When Bill Clinton won this idea that money matters most took hold again in Democratic circles.

[futurebird@sauropods.win]

It WOULD be better. But I can't get mad at people for not rushing out to join these clowns in a chant of "Better things ARE NOT possible!"

I don't want to live like that.

The very few dems who don't see this gap as a crisis are the ones we need. "I don't want your $20 can you come to this meeting? Can you make this phone call? Can you help?" That's the one we want.

[tshirtman@mas.to]

@epilonious @futurebird dems had ungodly amounts of money in 2024, and didn't know what to do with it, arguably they grossly outspent trump, and still lost (even the popular vote). They need to unlearn the 90s lesson, obama probably didn't win because of money, but better messaging and organisation/outreach. They know they lost on messaging in 2024 (nothing to do differently, really? Starts with a G maybe?) but won't admit it.

[futurebird@sauropods.win]

@tshirtman @epilonious

Obama made those potlucks. Remember that? He had a website and you could find a potluck to go to in any part of the country. Show up and eat food! Meet your neighbors and catch up and talk about how things could be better, what to do next.

Having such a charismatic leader and national coordination of those kinds of meetings was lightening in a bottle.

[futurebird@sauropods.win]

@tshirtman @epilonious

But then the people in those potlucks started saying things like "well maybe taxes could be higher on rich people" and "why do we spend so much on war and not schools?"

And they shut it all down. Obama shut it down, to be clear, he took a big step back from the grass-roots "community organizers" who admired him and joined hands with the weapons manufactures and chamber of commerce.

And to be fair to him, I think there was a kind of pragmatism about it.

[futurebird@sauropods.win]

@tshirtman @epilonious

Americans are scared of the *word* socialism but not for ideological reasons. The ideas are very popular and that scares some people who would have less power and wealth if such ideas were attempted to death.

And these people do have real power. If Obama had not shut it all down it would have been the start of a real fight. A very dirty and long fight.

I think Obama thought compromise was the best that could be done. He was wrong. We need to fight it all out.

[tshirtman@mas.to]

@futurebird @epilonious i could only see from the other side of the pond, but i know there ws a lot of work about identifying voters and how to reach them, including inovative tech solutions (that are normal now), but really, thinking hard beats throwing money at the problem any day, arguably the dem consulting apparatus makes them *less* likable these days.

[futurebird@sauropods.win]

@tshirtman @epilonious

"including inovative tech solutions (that are normal now)"

That's the odd thing. Only Mamdani has done similar outreach since then. What I'm talking about is really organizing people and *involving* them. Giving people places and the chance to share their ideas then work in small groups to make it happen.

Democrats want to win the war with the airforce alone, no boots on the ground ... to make a terrible but I think accurate metaphor.

[tshirtman@mas.to]

@futurebird @epilonious i think it's a very apt metaphore, actually, boots on the ground is messy, but can't win the war without that.

[futurebird@sauropods.win]

@tshirtman @epilonious

Because if you have meetings a teacher, like me, might show up and say "if our school could hire more support staff and teachers we could do a better job" and someone else might say "well if we raise this tax by that much we can do that, seems worth it."

And then they all go out and want to do this and now you have communism and Jesus is DEAD.

[lienrag@mastodon.tedomum.net]

@epilonious

Even to Sanders/Mamdani/the Squad ?
I believe that all the "money first" people do not belong in a party that has "Democratic" in its name, if it takes the name seriously, but even "democracy first" people need money to do politics.

@futurebird

[msh@coales.co]

@futurebird the root of so many problems in American politics is that corporations have rights like people have rights

Corporations should have no rights whatsoever. They should only have revocable privileges. It was never the intention to bestow personhood on a business entity when the idea of incorporation was conceived of. Corporations way back in the Days of Yore used to be much more restricted and had to abide by a charter that took significant effort to change once established.

Now in the US corporations are treated as people are...better than people really. If the "speech" of a corporation is curtailed there is much hand wringing about violation of free speech, and this extends to corporate funding and general participation in politics. This is an affront to democracy and against the principles of a free society.

The Democrats MUST come to this realisation. They must put people above corporations at any and all cost to truly succeed.

[epilonious@toot.lgbt]

@lienrag @futurebird I mean, I may give money in the future... But I tend to give it to people who are Very New. All the people who are begging me are incumbents whining about marketing dissonance and I'm like "You're already there and have a good track record and people like you. Let this be one of those dis-spiriting moments where spending a million billion dollars didn't win them an election because gross"

[ophis@brain.worm.pink]

@futurebird
> "I don't want your $20 can you come to this meeting? Can you make this phone call? Can you help?" That's the one we want.

this asking for help itself is a way to reach out

getting people to take part and be part of something

money is fire and forget as a matter of design and principle ("wherever you store your treasure there is your heart also" having its limits)