down the technical nuance of every message, we need leaders to show up and be loud.
look, if they aren’t careful and precise in their language they could lose congress, the presidency and the supreme court and we wouldn’t want that to happen now would we
Weird. Since Dem leadership has been speaking very clearly for years about Trump. They also gave working orders to legislators to do scheduled town halls etc all spring. None of it is top down
You don’t understand that? They didn’t give orders to us. They told the reps to get out and talk to the voters. That’s actually the opposite of top down
Yes “they” gave orders from the party (top) to reps (down) to have town halls.
That is definitionally leading from the top down.
Bottom up would be letting reps do what works best for them, their constituents, and their district instead of ordering them to do something from on high
Where did they tell anyone what to say? No where. By telling them to spend recess time holding town halls is not some complicated task. It’s planning. Just like republicans are “planning” to avoid Townhalls. And leadership ARE equal to all the reps. I mean 1st graders know what leadership is
You dumb fuck. I’m a 70 year old grandma that has fought more battles than you have teeth. I also understand governing. As do most 15 year olds with a basic government class. Social media is not real life.
Please explain to me how “they gave orders” but “it wasn’t top down.” Try to do it without rage, if possible.
Also- no, 70 yr olds don’t understand this moment. You don’t either. You learned everything last century, and then stopped learning because that happens to everyone as they age.
You really need a new line. Boomer is sooo 2016. And if you think you don’t “learn” every day of your life.. you come from a really ignorant family. And you haven’t seen rage.. you’re not worth rage. You don’t even comprehend basic structure.. let alone complex logic. I mean look at yourself
I think you need to reread the thread. OP is talking about you, somewhat. It’s time to stop trying to control, and let go for the next generation to take over.
FWIW decline in aging is medical certainty, and is irreversible. It’s not personal. Yes we do stop learning, because that’s part of aging.
I work in Dem politics. If you think that’s what’s happening I guess your cheerleading is good but there’s no point in pretending there aren’t big asymmetries from where I sit
Corollary: The biggest problem with Dem leadership and the consultant class and people with influence is their messaging is absolutely clueless, ineffective, and simply bad.
Our leaders need to project a coherent, aligned and believable plan for public to rally support. GOP did so with P25 (it seems).
Offering better ideas is not a heavy lift -- use media more effectively, be timely in response to events, align talk points, stiffen resolve with solutions. #makeaplan
The absolute worst thing about national Democratic leadership playing games with “MAGA Republicans” and “good ones” is that they set that top -down message and then did nothing to help down ballot candidates tell voters which one they were running against.
They're a country club and retirement program for out-of-touch geriatrics. They gave a committee chair to an old man dying of cancer rather than to a young woman who is mildly critical of them sometimes.
It's even more embarrassing (assuming they want to win), because this outcome has been predicted for decades by activists and historians tracking the path of society as we continued privatizing things, empowering the police state, engaging in austerity policies, and more.
They try to stand for everyone and everything and come across as standing for nothing. I'm a moderate guy who's voted R in the before times. I don't agree with the AOC girl in NYC on a lot of policies but she is a fighter I would fight alongside.
Generations of ivory-tower entitlement and neo liberal sucking off the tit of the big donors?
They've grown sleek on big dinners and reelection funds and are terrified of the working class because if they back them and raise taxes then their sugar daddies might take all that away.
No. The biggest problem with Dem leadership is that they have gutted international and national law by unconditionally supporting a country that has extensively violated both for 70 years.
Now that other administrations are using that playbook on them, they have no ammunition to protest.
This, like 10000x, especially the “optimized for safety” part. Bunch of fucking cowards who have no interest in actually leading or, you know, changing people’s minds.
Yes, specifically the safety of the Dem leadership and consultant class. They need to resign and apologize to Bernie, Warren, AOC and the rest of the progressives who tried to save them from their own greed.
Bernie Sanders is outreach chair for the democratic party. Elizabeth Warren is the Vice Chair of Conference. These people literally have leadership positions.
Corporate slavery from an inflated cost of living isn’t a conspiracy, it’s just good business protected by the billionaire owned corporate media that benefits most from a desperate population.
Indeed. So we should stop pretending the Wall St. billionaires that own it are going to tell the truth or meet us in the middle when we kiss their asses and pray for Fascism Lite.
