Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

eniwetok

(1,629 posts)
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:00 AM Apr 2017

Democrat's Core Choice: MONEY OR MESSAGE?

Some here believe that Dems MUST go after big corporate money or Dems will forever be at a perpetual political disadvantage. They complain that to concentrate on messaging is to put purity over winning. I have problems with the first approach for several reasons.

1: The GOP can spend 100 billion in an election and the Dem's zero I think it's safe to say no one here would be swayed by all that spending. Therefore the effort must be to inoculate Dems that might be swayed by diversionary issues (guns, immigration, god & flag etc) and middle of the roaders to see through the GOP game and to see that their true interests are with the Dems.

2: No corporation is going to give money to Dems unless as self-centered entities, there's something in it for them.

3: To go after corporate money, therefore, will tend to ultimately corrupt any message and in an economy that's largely a zero sum game, to help corporations is to shaft labor. It undermines any attempt to inoculate voters in #1 at which point the party's positions and voters move to the Right. We don't need two GOP parties... a liberal and a far right one.

So how do we inoculate voters? Part of that is to understand how a successful belief system, even a dysfunctional one, take root. I've long speculated that it really just needs a few variables... to convince people the system/narrative is moral, to have a plausible answer for everything, and to demonize the other side so the True Believer distrusts their motives and therefore blocks out their message. The Right is very good at this. Once a person is locked into a belief system they then selectively seek information that supports it, and instinctively block out anything that threatens it. They deprive themselves of the intellectual tools to disprove the system.

The first part is to have clear positive vision of where Dems want to take this nation in 25-50 years. Without a vision, there will be no strategy on how to get there... and without a vision and a strategy Dems will have no consistent message and in politics if one's not constantly on the offensive, one is losing ground. Dems need a strategic and sustained counterattack against ALL the strategic attacks of the Right... something they've been involved in since the 70s... ideological framing from think tanks, a strong media presence, voter suppression, ALEC, using the courts as the judicial branch of the GOP, expanding corporate personhood, using money to buy elections, defunding the Dems by going after unions and trial lawyers, and starve the beast? The far Right has been so successful that even half of the Dems have moved to the right undercutting their own natural constituency.

This madness has to stop... but some here seem to believe that the Dems can sleep with corporations and protect progressive causes. Nope. All they do is water them down in a process so slow they don't even see it happening. Case in point. In election 2000 Dems saw through Bush's attempts to sabotage the Clinton Surplus with massive tax cuts. By 2008, Dems bought into Obama's call to make permanent most of Bush's irresponsible tax cuts. Gone from the discussion was ANY talk of paying down debt... and I'm talking PRE-crisis.






