ADORE her. Watching now. (This is what I do: I wait for your videos to go live, then I take my walk and listen. Along the way I meet my friends and they listen in. When I pass a Trump household, I put the volume up to full blast and hold the phone in the direction of those windows. It's amazing that I'm still alive.)
SO funny. On my worst days I literally stand at the base of their driveways, holding up my phone while Simon is calling Trump a big blubbery orange pathetic everything. Pretending to tie my shoe.
You might be able to win them over with Penzeys. One of his subscribers said they brought a box of the trial-sized bags to the No Kings Protest. I liked the idea. It's a subtle reminder that food is healthcare. That spices are healthcare...and a FU to those who voted against healthcare. But if they want bland food and no healthcare, they should be able to have bland food and no healthcare. The rest of us shouldn't suffer for their stupidity.
FYI: Just now at Seatac (Seattle, WA) Delta flight 415 to NYC has been delayed for over an hour due to lack of air traffic controllers -- welcome to felon 47's America. Pass it on.
Bringing this comment up from the earlier thread: Simon, I thought your talk today with Tara was one of the best things I've listened to in a long time. At one point, she mentioned that Dems haven't done enough to listen to people and that she believes they're afraid to do so. She was going to come back to that point, but the conversation went in a different direction. Do you know what she meant or do you know a way I can contact her? I have my own theory about this, but I'd love to hear hers!! Thank you!
Going to send her some money. Wish I were a billionaire.
She is so right about pathetic Dem messaging. They need a young Bernie. I wish a white male weren't essential, but to get on-the-fence male voters is what Dems need. Cultural and societal conditioning start at an early age and it's hard for some men to overcome it, not to mention the MAGA message that women and people of color have taken all the jobs.
Does anybody under 40 tune in to congressional speeches?? Focusing on young voters and where they get their info is so right on, they are the future.
One need not hope in order to undertake, nor succeed in order to persevere.
- William The Silent, aka William, Prince of Orange, April 24, 1533 - July 10, 1584.
Was a Dutch Revolt leader against Spain. He was the first European politician to be assassinated by a gun.
“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
Like Simon, Professor Barbara Walter provides practical advice on fighting authoritarianism. If possible, she should be followed. Here are two excellent Substack articles by Professor Walter, an expert on preventing civil wars:
In addition, please watch this foreign psychiatrist’s YouTube explanation of MAGA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T8jF8BEeCM&list=TLPQMDkwNzIwMjVE3ae5164Kxg&index=3 . The world is watching. Many in the “Global South” understand that this nation has an identity/race problem where a large percentage of the population will give up on democracy in order to maintain their “status” in society. It seems that we keep coming back to LBJ:
"I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it," [LBJ] said. "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
CARTHAGO DELENDA EST (via nonviolence).
P.S. : DEMOCRATIC officials keep mentioning (and showing) Jan. 6 and the PARDONS relative to the current “law and order” push by Dolos and his associates. This is a simple but strong contrast. Use social media to promote testimonies by former “January 6 Commission” members and witnesses. YES, re-litigate Jan. 6 - again and again and again. Dolos needs to realize that he lives in a GLASS HOUSE. Go on Faux News Channel because it is just like an “unrepresented” Republican district - i.e. plenty of visuals devoid of facts. The VISUAL EVIDENCE IS NOW ON YOUR SIDE. GO ON ESPN (a male-leaning channel) and express concern about the viability of the pending World Cup with actors like Dolos and Miller in the mix. With measles rampant and anti-vax officials influencing policy, will tourists want to visit the USA (weak ticket sales?): https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/soccer/heres-what-fifa-president-gianni-infantino-said-about-ice-cbp-agents-at-club-world-cup/ar-AA1GwUkA ?
P.P.S.: Do the following now! FIRST, TEACH CIVICS. Second, register voters. THIRD, TEACH CIVICS. Rinse. Repeat.
P.P.P.S.: Every local office of the Democratic Party and of the elected officials (including state representatives on up) must become a site for civic teach-ins and a clearing house for needed services (with Federal departments being sabotaged). The fact is that Democrats believe in the value of government and of government service, and the other side (i.e. the MAGAts and the illiberals) simply doesn’t. This engagement process will make registering partisan voters and teaching civics much easier.
Simon, I really want you to interview Nathan Heller, author of the Ambience of Information article, in the New Yorker. Really important! You just referenced the article, but you didn’t share the name of the author. Below is a link to Heller’s article. Colleagues, this article thoroughly engaged me. What do you Hopium buddies think of it?
This was a fascinating conversation that has so much applicability beyond the media environment.
At minute 37, Simon talks about how funders in the democracy space fund their own theories of change, not what the social entrepreneurs or people on the ground think would work. I'd argue this is the exact same issue in every social justice space (I know the women's rights space the best) - the funder comes up with the idea and then looks for the implementer; as opposed to being a catalyst, you become just a minder. When you look at the anti-rights movement (anti-women, anti-LGBTQ, anti-pluralism, anti-immigrant, anti-children, married with pro fossil fuel and pro authoritarians), they figured out a new formula roughly 30 years ago: long-term, flexible funding for people and organizations. Meanwhile, we have gone deeper and deeper into "projects and program" mode: fixed 18 month - 3 year projects with logframes and predetermined outputs that are supposedly leading to outcomes. Spoiler: they haven't. My mantra as I try to get my own thing off the ground is "people and platforms, not projects and programs."
