Edit: new and improved image, now with 100% less support! Used my expert photo editing skills to change "supporting" to say "voting for"
this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2024
926 points (90.9% liked)
Political Memes
5483 readers
3167 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Can you please list something he actually did rather than "try"? Because otherwise people should just "try" to vote for him.
The only thing I remember is breaking the back of the railroad strike (most pro union president btw).
I listed two already and others have listed more, but I'll take your comment as if it's in good faith anyway and link to:
more information about the Inflation Reduction Act
Which is both a huge investment in infrastructure and climate initiatives and also pretty poorly understood by most people.
And to make a bigger point: on the left we have an intrinsically harder job than the right does, since their argument is that government sucks and then they prove it by working in it and doing a shitty job.
It's hard for government programs to work effectively, even when they have huge popular support. People with money and power always want them to fail. It means our results sometimes aren't pretty, and aren't perfect. But if even we shit all over them at every possible turn, how do you expect average voters to think any different?
This sentence represents the DNC's approach to politics so well and why they fail to connect with many voters. They approach politics inversely, coming up with policy and trying to invent/convince a politics around it, so they need a brand to sell their policy basically which Obama was so perfect at. You see this with the former Obama staffers Pod Save guys a lot. They constantly plead with their audience to realize why something like public healthcare isn't a realistic policy, or why some policy that connects with very few is actually the best thing for you. This is also just the general DNC-sympathetic approach in the media coverage, "here's why, despite you struggling with increased economic uncertainty and material stresses as a result of our decaying economic system, your life is actually better because of Biden and the DNC."
Inversely you have the GOP who shamelessly accept any and all public politics to the point of absurdity. Trump is like the inverse-Obama where instead of a political brand selling policy, he's parroting back the politics that people present him with as if it was a "yes, and" improv exercise. And they effectively take that public fear approach towards Trump from the Democrat-sympathetic media and flip it around, "your life didn't significantly change under Trump despite this insane reaction to him," which for many Trump supporters actually connects.
So average voters, they don't care about policy or some political argument, most American's aren't engaged in politics at the online level. They vote based on how much they personally connect with a politician or by circumstance. The DNC fails to approach politics this way and desperately wants to find more Obamas to perform the function they require for their approach to work, vs the GOP who offer up anything no matter how ridiculous or absurd and contradictory.
I agree with you that the DNC, and lots of democrats, are often terrible at messaging.
I'd quibble with your framing about some of these things not connecting with average voters, but I'd rather take a step back a bit.
I guess my main idea is: If we care about the project of government being involved in people's lives in a helpful way, we owe it to people who are less privileged than us to walk and also chew gum here. We, the people who have time and resources to research this stuff and debate instead of picking up a second job to make ends meet.
Maybe you don't have time for this shit. I don't blame or judge you if that's the case. I'm speaking to the terminally online people who have time to worry about this stuff.
And when I say "walk and chew gum" I mean:
Vote in the primary against shitty centrist dems when you can,
Vote for them over their fascist opponent if they win the primary anyway.
Have conversations about solutions that are simple and straightforwardly helpful to people's lives to help broaden that Overton window. Including criticizing the DNC when they fail to offer those.
Do the DNC's job for them on communication about the helpful policies we do get. Because we have gotten some. Positive conversations about government programs that are currently being implemented are not happening enough.
They do take time to implement, and they're not enough, and on and on. I agree with the negative sentiment about it. [Edited out some unhelpful whining here] That said, there's too much work to do for the problems with the DNC to be the whole conversation. If you don't support fascism, we're on the same side.