Re: the Dean Scream: The tendency of journalists to mistake their herd instinct for repeating superficialities as inspired insights and then repeat their bullshit ad nauseum has a serious effect on election outcomes. It seems to happen more to Dems than Republicans. I don't think it is a conscious act on the part of big media. I think it is mediocre people who are way too high on their own supply, have no insights, live in a bubble, and like to sneer. The don't do this to Republicans because they like to pretend to not be biased.
Unfair and unprofessional as this bullshit may be, it still has an effect. Dems get slapped with these stupid labels and the labels become truths with the low info voters which is most of them, given that so many big media journalists can't be bothered to do their jobs.
So that's why as a primary voter I try to figure out which Dem will trigger one of those mindless collective sneer fests from the msm. Newsome will. It's guaranteed. I also try to see who is best at playing the media, speaking past the media and has the ability to define themselves clearly.
2025-12-19 20:15:30
"I suspect that many of those low-engagement voters don’t know themselves what they are going to go for, so it’s a lot of guesswork. Most of the primary voters seem to have strong preferences and too much faith in the power of reason."
I think that's a real problem. I also think that electability IS an factor but we need to remember that elections are based on a lot of voters who think and feel in ways that we, the primary voters, don't understand very well which makes it hard to know what will make them jump one way or another.
Republicans nearly always vote Republican. There is a growing population of independents. They are a grab bag of people who arrived at independent from different directions and for different reasons. There are infrequent voters who come out for charisma or because there is a really visceral issue for them at stake. There are one issue voters who either vote for the candidate who represents their issue or don't vote at all. Democrats nearly always vote for Democrats.
So what we are really fighting for is the votes of the indies and infrequent voters--the people Dem primary activists are least likely to understand.
2025-12-19 17:41:49
I'm with Cleek. I don't vote on policy except in the very broad sense that Democrats try to devise policies to solve problems and Republicans don't.
I vote for whoever wins the primary. During the primary I tend toward whoever seems the most authentic, the best public speaker, and the least likely to do something stupid during the campaign, and the one who isn't being negatively stereotyped by the msm. Those are some of the factors that contribute to election chances.
My objection to Newsome is that the msm will collaborate with the Republicans to promote a negative stereotype of him and that will significantly impair his chances.
My objections to HRC were: she started out pre-slimed by Republican slander with a 50% negative rating and had a history of stupid decisions (Iraq and her campaign decisions during the primary race with Obama).
I didn't like Bernie, but he seemed less likely to lose the election to Trump.
I thought Harris would lose because we live in a society that is pretty misogynistic and has a wide and deep disrespect for Black women.
Right now my preferred choice is Pritzker, but that's tentative. I also like Buttigieg, also tentative. FWIW.
2025-12-19 04:22:55
The labels annoy me too because there is no shared meaning. They mean whatever someone wants them to mean--largely unattached to policy responses to issues. Yet the news media and many citizens treat those labels as if they were useful analysis tools for explaining where pols are on policy. It's annoying.
I don't think elections are won on policy and certainly not on policy nuances--unless there is a very clear harm done to a large number of people that is simple to see like taking away their health insurance. I think I persistent mistake made by Dems and especially by self-proclaimed progressives is the belief that the majority of voters are moved by policy. "HRC would have won if she had run on Medicare for All" etc.
Most people vote the way they shop: brand, eye appeal, connotations they put on a product, previous experience, what their family always did, etc. I doubt if your typical voter has more than the faintest slogan level understanding of policy. They notice style, though.
Maybe I'm cynical. But I'm looking at elections that were won THREE TIMES by Republicans who cut taxes for rich people and created deficits while blaming the deficits on Democrats before electing a Republican who did it AGAIN--and yet your typical Republican voter claims to be opposed to deficits, and I doubt if many really want tax cuts for the rich. Meanwhile on Blue Sky self-identified progressives say things like, "Democrats are the party of corporate power!"
Everyone says they vote for whoever they think is "better on the issues" but how many people have any idea what policies a candidate is committed to on those issues?
2025-12-18 20:36:05
The problem with the survey results that I posted is that, as far as I can see, there are no moderate Republicans--in terms of policy. Some are more polite than others but nearly the entire party from top to bottom is fully complicit in all of the excesses of Trumpism from Project 2025 to the DOGE rampage, to the treason, to tax cuts for rich people and the attacks on the not-rich to the ethical, moral, and financial corruption and the violations of the rule of law. Yes, there are individuals here and there and some slight breaking of ranks recently, but moderates? Even the three ladies who get called moderate are complicit with the majority of what the Trump admin has done.
I think people are reacting to style. They don't want the overt bullying (the pseudo polite hatemongering of pre-Trump Republicans who outsourced their most overt rhetoric to people like Limbaugh is probably still acceptable). They don't want the shouting and yelling and shrillness.
I've always thought that the Republicans erred in nominating Trump because he was a threat to their goal of changing the US into a one party oligarchy. They need a fascist who seems nice.
