Democratic (Party) Direction

i'm also not convinced about some of those salary numbers -- how is he defining "household"? and is he giving salaries in cities like new york and san francisco equal weight to ones in poor rural regions? how does income tax figure in? it's kinda vague.

Yeah, I'm not sure about the salary numbers either -- plenty of households still struggle on an income of $60,000 a year. The article gets it right that those people don't receive any government assistance, but that's just where the problem lies -- they end up too well off to get assistance but still unable to afford their debt and medical bills.

or hollywood actor

the article suggested that the dividing line between affluent and poor was $50K per household, but for a married couple where both spouses work that only comes out to $25K per person, which isn't much once you figure in the high cost of living in america. plus, the article doesn't say who in these salary ranges pay for their own insurance and retirement funds.

read: "we won't send your existing jobs to india."

it could happen, provided the elected politicians don't have any vested corporate interests. and monkeys might fly etc.

hahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hohohohoHOHOHOHOHOHOOH
heheheheheHEHEHEHEEEHEHEEEHEEHAHAHAHAHAHASNORTSNORTSNORT!

sorry

Er wait, am I talking about Americans, or ILXors?

it is funny how many "affluent" "property owners" are up to their necks in mortgages and high-interest loans. it's like that commercial where the rich white suburban lawnmower dude says "i'm in debt up to my eyeballs!"

In the vast swaths of country between the megapolises there are people raising families of 5 on $57,000 a year and doing it relatively painlessly. And yeah, economic issues don't mean a goddamned thing to them.

Wow, what an incredible insight. Very novel!

"Environics found social values moving away from the authority end of the scale, with its emphasis on responsibility, duty, and tradition, to a more atomized, rage-filled outlook that values consumption, sexual permissiveness, and xenophobia. The trend was toward values in the individuality quadrant."

I've long thought that if the Democratic party would focus their message on individualism (and the resulting freedom it implies) that they might get somewhere.

Today’s average American “worker” is, in short, very much on his or her own -- too prosperous to be eligible for most government assistance programs and, because of job laws that date back three quarters of a century, unable to unionize. Such isolation and atomization have not led to a new wave of social solidarity and economic populism, however. Instead, these changes have bred resentment toward those who do have outside aid, whether from government or from unions, and an escalating ethos of every man for himself. Against that ethos, voters have increasingly flocked to politicians who recognize that the combination of relative affluence and relative isolation has created an opening for cultural appeals.

"Every man for himself" has been an American credo for hundreds of years. It's the essence of competition, of capitalism, of industry. There's a bridge somewhere between individualism and community--is the Democratic party forcing people over a bridge or seeking one?

American voters have taken shelter under the various wings of conservative traditionalism because there has been no one on the Democratic side in recent years to defend traditional, sensible middle-class values against the onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows.

Maybe they're taking shelter because they don't think it's an economy that's pitting man against man, it's shelter from the resulting culture war. What are "traditional, sensible middle-class values" anyway? The only hint we get from this article is that candidates should talk about religion and that will mitigate their stance on the death penalty (in Virginia.)

I am happy to see the wasteland that is the Democratic Party looking inward. The Republicans wouldn't dare stare into their own dark abyss.

As for the "average American household" that makes $60K a year, it would have been more informative to see the median income, because the average is skewed upwards by those at the top of the scale - ie., less than 50% of Americans make the "average" income.

Lakoff's extensively written about the need for Democratic candidates and progressives in general to start explicitly talking about values. Also, for campaigns to work at creating more of an overall narrative for a candidate than just a laundry list of policies. It's only his work on the framing aspect that's received attention lately, not so much his work on defining the values systems that right/left folks tend to hold(e.g. "maintaining authority" vs "care & responsibility").

He's offered up Schwarzneggar's campaign as an example of a guy who ran entirely on narrative & perceived identity, and expressively refused to offer up any policy suggestions. Most folks don't have the time/energy/inclination to get into policy specifics, but if they trust your guy, they're trust him to take care of the details.

As he says,

"The pollsters didn’t understand it because they thought that people voted on the issues and on self-interest. Well, sometimes they do. But mostly they vote on their identity -- on persons that they trust to be like them, or to be like people they admire"

which connects to that aspirational bit that the article mentions.

Jim Wallis has talked about several of these same issues over the last year as well, especially with on the whole "onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows" bit.

Wallis has written about conversations his group has had with Frank Luntz and some other Repub pollsters who were quite open about their m.o. being to get voters so caught in such intense issues that they vote against their economic interest.

As other folks have pointed out, the Republicans have been better that bring the polls to them(gay marriage is the biggest thing you care about) vs the Democrats moving to where the polls now seem to be(well i guess we need to move rightward on gay marriage).

