When Bill Clinton won this idea that money matters most took hold again in Democratic circles.
-
When Bill Clinton won this idea that money matters most took hold again in Democratic circles. Many people think you can simply advertise, propagandize your way to victory.
This means you don't need to make promises to advocacy groups that support unions, or help homeless people, or who fight racism. You can just get big donations.
But, having people who agree you should win and who will volunteer over it is always more powerful than money.
-
When Bill Clinton won this idea that money matters most took hold again in Democratic circles. Many people think you can simply advertise, propagandize your way to victory.
This means you don't need to make promises to advocacy groups that support unions, or help homeless people, or who fight racism. You can just get big donations.
But, having people who agree you should win and who will volunteer over it is always more powerful than money.
What is worse is when Democrats focus on raising money they change. They end up serving the people who make donations rather than the people who vote. This has destroyed their credibility with the public.
Winning isn't about having better advertisements or "triangulating the message"
The portion of the public that would naturally support democrats is allergic to triangulation. It's poison.
People are searching for authenticity in a landscape that always destroys it.
-
What is worse is when Democrats focus on raising money they change. They end up serving the people who make donations rather than the people who vote. This has destroyed their credibility with the public.
Winning isn't about having better advertisements or "triangulating the message"
The portion of the public that would naturally support democrats is allergic to triangulation. It's poison.
People are searching for authenticity in a landscape that always destroys it.
There are some people who will say "we can't fully and clearly oppose this war" or "we can't support a higher minimum wage" because then the donors will dry up.
But what is the point of winning if by the time you get there you don't even stand for much of anything anymore? Granted, I think we'd all be much safer, have a better economy and there would be less harm in the world if corporate dems were in control right now.
-
What is worse is when Democrats focus on raising money they change. They end up serving the people who make donations rather than the people who vote. This has destroyed their credibility with the public.
Winning isn't about having better advertisements or "triangulating the message"
The portion of the public that would naturally support democrats is allergic to triangulation. It's poison.
People are searching for authenticity in a landscape that always destroys it.
@futurebird I have started responding to money begs with "You have my vote but not my money... And if you change your messaging to suit those who would give you lots of money you lose my vote. If you can't win with messaging instead of blitz advertising you can't win because the other side will ALWAYS have more money than you."
-
There are some people who will say "we can't fully and clearly oppose this war" or "we can't support a higher minimum wage" because then the donors will dry up.
But what is the point of winning if by the time you get there you don't even stand for much of anything anymore? Granted, I think we'd all be much safer, have a better economy and there would be less harm in the world if corporate dems were in control right now.
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.
-
@futurebird I have started responding to money begs with "You have my vote but not my money... And if you change your messaging to suit those who would give you lots of money you lose my vote. If you can't win with messaging instead of blitz advertising you can't win because the other side will ALWAYS have more money than you."
@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.
-
@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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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 @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 @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.
"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.
-
"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.
@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.
-
"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.
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.
-
@futurebird I have started responding to money begs with "You have my vote but not my money... And if you change your messaging to suit those who would give you lots of money you lose my vote. If you can't win with messaging instead of blitz advertising you can't win because the other side will ALWAYS have more money than you."
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. -
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.
@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.
-
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.@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"
-
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.
@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) -
R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