2025-12-18 20:28:42
The survey, which was conducted between December 14 and 15 and measured public opinion based upon the answers provided by 1,000 registered voters, found that if they had their pick between a progressive Democrat, MAGA Republican, moderate Democrat, and moderate Republican, American would most prefer the last, followed by a moderate Democrat, then a progressive Democrat, and then a MAGA Republican. New poll reveals what kind of president Americans want most
Re: the Dean Scream: The tendency of journalists to mistake their herd instinct for repeating superficialities as inspired insights and then repeat their bullshit ad nauseum has a serious effect on election outcomes. It seems to happen more to Dems than Republicans. I don't think it is a conscious act on the part of big media. I think it is mediocre people who are way too high on their own supply, have no insights, live in a bubble, and like to sneer. The don't do this to Republicans because they like to pretend to not be biased.
Unfair and unprofessional as this bullshit may be, it still has an effect. Dems get slapped with these stupid labels and the labels become truths with the low info voters which is most of them, given that so many big media journalists can't be bothered to do their jobs.
So that's why as a primary voter I try to figure out which Dem will trigger one of those mindless collective sneer fests from the msm. Newsome will. It's guaranteed. I also try to see who is best at playing the media, speaking past the media and has the ability to define themselves clearly.
"I suspect that many of those low-engagement voters don’t know themselves what they are going to go for, so it’s a lot of guesswork. Most of the primary voters seem to have strong preferences and too much faith in the power of reason."
I think that's a real problem. I also think that electability IS an factor but we need to remember that elections are based on a lot of voters who think and feel in ways that we, the primary voters, don't understand very well which makes it hard to know what will make them jump one way or another.
Republicans nearly always vote Republican.
There is a growing population of independents. They are a grab bag of people who arrived at independent from different directions and for different reasons.
There are infrequent voters who come out for charisma or because there is a really visceral issue for them at stake.
There are one issue voters who either vote for the candidate who represents their issue or don't vote at all.
Democrats nearly always vote for Democrats.
So what we are really fighting for is the votes of the indies and infrequent voters--the people Dem primary activists are least likely to understand.
I'm with Cleek. I don't vote on policy except in the very broad sense that Democrats try to devise policies to solve problems and Republicans don't.
I vote for whoever wins the primary. During the primary I tend toward whoever seems the most authentic, the best public speaker, and the least likely to do something stupid during the campaign, and the one who isn't being negatively stereotyped by the msm. Those are some of the factors that contribute to election chances.
My objection to Newsome is that the msm will collaborate with the Republicans to promote a negative stereotype of him and that will significantly impair his chances.
My objections to HRC were: she started out pre-slimed by Republican slander with a 50% negative rating and had a history of stupid decisions (Iraq and her campaign decisions during the primary race with Obama).
I didn't like Bernie, but he seemed less likely to lose the election to Trump.
I thought Harris would lose because we live in a society that is pretty misogynistic and has a wide and deep disrespect for Black women.
Right now my preferred choice is Pritzker, but that's tentative. I also like Buttigieg, also tentative. FWIW.
The labels annoy me too because there is no shared meaning. They mean whatever someone wants them to mean--largely unattached to policy responses to issues. Yet the news media and many citizens treat those labels as if they were useful analysis tools for explaining where pols are on policy. It's annoying.
I don't think elections are won on policy and certainly not on policy nuances--unless there is a very clear harm done to a large number of people that is simple to see like taking away their health insurance. I think I persistent mistake made by Dems and especially by self-proclaimed progressives is the belief that the majority of voters are moved by policy. "HRC would have won if she had run on Medicare for All" etc.
Most people vote the way they shop: brand, eye appeal, connotations they put on a product, previous experience, what their family always did, etc. I doubt if your typical voter has more than the faintest slogan level understanding of policy. They notice style, though.
Maybe I'm cynical. But I'm looking at elections that were won THREE TIMES by Republicans who cut taxes for rich people and created deficits while blaming the deficits on Democrats before electing a Republican who did it AGAIN--and yet your typical Republican voter claims to be opposed to deficits, and I doubt if many really want tax cuts for the rich. Meanwhile on Blue Sky self-identified progressives say things like, "Democrats are the party of corporate power!"
Everyone says they vote for whoever they think is "better on the issues" but how many people have any idea what policies a candidate is committed to on those issues?
The problem with the survey results that I posted is that, as far as I can see, there are no moderate Republicans--in terms of policy. Some are more polite than others but nearly the entire party from top to bottom is fully complicit in all of the excesses of Trumpism from Project 2025 to the DOGE rampage, to the treason, to tax cuts for rich people and the attacks on the not-rich to the ethical, moral, and financial corruption and the violations of the rule of law. Yes, there are individuals here and there and some slight breaking of ranks recently, but moderates? Even the three ladies who get called moderate are complicit with the majority of what the Trump admin has done.
I think people are reacting to style. They don't want the overt bullying (the pseudo polite hatemongering of pre-Trump Republicans who outsourced their most overt rhetoric to people like Limbaugh is probably still acceptable). They don't want the shouting and yelling and shrillness.
I've always thought that the Republicans erred in nominating Trump because he was a threat to their goal of changing the US into a one party oligarchy. They need a fascist who seems nice.
The survey, which was conducted between December 14 and 15 and measured public opinion based upon the answers provided by 1,000 registered voters, found that if they had their pick between a progressive Democrat, MAGA Republican, moderate Democrat, and moderate Republican, American would most prefer the last, followed by a moderate Democrat, then a progressive Democrat, and then a MAGA Republican. New poll reveals what kind of president Americans want most