45 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Democrat's Core Choice: MONEY OR MESSAGE? (Original Post) eniwetok Apr 2017 OP
Good points. OrwellwasRight Apr 2017 #1
I suspect it's the corporate Dems who think they can make a deal with the Devil... eniwetok Apr 2017 #2
It's not possible. OrwellwasRight Apr 2017 #7
One thing to think about titaniumsalute Apr 2017 #3
"won" in an antidemocratic system... isn't a true win eniwetok Apr 2017 #4
I get it...but he's still sitting in the White House titaniumsalute Apr 2017 #8
sure... it's because Dems NEVER tried to reform our system eniwetok Apr 2017 #12
then we are foolish... eniwetok Apr 2017 #18
If you were to put a dollar value on the hours upon hours of free publicity FiveGoodMen Apr 2017 #26
It was a mistake to court the same corporate entities as Repubs w 3rd Way librechik Apr 2017 #5
There is another thread castigating Perez for not sending money to Kansas...some Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #6
sure money may help but it's no substitiute for messaging. eniwetok Apr 2017 #9
"May help"? Come ON now. It measurably helps. And it's never been messaging or money. bettyellen Apr 2017 #11
what makes YOU immune from right wing messages? eniwetok Apr 2017 #14
That I wasn't blinded by hatred of any Dem in the primaries helped a lot. bettyellen Apr 2017 #16
did you even read my OP... it was QUITE CLEAR eniwetok Apr 2017 #19
We can have both in my opinion...messaging and the money needed for a win Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #15
red herring alert... no one said the Dems should broke... eniwetok Apr 2017 #17
This was the title of your OP...'Democrat's Core Choice: MONEY OR MESSAGE?' Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #20
So you didn't bother to read the post... you reacted to the title. eniwetok Apr 2017 #23
First of all I resent your personal insulting attacks. Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #25
I know your game... and I consider your false accusations to be insulting eniwetok Apr 2017 #27
Oh it is a game is it? I have provided information that show your defamatory Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #41
I would just like to point out in case you miss it ...that Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #43
All you have are personal attacks and insults Cha Apr 2017 #32
PKB ALERT... and here you are insulting me and not dealing with the topic.... eniwetok Apr 2017 #36
Stop with your personal attacks and insults. Cha Apr 2017 #45
Yep...you can't win an argument...you resort to such tactics. Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #42
Nope- you presented it as an either or choice twice- once in the OP and again in your bettyellen Apr 2017 #21
what's dishonest is to pretend my entire post was the title not the content. eniwetok Apr 2017 #28
It's not dishonest to say your frame was message OR money and you said it TWICE.... bettyellen Apr 2017 #30
They are happy. Some folks only derive pleasure in saying "I told you so". SaschaHM Apr 2017 #10
Hard for them with rules on this site...have to tip toe around it. Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #13
Clinton had the money and the message. NCTraveler Apr 2017 #22
many didn't think her message was sincere... eniwetok Apr 2017 #29
Then it's on them. NCTraveler Apr 2017 #34
No argument from me mvd Apr 2017 #24
No argument from me either bekkilyn Apr 2017 #31
Are you aware that corporations cannot donate to campaigns or national committees, by law? DanTex Apr 2017 #33
it's somewhat irrelevant eniwetok Apr 2017 #35
Actually, it's entirely relevant. You're saying that Dems should refrain from doing something DanTex Apr 2017 #37
so NO Dems run PACS? eniwetok Apr 2017 #38
It's not a molehill, its a blatant misrepresentation of facts. DanTex Apr 2017 #40
So you think Democrats should not have pacs to get Democrats elected... Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #44
Gee... why isn't anyone talking about INOCULATING VOTERS eniwetok Apr 2017 #39

OrwellwasRight

(5,170 posts)
1. Good points.
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:12 AM
Apr 2017

I'm waiting for the people who just spent three days defending United Airlines to come here and start to try to tear this down.

eniwetok

(1,629 posts)
2. I suspect it's the corporate Dems who think they can make a deal with the Devil...
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:17 AM
Apr 2017

and not become corrupted.

OrwellwasRight

(5,170 posts)
7. It's not possible.
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:27 AM
Apr 2017

It's cognitive dissonance. I've worked in DC a long time and seen it happen to MOCs who get elected thinking one way and then "smarten up" as they get on the fundraising tread mill and are told over and over and over by DCCC "experts" that it isn't smart to take X or Y progressive position because then industry Z won't give them money any more. First caution and trepidation set in, then you start to hear the pro-corporate TPs coming out of their mouths.

titaniumsalute

(4,742 posts)
3. One thing to think about
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:19 AM
Apr 2017

Donald Trump spent very little money overall in the general election. Granted he had Russian bots working for him so maybe that isn't an applicable point. But compared to Hillary he spent much less and still won.

eniwetok

(1,629 posts)
4. "won" in an antidemocratic system... isn't a true win
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:22 AM
Apr 2017

The EC has no will or intent. It's an mindless, antidemocratic vote rigging scheme. But your point is well taken.

titaniumsalute

(4,742 posts)
8. I get it...but he's still sitting in the White House
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:27 AM
Apr 2017

What is ironic I'm sure if Hillary won we wouldn't be arguing about the awful un-democratic electoral college today.

eniwetok

(1,629 posts)
12. sure... it's because Dems NEVER tried to reform our system
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:42 AM
Apr 2017

What if FDR made it an issue back in the 30s to make the system democratic... by abolishing state suffrage... the source of ALL the antidemocratic features in our system? We would have had an 80 year head start on reform. But Dems refuse to challenge the system even it their signature programs face existential threats from a system that now clearly has a right wing bias.

eniwetok

(1,629 posts)
18. then we are foolish...
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:53 AM
Apr 2017

Back in 2000 the antidemocratic EC changed US and world history AGAINST THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. That issue should NEVER be forgotten... even more so now that the EC has imposed a SECOND crackpot on the nation.

Either Dems believe in democratic principles enough to define them... or we will forever be subject to tyrannies of the minority imposed on use by antidemocratic government.