That's the thing, innit? If you build up an entire apparatus to both promote & reinforce certain narratives, people will believe them even if they have no basis in fact. George W. Bush is steadfast & strong, Kerry's a weak-willed flip-flopper, Republicans are all about a smaller government, supply-side economics works, etc

oh fuck yeah this is a major bit of it, too. But since when did we start promoting self-reflection and critical thought?

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

xpost

Please God, take Hilary quietly so she won't fuck up the party with a presidential campaign. WORST POSSIBLE CANDIDATE EVER.

Huh? He's only been going this stuff in the press for about two years. Second, there are plenty of other folks who have made the connection, but have gotten shit for coverage(not fitting in with "religious = rightwing conservative" media narrative?), even when they got arrested for it on the Capitol steps.

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

DLC-candidate-in-centrist-message shocker

very much otm. The change will come from the outside.

Re the direction of the party, past actions indicate the party will be quicker to line up behind someone with Clinton's politics as opposed to Tasini's. I'm not too hopeful when it comes to the future of the Dems.

do you think it's necessary for dems to use the religious right's language ("morals" and "values")? would a less-loaded word like "ethics" skew too liberal?

my question is, when do they not? unless a voter has completely descended into some cynical nihilism, of course.

i mean, yeah, "values" has come to signify a very specific set of values, which just goes to further show that democratic types do need to start talking about theirs.

(of course, the email goes on to ask me for money)

the groundbreaking idea of a communication that does not eventually ask for money - even just to build trust for a later communication! - has yet to occur to them

lol

mom, dad -- i know i'm always asking for money. this isn't that.

Anyone following this?

https://newjerseymonitor.com/briefs/nj-special-election-results/

there’s discussion on the February US pol thread

Meanwhile my local county party is being absolutely ba na nas. They sent out a kind of genuinely shocking press release saying that the party was retracting their endorsement of Gov Hochul because of her Lt Gov pick being Adrienne Adams?! And then today another one saying it's back on??? No one seems to know wtf is happening but it's definitely a one woman show and that woman is Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn and that is a huge problem.

prob better to dis Newsom here

Ahhhhh‬
✧@nerd✧✧✧.c✧✧‬
· 1m
My anti Trump candidate loves billionaires hates the homeless and is pals with Ben Shapiro. Now you might think this is weird but actually it’s completely normal

Newsom seems like a guy who probably has a lot of ugly stuff people can leak about him. I guess we’ll find out.

People already know he was married to Kimberly Gargoyle.

They are both fucking aliens and psychos so it makes a lot of sense

Data journalist G. Elliott Morris polls perceptions of Democrats and Republicans and finds that "Democrats' real problem isn't being too liberal — it's being seen as too weak." And that "being seen as strong gains Democrats more than moderating."

https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/new-poll-democrats-real-problem-isnt

yeah but in order for the dems to look strong theyd have to stand for the things they claim to and theyd rather not

this is why we say they dont care about winning

i think a significant number of dem politicians and strategists have internalized the framing that "strong" = "right wing"

what was that joke about liberals won’t even defend their own side in an argument

sure its convenient for their ability to keep cashing checks from billionaires megacorps and so forth

I think a lot of Democrats are wishy-washy or reluctant to take a stand not necessarily because of their own personal inclinations -- but because they listen to consultants who have made them afraid of taking a position that is out of step with the median voter. What Morris finds is that this reluctance hurts them more than getting out of step would. I can only hope Dems take this to heart and feel more emboldened.

these people are really not secretly holding the same politics as you

they are in fact willing to take unpopular stands, its just for things like supporting genocide

lol exactly when democrats get emboldened they do things like "end welfare as we know it"

"they listen to consultants" is doing a lot of work here

who are these consultants? oh, you know

the solution is simple you just gotta replace em all or at least enough of them to make the rest scared

then you can bring in new consultants who dont have google docs for brains

yeah idk I really don't think that Democratic politicians as a class are all evil or amoral or whatever. they're just people, and I believe that most of them went into politics with a desire to improve things and help other Americans, even if there are bad incentives that often get in the way of actually accomplishing those goals.

thats fine doest say anything at all about the politics tho

jaymc, I think mh makes a good point if you really think these consultants are to blame: who are they? why are their politics uniformly centrist/right-wing? why do Democrats continue to pay for their services if they aren't effective?

i honestly have no idea what the point of pondering politicians souls is, we have their records we know what theyve done at their jobs, sure maybe theyre nice but have just done great evil because of circumstances, theyre gonna have to tell it to their priests its none of my business

full disclosure I have friends/acquaintances who have worked for super pacs, went to college with a guy who is a vp at ngp van, and was in the wedding party for someone who was a lobbyist for the political wing of pp among other orgs and oh boy the stories

i knew some dem party people congressional staffers and so forth friends of friends when i lived in ny, they werent that cool, which is not to say you couldnt do that work and be cool, in fact there are some very cool electeds in the dem party even, just not enough

I think I have a hard time with discussions like these because of the way "Democrats" are talked about as a monolith with an inexorable set of traits rather than as individuals making a variety of good and decisions.

