this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
26 points (71.7% liked)

Political Weirdos

729 readers
103 users here now

A community dedicated to the weirdest people involved in politics.

founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
26
What the hell is wrong with John Favreau? (lemmy.world)
submitted 17 hours ago by FlyingSquid@lemmy.world to c/political_weirdos@lemmy.world
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JaymesRS 17 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

The way I read this is there’s nuance in the messaging of (as one example) “Gender Affirming Surgery for All Who Want Them!” and “All People Deserve to Get the Care That it’s Determined They Need by a Medical Professional!”

The first one is unpopular with the general population because it’s different and scary. Similar to the time before the Civil Rights Act was passed Civil Rights for black Americans was incredibly unpopular because the general populace is stupid. There are many messages like that, Pete Buttigieg’s “Medicare for All Who Want It” when he was running was the same thing. People are afraid if you tell them you’re taking away their insurance, but make it an option and an attractive one at that and you’ll get converts.

Sometimes massaging the messaging to de-center positions that are “scary”, is better in the long run to get the people elected that can actually bring about the change. This isn’t about throwing any group under the bus.

[–] oyo@lemm.ee 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Except they never said either of those things. The Republicans lied and repeated the lies non-stop until the dumbasses believed the Democrats' agenda was entirely about putting migrant trans criminals in their girls' bathrooms. It's fucking lies all the way down.

[–] JaymesRS 1 points 35 minutes ago

Yes, my hypothetical example to written to serve a specific point in my comment was not something anyone said, that’s usually how hypotheticals work.

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 10 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

I'm not entirely sure what about this you have a problem with?

On its face, the statement seems reasonable.

What am I missing?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

That's exactly what Democrats did. They decided to not listen to a bunch of groups suggesting they do things like take a strong stance against Israel because they thought that's not what the electoral majority wanted and they thought they would lose if they didn't. It didn't work out for them.

Note, I am the opposite of one of those "Kamala lost because of Israel and it's 100% here fault" people, I think there is lots of blame to go around, both from her and the Democrats, but also from people who told others not to vote for her because of Israel or people who just sat out the election. I even feel like I'm at fault for not doing more to get others to vote for her.

But they still made a really stupid move because they thought it's what the electoral majority wanted (i.e. continuing to slide rightward with their policies) rather than figure out that has not worked for them over and over.

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 1 points 11 minutes ago

I see. I think you are applying specific definition to what Favreau means by "the electoral majority" when that is a fairly abstract, undefined thing. I think the more generous interpretation is that we need to figure out what that electoral majority (for Democrats) actually is through research, and then apply the logic Favreau is putting forward.

The electorate is everyone. Not just current active voters. The Democrats tried to go after the current, active voting majority and failed, while leaving a huge number of potential voters on the table.

It's even possible Favreau is specifically saying the Democrats DIDN'T go after the electoral majority because they were influenced unduly by special interests to go after the centrists when they could have been going after the people who didn't vote at all (for whatever reason)

I guess I'm saying your reading of Favreau's post may carry some of your own biases towards what you think went wrong and what his choice of words means to you.

Do you think that's possible?

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago

All I see here is Mehdi Hassan being right and Favreau agreeing 🤷

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 9 points 14 hours ago

Depending on who he means when he says "electoral majority" I don't see a problem with what he said. It sounds to me like he's agreeing with Hasan.

[–] sunshine@lemmy.ml 7 points 15 hours ago

What's the quote that Mehdi is talking about, then?

[–] PlasticExistence@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

From the reply, it looks like maybe Favreau is quoting something from an article perhaps?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what article you mean. That's Favreau replying to a tweet by Mehdi Hasan.

[–] PlasticExistence@lemmy.world 11 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Oh, right. I’m tired and don’t use any microblogging platforms.

So yeah. How are things?

My own take on this is that Dems need to focus (not exclude anything specific) on the economy and the working class, that the correct way to strengthen the party and serve everyone’s needs is to focus on the class war. But they’re too cozy with billionaire donors for that to happen right now.