FiveGoodMen

(20,018 posts)
26. If you were to put a dollar value on the hours upon hours of free publicity
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 04:38 PM
Apr 2017

that the media gave him throughout the campaign, I'll bet that a lot MORE was spent on Trump than on Hillary.

librechik

(30,674 posts)
5. It was a mistake to court the same corporate entities as Repubs w 3rd Way
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:23 AM
Apr 2017

instead of using our smarts and community organizing skills to get/create big money from progressive sources. We should have made a big deal about our progressive money, and show the differences in our message. Our companies may be smaller, but there are lots more of them.

We could still do that.

Demsrule86

(68,539 posts)
6. There is another thread castigating Perez for not sending money to Kansas...some
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:25 AM
Apr 2017

are never happy And we absolutely need to spend money to win elections...as I have pointed out before the strategy you wish to employ would lead to huge electoral losses and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...and honestly, I have no patience with this approach as the next election is our only chance of stopping Trump...so cheers...hope there are very few people who believe this in this 'electoral stratey' and the rest want to win and win big.

eniwetok

(1,629 posts)
9. sure money may help but it's no substitiute for messaging.
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:37 AM
Apr 2017
Money is a cheat for FAILING to develop a compelling party narrative. And the results of your ideas are clear... the Dems on average have moved further to the Right, they've not faced down far right framing, and they have betrayed some of their core constituent groups like labor.

Maybe you consider this desirable. As an FDR Dem, and one who goes to the left of the Dems in wanting a true democratic system... I do NOT.
 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
11. "May help"? Come ON now. It measurably helps. And it's never been messaging or money.
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:40 AM
Apr 2017

That's a false construct.

eniwetok

(1,629 posts)
14. what makes YOU immune from right wing messages?
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:45 AM
Apr 2017

Assuming, of course, you are immune. And it's a red herring to suggest Dems NEVER need money. But when you take money from Corporations you have to sell out the base... and if you don't... the corporate money dries up.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
16. That I wasn't blinded by hatred of any Dem in the primaries helped a lot.
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:48 AM
Apr 2017

I knew people who needed to vilify someone to promote their candidate- and they found plenty of RW sources bull crap spewed by supposed "lefties" and repeated it. Some still do.

eniwetok

(1,629 posts)
19. did you even read my OP... it was QUITE CLEAR
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:59 AM
Apr 2017

here... I'll highlight the section you seem to have missed...

Some here believe that Dems MUST go after big corporate money or Dems will forever be at a perpetual political disadvantage. They complain that to concentrate on messaging is to put purity over winning. I have problems with the first approach for several reasons.

Demsrule86

(68,539 posts)
15. We can have both in my opinion...messaging and the money needed for a win
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:47 AM
Apr 2017

Money is not 'cheating' ...a message is pretty useless if you can't get it out or respond to right wing smears...you do realize these sort of posts do not help Democrats?

eniwetok

(1,629 posts)
17. red herring alert... no one said the Dems should broke...
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:50 AM
Apr 2017

only that those who believe we MUST go after corporate money don't want to acknowledge that it CORRUPTS THE PARTY.

From my OP... I'll highlight the section you seem to have missed...

Some here believe that Dems MUST go after big corporate money or Dems will forever be at a perpetual political disadvantage. They complain that to concentrate on messaging is to put purity over winning. I have problems with the first approach for several reasons.

Demsrule86

(68,539 posts)
20. This was the title of your OP...'Democrat's Core Choice: MONEY OR MESSAGE?'
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 12:30 PM
Apr 2017

You suggest a choice ...money or message...so it is not a red herring but what you said.

eniwetok

(1,629 posts)
23. So you didn't bother to read the post... you reacted to the title.
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 01:19 PM
Apr 2017

It doesn't surprise me.

Obviously you were looking to start a fight over YOUR own strawman... and no doubt in your mind you won.

Demsrule86

(68,539 posts)
25. First of all I resent your personal insulting attacks.
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 02:19 PM
Apr 2017

I read your post...and you advocate for not going after and/or not taking corporate money in the body of your post. You present it as a choice in fact both in your title and in the body of your OP. You also throw in a little bash of Obama...about making the tax cuts permanent...which was a deal brokered to get the GOP to go for a second stimulus after the 2010 elections and before the tea party took office...you know it helped save the economy.

eniwetok

(1,629 posts)
27. I know your game... and I consider your false accusations to be insulting
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 07:28 PM
Apr 2017

Last edited Wed Apr 12, 2017, 08:33 PM - Edit history (1)

I realize you want to shut me up and you think you can do so by pretending I'm violating the rules. That's just pathetic.