And yet she somehow managed to stop trading stocks long enough to knife AOC in the back when she tried to get some actual oversight power over this malignant administration.
Her and the rest of the “middle of the road corporate liberals” are the Boomer Neville Chamberlain’s of Democracy.
The Dems have a money problem; too much from millionaires. High spenders win 90% of primaries. 80+% of that $$ comes from the rich. They won't be *economically* populist because they were carefully chosen (by donation) not to believe in that. We get cultural symbolism and a $7.25 min wage.
And then these people genuinely wonder why they’d being beaten by Republicans who tell their consultants to just try shit and see what works. And they don’t micromanage.
Dems hire political operatives to make media properties and have no idea why they don’t work. There’s a generation of political donor advisors who’d rather work with political operatives who don’t know what they’re doing than media people who might tell them they’re wrong
Give me a fucking break. Let me guess, you got this opinion from YouTube or TikTok. It’s the new one propagandists are pulling.
Focus on the media. Don’t think of what’s real. It’s all the democrats fault. Let’s keep fighting each other because the algorithms told us so. evil dem funded operatives🙄
I think that's a really bad faith framing of their argument. Whether you like it or not, these can be valid critiques of democrats without it being a media pushed psyop.
What you have to grapple with is that you seem to think this level of democrat action is sufficient, others disagree.
Except it is. It started about 2 days ago. Exact same.
What you have to grapple with is the fact that you’re just as targeted and easily manipulated as anyone else, along with the fact that you can’t read my mind and you have no idea what I have to grapple with.
It doesn't make sense as a way to run a political party and win elections, but as a way to run a machine to funnel in lobbyist cash regardless of who is in power it seems more than adequate.
It essentially functions as an extension of the culture of 'the groups' — reliant on philanthropy, forced by it to use stilted messaging while surrendering strategic flexibility, and rendered unable to innovate because the need to humor donors takes precedence over finding an serving an audience.
I don’t know. I think some of them fear that they might be irrelevant and want to save their own jobs so when they encounter something they don’t know they freak out. And none of them like real experimentation where you can’t approve every message before it goes out
It’s true that the most off-the-cuff Dems (AOC, Crockett, Sanders) are the most charismatic, most popular, and also the most sidelined by their own party. the top of the party seems to strangle their messaging until it’s barely coherent
I think (as a Canadian outsider) that the right’s internal incentive structure boils down to “winning makes problems go away”. The left (including here in Canada) puts more value in virtue. Virtue means different things to different groups. Dems (and our left) try to satisfy too many people at once.
The one issue where the Republican base trumped the Republican elites was immigration. I think the argument for Bernie/AOC is that if you go full progressive on economics (M4A, tax hikes on top 30%, etc.), then voters won't care about culture war stuff -- but I'm skeptical that will work.
-Primary challenges (younger, more dynamic candidates can defeat incumbents)
-Pressure from donors/grassroots (stop funding the old guard)
-Leadership rule changes (prioritize effectiveness over seniority)
-Retirement incentives (give them advisory roles).
Jasmine Crockett literally has a leadership role. I don’t think the house leaders are the literal oldest people in the party.
People keep trying to primary this fucking 80-year-old guy representing Chicago and they lose. He wins 60% of vote every time. And then he wins 80% of the general.
one of my old bosses literally sent my team a more extreme version of the Musk "5 things" email (for reasons too myriad to recount here). but, yeah. especially in a managerial or "powerful" role, control over efficacy is literally like the number one reason to start consulting the DSM-5.
Do they really fund anything progressive? Normally the stuff funded by Democratic donors leans neoliberal, for the same reason MSNBC rarely talks about raising taxes on the rich.
I think that if there's any cause it's that there's a class of concern troll operatives who do well in the press, and are hired unknown to them, or known to them by donors to inject into liberal politics. And it ends up being the perfect kind of poison for the center-left coalitions
Having done a huge chunk of work in education and watching ed reform swallow up people, and then watching the same exact gop donors when the ed issue was lost to them after Devos start to fund dem majority for israel, back Sinema, Adams, etc.
Your have to admit though that part of this disparity is a mainstream press that is more inclined to make Democrats pay for their mistakes than Republicans
Do you mean consultants who make ads? Or does that include messaging experts who tell volunteers how to talk to undecided voters? And there are different views on what to write on a postcard, etc.