Obviously, people have perceptions of the party as a whole, as shown by the poll I posted, but I don't think that those perceptions necessarily reflect something is core to who Democrats are as people, or that it is impossible to change those perceptions.

the reason people talk about them like that is because its an institution not just a bunch of random guys

yeah they're either something or nothing at all

obviously someone running as a democrat in Illinois is going to have different interests than a democrat running in Nevada but the differentiation between local and national levels is jacked up in the public eye due to the near-death of local media and reliance on polling that's on top of that. you really do need people going door to door and not polls

jaymc, I think mh makes a good point if you really think these consultants are to blame: who are they? why are their politics uniformly centrist/right-wing? why do Democrats continue to pay for their services if they aren't effective?

I am not sure what mh's point is. I am thinking of people like the folks at Third Way. I think telling Dems to become more centrist is more marketable than telling Dems to go further left because there is an overwhelming fear among Dem politicians that they are out of touch with Real Americans, who are by their own definition conservatives in the heartland. I don't know why they continue paying for their services, except that maybe there are always new issues to take moderate stances toward.

If the point is to say, it's not the consultants, it's the politicians themselves, then okay, sure: I agree that many Democratic politicians personally have these instincts. I also agree that we need to vote out ineffective Dems and replace them with better ones. I guess where I get hung up is the idea that they are ineffective *because* they are Democratic politicians. If the Democratic Party is an institution that has a stranglehold over how its members think, then wouldn't replacing the members with new ones mean that the new ones would also become ineffective?

I thought mh's point was that consultants are mostly go-betweens for billionaires and/or corporate interests. So lagoon saying Dems are bought and paid for by billionaires & monopoly capitl is functionally the same thing as saying their problem is they listen to consultants — it's a distinction without a difference. Apologies to mh if I've got that wrong

point-by-point here:

It's not consultants or politicians, it's both in lockstep. Policy doesn't appear out of thin air, nor do politicians draft policy on their own.

They're not ineffective because they're democrats, they're ineffective because they do not have a strong set of goals that are presented as a cohesive platform, when the consultancy class should be delivering exactly that! The Democratic Party does not have a stranglehold over how members think, but I think the lack of vision is in part an inability to articulate those goals in a way that doesn't step on the toes of the public-private partnerships that third way-style politics have entrenched into the system.

that's right

yeah good post, thanks for clarifying mh

If the Democratic Party is an institution that has a stranglehold over how its members think, then wouldn't replacing the members with new ones mean that the new ones would also become ineffective?

― jaymc, Friday, February 27, 2026 11:03 AM (fourteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

its an interesting question, obviously there are huge headwinds to making a better party, which is why id love if all these up and coming progressive politicians built a movement that includes a platform explicitly about changing the party, where now theyre all just kinda doing lone wolf shit, absent that electeds are big power center in the party so replacing them with better politicians would still make a big difference

rob's got part of it, but the other piece is that there's a feedback loop where a number of people who run for office as democrats unsuccessfully are coming from the same orgs that are getting repeatedly beaten down in republican-dominated states. It's hard to run an enthusiastic campaign when you've spent a long time perpetually failing to influence policy

fwiw I'm typing this from a state that went for Trump three times after having gone for the winner of the presidential race in every election since Reagan, including Obama twice

no one can deny that missouri, the show-me-state, is the belwether state for national presidential elections. you see,

Since 1904, Missouri has voted for the eventual winner of the presidential election with only four exceptions: 1956, 2008, 2012, and 2020, although the popular vote winner failed the win the electoral vote in 2000 and 2016. Missouri was historically viewed as a bellwether state...

hold the phone, i see now that

...but the consecutive votes against the winning candidate in 2008 and 2012 introduced doubts about its continued status as a bellwether, and an 18.5-point Republican victory in 2016 indicated that it had become a safe red state.

*eats dirt*

shit sucks, man

obviously there are huge headwinds to making a better party, which is why id love if all these up and coming progressive politicians built a movement that includes a platform explicitly about changing the party

wait but this exact thing — an organized and coherent progressive movement with clear goals and effective leadership — is what I was told was impossible and crazy on the Newsom thread yesterday.

Anyway, yes! I agree.

i cant speak for the newsom thread but i think progressives should give working together a try

I was just reading an article written by a sex worker in Nevada and it included this passage

She correctly predicted that wouldn’t happen for me yet, that the economy had tanked—something I’ve learned, by talking to finance friends, that sex workers see coming nearly as well as traders.

I started picturing one of the scolds who kept saying “the economy is good, actually” during the election encountering this and short circuiting and laughed

The Democrats should fire the consultants and hire a bunch of Sex Workers.
Oh, wait...

I regret to inform you that the sex worker who wrote the article was one of several who was illegally fired for unionizing some time after the article was written

so many signs of our times converging

joe biden spoke tonight at the 6th anniversary of his south carolina primary “win”