Obama RAN on preserving the Bush tax cuts except for the top 1%... and SO DID CLINTON. Read the transcripts of those Obama Clinton debates. Your ignorance on this topic is no reflection on me.

I raised the Bush tax TO MAKE A POINT... that party positions shift and not always for the better. Where there was great opposition to the Bush tax cuts in 2000 and 2001 because Dems KNEW he intended to sabotage the Clinton Surplus... and debt paydown was seen as crucial for strengthening Social Security... all that dried up by 2008. Gone was talk of the surplus, gone was the great concern about Social Security... and this was BEFORE the Bush Crash.

EDIT... for the record this is what I wrote which you chose to misrepresent:

"This madness has to stop... but some here seem to believe that the Dems can sleep with corporations and protect progressive causes. Nope. All they do is water them down in a process so slow they don't even see it happening. Case in point. In election 2000 Dems saw through Bush's attempts to sabotage the Clinton Surplus with massive tax cuts. By 2008, Dems bought into Obama's call to make permanent most of Bush's irresponsible tax cuts. Gone from the discussion was ANY talk of paying down debt... and I'm talking PRE-crisis."


Demsrule86

(68,539 posts)
41. Oh it is a game is it? I have provided information that show your defamatory
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 11:13 AM
Apr 2017

comments concerning Pres. Obama and Secretary Clinton are false.Neither supported Bush's tax cuts and did not run on any such thing. Below are transcripts from the 2008 debates and there is a link at the end.

"Q: Can you make an absolute, read-my-lips pledge that there will be no tax increases of any kind for anyone earning under $200,000 a year?
CLINTON: I will let the taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year go back to the rates that they were paying in the 1990s."[ Please consider that there were no 'Bush tax cuts' in the 90's.]

"Q: Senator Obama, would you take the same pledge? No tax increases on people under $250,000?
OBAMA: I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I’ve been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes. We are going to offset the payroll tax, the most regressive of our taxes, so that families who are middle-income individuals making $75,000 a year or less, that they would get a tax break so that families would see up to $1,000 worth of relief.
Q: You both have now just taken this pledge on people under $250,000 and $200,000.

OBAMA: Well, it depends on how you calculate it. But it would be between $200,000 and $250,000."...
"Q: If either one of you become president, and let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans.
OBAMA: On wealthy Americans.
CLINTON: That’s right.
OBAMA: I’m not bashful about it.
CLINTON: Absolutely
OBAMA: I suspect a lot of this crowd--it looks like a pretty well-dressed crowd--potentially will pay a little bit more. I will pay a little bit more. But that investment will pay huge dividends over the long term, and the place where it will pay the biggest dividends is in Medicare and Medicaid. Because if we can get a healthier population, that is the only way over the long term that we can actually control that spending that is going to break the federal budget.
CLINTON: It’s just really important to underscore here that we will go back to the tax rates we had before George Bush became president. And my memory is, people did really well during that time period. And they will keep doing really well."

http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm

Demsrule86

(68,539 posts)
43. I would just like to point out in case you miss it ...that
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 11:18 AM
Apr 2017

both Clinton and Obama supported going back to the Clinton era tax policies (before Bush tax cuts) ...Obama wanted a payroll tax holiday for those making under 75,000 to help jump start the failing economy.

eniwetok

(1,629 posts)
36. PKB ALERT... and here you are insulting me and not dealing with the topic....
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 10:43 AM
Apr 2017

Were you that oblivious to what you just wrote?

And I think you're willfully ignoring all the shit I take here for calling out corporate Dems. I called that person out FOR WHAT THEY DID. They chose to ignore the content of my post and debate the title.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
21. Nope- you presented it as an either or choice twice- once in the OP and again in your
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 12:43 PM
Apr 2017

Response to me. It's dishonest.

eniwetok

(1,629 posts)
28. what's dishonest is to pretend my entire post was the title not the content.
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 07:29 PM
Apr 2017

When you want to discuss what I actually wrote instead of how you want to misrepresent it... let me know.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
30. It's not dishonest to say your frame was message OR money and you said it TWICE....
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 10:06 PM
Apr 2017

If you didn't mean it, then you shouldn't have repeated it for fucks sake. Stop blaming other people for responding to your quotes.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
22. Clinton had the money and the message.
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 12:44 PM
Apr 2017

She even went so far as to talk about "dark money". The only one to do so in the election.