They’re acting like we are still operating under a governing system that simply doesn’t exist anymore. I’ve been a big Pelosi fan & think she’s been one of the most influential members of congress. However, she’s in denial right now w/ encouraging members to hold the line and play by outdated rules
see hakeem. they dont let anyone just yell and tell it straight. they sound like POLITICIANS and thats why trump won. he speaks like any other asshole. FFS STOP SAYING 'THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'!!!!
The Democrats—except the handful of progressives—are neoliberal conservatives who agree with most of the things the right wing is doing, have helped moved thugs along & attack any leftists who are actually trying to stop this https://bsky.app/profile/murshedz.bsky.social/post/3lj6lccrru22y
Sure. The Democrats and Republicans are the same. AOC and JD Vance are pretty much the same person. Black is White. Up is Down. Makes perfect sense. Only big brain people like you can see this obvious truth.
You’re just trolling. I didn’t say they’re the same. you tell me why Hakeem Jeffries —on the weekend musk began taking over—rushing to Silicon Valley to get cash from spacex. And btw, Dem leaders are doing more to stop Aoc than they are Republican takeover. DNC messagers are attacking sanders.
I think it’s more that they’re being funded, work for the donors to the same people Dem leaders do. They seem basically fine w/most Trump stuff, it’s hard to believe they could be this pathetic accidentally
They’ve been attacking their own voters, mainly progressives. That’s what their concern is
Comments
Instead, they go with sanitized bullshit.
We vote for politicians, but it's the consultants who rule.
> they also gave orders
How exactly is giving orders not top down?
That is definitionally leading from the top down.
Bottom up would be letting reps do what works best for them, their constituents, and their district instead of ordering them to do something from on high
When did Schumer ever call the orange fascist a fascist?
Paige's premise: "Dem leadership has been speaking very clearly for years about Trump." is COMPLETELY WRONG.
The exact opposite is true. and that's the fucking problem.
—
This dem social media staffer is confused.
Please explain to me how “they gave orders” but “it wasn’t top down.” Try to do it without rage, if possible.
Also- no, 70 yr olds don’t understand this moment. You don’t either. You learned everything last century, and then stopped learning because that happens to everyone as they age.
FWIW decline in aging is medical certainty, and is irreversible. It’s not personal. Yes we do stop learning, because that’s part of aging.
Offering better ideas is not a heavy lift -- use media more effectively, be timely in response to events, align talk points, stiffen resolve with solutions. #makeaplan
Permission structures.
Losing twice to a fascist like Trump has been a historic disgrace.
Are we playing the no sequitur game, because I think I'm winning.
Jeffries is young and just as useless as Nancy ever was.
Hint: because they can control where the money goes- to their families, friends, donors, biz partners, etc.
They don’t want a competitive marketplace for vendors, because that cuts off one of their income streams.
They've grown sleek on big dinners and reelection funds and are terrified of the working class because if they back them and raise taxes then their sugar daddies might take all that away.
https://youtu.be/OnqmHlBWheU?si=8V4qz0QPCnp75hWw
Now that other administrations are using that playbook on them, they have no ammunition to protest.
Her and the rest of the “middle of the road corporate liberals” are the Boomer Neville Chamberlain’s of Democracy.
Focus on the media. Don’t think of what’s real. It’s all the democrats fault. Let’s keep fighting each other because the algorithms told us so. evil dem funded operatives🙄
What you have to grapple with is that you seem to think this level of democrat action is sufficient, others disagree.
What you have to grapple with is the fact that you’re just as targeted and easily manipulated as anyone else, along with the fact that you can’t read my mind and you have no idea what I have to grapple with.
This criticism has always existed. That it only just reached your little blue bubble says a lot more about you and your ignorance.
-Primary challenges (younger, more dynamic candidates can defeat incumbents)
-Pressure from donors/grassroots (stop funding the old guard)
-Leadership rule changes (prioritize effectiveness over seniority)
-Retirement incentives (give them advisory roles).
People keep trying to primary this fucking 80-year-old guy representing Chicago and they lose. He wins 60% of vote every time. And then he wins 80% of the general.
It's all fake as hell, and no one likes it when people talk like a textbook.
They’ve been attacking their own voters, mainly progressives. That’s what their concern is