Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) urged her Democratic colleagues to stop attacking the "oligarchy," arguing that the word did not resonate with most Americans.
Look around: who voted Trump into office?
What thoughts voted him in?
I doubt they’re anti-capitalist.
But [wealth] is a problem
Again, many don’t share your anti-capitalist sentiments.
They’d say the problem is cronyism such as political connections & undue influence of moneyed special interests in politics.
These are not the same.
They aren’t opposed to accumulation of wealth.
They’re opposed to wealth gained through illegitimate means (eg, connections to win government bids, pass laws in their favor, capture regulatory agencies, reduce competition): economic government corruption, ie, crony capitalism.
They boil down to the same answer: get money out of politics (eliminate the dependence of campaigns on fundraising, reform lobbying) & break up the 2-party system.
If we believe wealth inequality is the source of the issue
Many think it’s a symptom: the problem is political access from wealth disadvantaging others from gaining wealth or crony capitalism.
“A presidential cabinet position shouldn’t be for sale to the highest bidder” is more direct without requiring buy-in to an idea many don’t accept.
You focus on wealth rather than that no level of wealth should be able to buy that sort of thing.
one is addressing the actual issue
Questionable: the actual issue is illegitimate power as originally stated.
Some people care more that it was gained at all: they shouldn’t have that illegitimate power through wealth or any other means (personal connections, favors, etc).
They want the cronyism removed from capitalism.
so nerfing your messaging and platform
It’s not: it’s framing the same goals in language other voters will accept.
Neither oligarch nor kings implies capitalism as you stated.
Democrats will not win on the messaging being proposed
Until Democrats build in other states the kind of establishment they have in California & New York, Democrats in other states will need to adapt their message to their voters.
Frankly, adapting a message isn’t enough.
They need to beat Republicans at social media, have their own answer to right-wing influencers & podcasters like Joe Rogan, probably pump out their own viral bullshit, answer Republican troll farms with Democrat troll farms.
“It’s not my opinion” spends the next ten paragraphs expressing that opinion
Insisting that the problem isn’t wealth accumulation, but instead “corrupt” wealth that just happens to be accumulated under capitalism is just delusion and denial.
Bernie and AOC are two of the most nationally-favorable politicians in the US, and the core message from both is “wealth inequality is the problem”.
I’ll just say it again: if democrats run their platform on “cronyism” and not wealth disparity and accumulation, they will continue losing. But don’t take my word for it - that’s what they’ve been running on.
Edit:
They need to beat Republicans at social media, have their own answer to right-wing influencers & podcasters like Joe Roga
Lmao, Ken Martin, that you? This is such a boomer take. This is like trying to claim Clinton lost in 2016 because she didn’t tweet enough or use the right young-person slang, skibidi
spends the next ten paragraphs expressing that opinion
Believe what you want.
Contrary to what some profoundly dim people believe, it is possible to write about an opinion of others & explain it to someone who isn’t getting it.
Insisting that the problem isn’t wealth accumulation
That’s one theory that isn’t widely accepted.
The voters who need to be won over don’t seem to accept it.
instead “corrupt” wealth that just happens to be accumulated
Not at all stated.
Maybe you need to read without the filter: some people think it is possible to gain wealth legitimately & to prevent government from enabling illegitimate power.
You’re looking at illegitimate power gained through wealth but not any other means, which is shortsighted.
We could make everyone poor & still let people gain illegitimate power: that wouldn’t satisfy anyone.
that’s what they’ve been running on
They haven’t.
Neither oligarchs nor kings changes the overall message.
The part of their message that’s working for AOC & Sanders isn’t necessarily income inequality: they’re also raising a populist message against elites like Musk & his fellow billionaires, their exploitation of & disruption of & threats to government programs that serve & protect the people.
The message works more broadly than you claim.
This is such a boomer take.
Right: Democrats need to try winning, but they better not try to actually win/beat the opposition at tactics they’ve proven win.
So weak.
Again, not my opinion.
Look around: who voted Trump into office? What thoughts voted him in? I doubt they’re anti-capitalist.
Again, many don’t share your anti-capitalist sentiments. They’d say the problem is cronyism such as political connections & undue influence of moneyed special interests in politics. These are not the same.
They aren’t opposed to accumulation of wealth. They’re opposed to wealth gained through illegitimate means (eg, connections to win government bids, pass laws in their favor, capture regulatory agencies, reduce competition): economic government corruption, ie, crony capitalism.
They boil down to the same answer: get money out of politics (eliminate the dependence of campaigns on fundraising, reform lobbying) & break up the 2-party system.
Many think it’s a symptom: the problem is political access from wealth disadvantaging others from gaining wealth or crony capitalism.
“A presidential cabinet position shouldn’t be for sale to the highest bidder” is more direct without requiring buy-in to an idea many don’t accept. You focus on wealth rather than that no level of wealth should be able to buy that sort of thing.
Questionable: the actual issue is illegitimate power as originally stated. Some people care more that it was gained at all: they shouldn’t have that illegitimate power through wealth or any other means (personal connections, favors, etc). They want the cronyism removed from capitalism.
It’s not: it’s framing the same goals in language other voters will accept. Neither oligarch nor kings implies capitalism as you stated.
Until Democrats build in other states the kind of establishment they have in California & New York, Democrats in other states will need to adapt their message to their voters.
Frankly, adapting a message isn’t enough. They need to beat Republicans at social media, have their own answer to right-wing influencers & podcasters like Joe Rogan, probably pump out their own viral bullshit, answer Republican troll farms with Democrat troll farms.
“It’s not my opinion”
spends the next ten paragraphs expressing that opinion
Insisting that the problem isn’t wealth accumulation, but instead “corrupt” wealth that just happens to be accumulated under capitalism is just delusion and denial.
Bernie and AOC are two of the most nationally-favorable politicians in the US, and the core message from both is “wealth inequality is the problem”.
I’ll just say it again: if democrats run their platform on “cronyism” and not wealth disparity and accumulation, they will continue losing. But don’t take my word for it - that’s what they’ve been running on.
Edit:
Lmao, Ken Martin, that you? This is such a boomer take. This is like trying to claim Clinton lost in 2016 because she didn’t tweet enough or use the right young-person slang, skibidi
Believe what you want. Contrary to what some profoundly dim people believe, it is possible to write about an opinion of others & explain it to someone who isn’t getting it.
That’s one theory that isn’t widely accepted. The voters who need to be won over don’t seem to accept it.
Not at all stated. Maybe you need to read without the filter: some people think it is possible to gain wealth legitimately & to prevent government from enabling illegitimate power.
You’re looking at illegitimate power gained through wealth but not any other means, which is shortsighted. We could make everyone poor & still let people gain illegitimate power: that wouldn’t satisfy anyone.
They haven’t. Neither oligarchs nor kings changes the overall message.
The part of their message that’s working for AOC & Sanders isn’t necessarily income inequality: they’re also raising a populist message against elites like Musk & his fellow billionaires, their exploitation of & disruption of & threats to government programs that serve & protect the people. The message works more broadly than you claim.
Right: Democrats need to try winning, but they better not try to actually win/beat the opposition at tactics they’ve proven win. So weak.