I don't see this as an either or.

eniwetok

(1,629 posts)
29. many didn't think her message was sincere...
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 07:35 PM
Apr 2017

I don't doubt her position on social issues, but I certainly didn't believe she had a true conversion from a corporate Dem to an economic progressive.

But this was hardly a normal election and if one claims one factor played a role in her loss... aside from the antidemocratic EC, then it tends to say more about them than the election.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
34. Then it's on them.
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 08:20 AM
Apr 2017

She was clearly the sincere one running.

Thank you for at least conceding that she had the message. She was the only one to go as far as to address "dark money" and was the only one who had a comprehensive platform. Trump had none. It's hard to help people who were to stupid to see that.

mvd

(65,169 posts)
24. No argument from me
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 01:28 PM
Apr 2017

The overall belief in our current capitalist system and the amount of corporate donations even our candidates get are related. Naturally, you cater to the interests of your donors. That is why I like the grassroots idea. It's got to be built up, but work on it. Not is all bad, though. Many Democrats support turning back the Citizens United decision, which made things worse.

bekkilyn

(454 posts)
31. No argument from me either
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:20 PM
Apr 2017

I want a party that represents me, not Wall Street. Hopefully the Democratic party can go back to being that party. Right now though, if a candidate has a choice between protecting the company who donated thousands of dollars to them and protecting their constituents from the abuses of that company in a dispute, the donor is going to win. That's not the type of conflict of interest I'm interested in voting for in my elected representatives.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
33. Are you aware that corporations cannot donate to campaigns or national committees, by law?
Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:29 PM
Apr 2017

Seems to be a common misconception here.

Yeah, it would be stupid for the DNC or Democratic candidates for national office to go after corporate money, because that would be illegal. Fortunately, they already aren't doing that.

eniwetok

(1,629 posts)
35. it's somewhat irrelevant
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 10:40 AM
Apr 2017

since there are so many other ways corporations and the uber rich can use their money to interfere with elections.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
37. Actually, it's entirely relevant. You're saying that Dems should refrain from doing something
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 10:43 AM
Apr 2017

that they already don't do.

For example your point number 2: "No corporation is going to give money to Dems..."

The reason no corporation is going to give money to Dems is because it is illegal. They already don't give money to Dems.

eniwetok

(1,629 posts)
38. so NO Dems run PACS?
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 10:47 AM
Apr 2017

Please... obviously you have some problem with my argument in my OP which you refuse to discuss and are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Got it!

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
40. It's not a molehill, its a blatant misrepresentation of facts.
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 10:54 AM
Apr 2017

If we want to improve the Democratic Party, we can't base these improvements on the fantasy that corporations are donating money to Democratic campaigns. Or to Democratic PACs for that matter. Even the SuperPACs, which can legally take money from corporations, get basically all of their funding from individuals.

Demsrule86

(68,539 posts)
44. So you think Democrats should not have pacs to get Democrats elected...
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 11:20 AM
Apr 2017

Do you like losing elections?

eniwetok

(1,629 posts)
39. Gee... why isn't anyone talking about INOCULATING VOTERS
Thu Apr 13, 2017, 10:52 AM
Apr 2017

Some here want to nitpick my post... and they seem to be those who think money is more important than messaging. So it comes as no surprise they are IGNORING a core part of the argument

The GOP can spend 100 billion in an election and the Dem's zero I think it's safe to say no one here would be swayed by all that spending. Therefore the effort must be to inoculate Dems that might be swayed by diversionary issues (guns, immigration, god & flag etc) and middle of the roaders to see through the GOP game and to see that their true interests are with the Dems.

So how do we inoculate voters? Part of that is to understand how a successful belief system, even a dysfunctional one, take root. I've long speculated that it really just needs a few variables... to convince people the system/narrative is moral, to have a plausible answer for everything, and to demonize the other side so the True Believer distrusts their motives and therefore blocks out their message. The Right is very good at this. Once a person is locked into a belief system they then selectively seek information that supports it, and instinctively block out anything that threatens it. They deprive themselves of the intellectual tools to disprove the system.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Democrat's Core Choice: M...