At minute 42, Tara builds on this by talking about meeting people where they are, not where you want them to be. This has been a hard lesson to learn as a lifelong Dem (who also lives and work(ed, sadly, Trump ended the active tense for me) in a bubble) - what drives someone to vote against health care? Against public education? Against clean water or air? One of the most powerful potential explanations I've seen for this came from a cult psychologist, who ran a series of videos explaining how often times the emotional psychology of seeing someone you dislike have less than you, or a poor outcome, or somehow be the victim of some sort of "revenge" is actually more powerfully addicting than you gaining something positive for yourself. That's a profound (and sad) indictment of human nature - but maybe a lesson we on the left need to learn if we want to continue to drive the "larger narrative" and win an information war. That would mean leaning into things like Epstein (IE, you're not getting the revenge you were promised), things like Tesla (did you really want to be sold cars for rich people via the White House?), flood relief money that is never going to come (you and your neighbors were sold out).
There's something both Tara and Simon are circling on by the end re how to drive a larger narrative while also following and understanding national sentiment - I'm just not sure we've quite nailed what it means in practice. Would love others' thoughts.
There's a great book entitled Dying of Whiteness by Jonathan Metzl that goes into how people will vote against their own interests in order to see someone else get hurt. We don't want to believe that because it's not how most of us think, but, having lived in a very red area, I can tell you that it absolutely motivates a chunk of the electorate. We could use it by attacking, say, billionaires, but in any event, we need to understand it.
I think what you're describing in terms of "revenge" is about status. Nearly all human interactions involve status structures of some sort. The currency of that status - i.e. what gets you more status - varies from group to group.
Progressive elites have developed views on status that in my view are detached from how most of the country looks at status. I believe that's because the way our professed values of egalitarianism combine with the actual currency of status in educated, cosmopolitan progressive circles which is a lot about erudition, expertise, and not being too conspicuous about material wealth but still enjoying it.
This has made us blind to status markers that many other communities use: toughness, overt wealth, stylishness, etc.
Most people openly measure their status against others with whom they feel competition or conflict. Yet our side is shocked to learn that many immigrants look down on other immigrants; we see them mostly as members of social outgroups we believe should be "included" but completely overlook the status conflict between them.
IMHO this blind spot is why so many progressives find it so hard to understand why the "anti-woke" stuff has real traction, and reflexively label any reaction to status threat as one or another "-ism".
I'm not saying we should embrace the divisive, zero-sum views on status the right uses ("dominion" as Simon calls it), but we urgently need to open our eyes to how other folks think about status.
Tara referenced something important about the structure of the Democratic party - we don't really have long-term party bosses at all anymore. Almost 20 years ago, I heard a quote from none other than Rush Limbaugh that explained that once the cigar-filled rooms of the Democratic Party were emptied out, our advocacy groups (The Groups as Ruy Texeira calls them) began to exert more power over the party but also fracture it. I think explains an awful lot about our party's lack of infrastructure and messaging - there are no long-term *party* bosses, just candidates, campaigns, and The Groups. Of course our party thinks in issues - it's run by issue groups!
Another thing I think MAGA and Trump recognized early is that the GOP had also basically run out of party bosses. They were also quicker to realize that to become new bosses they needed to build a bridge between old industry (extractive and heavy industry) and new industry (tech monopolists). Dems assumed that the shared cosmopolitan outlook would be enough to keep tech in our court, and this assumption has badly backfired.
I may get pilloried for saying this, but I think our party may need some bosses. Bosses, who are good people (unlike those running the GOP), but are centers of power within the party itself. That is, people who are committed to the party (not campaigns, not groups) for decades, and also can pick up the phone (or send the right text) and make stuff happen. I just can't see how a party can have a cohesive strategy or understanding of overall political power if its power centers are issue-driven organizations.
Speaking of which, might I suggest get Ruy Texeira on to Hopium?
He is pretty critical of Dems and progressives these days, especially since leaving CAP, but he is much further along in "meet people where they are" than almost any other political scientist on the left. His perspectives on class, culture, and the body politic are required reading IMHO.
Tara talked a lot about the importance of truth. Being able to trust. But never mentioned that Trump‘s platform was based entirely on disinformation, which now is very obvious. So although truth and trust is important, how does it play out among the Republicans and Republican supporters. Tara also talked about the importance at the end of connecting with potential voters and that we didn’t do that. But she has platforms at 11 states and is a national presence. How did she play out or affect the potential voters in the end with what she was providing? That wasn’t clear to me and I don’t know Courier so I’m unaware of what their presence was or how they affected voters in the last few weeks of the election.
Yes I have. I just wondered why Tara didn’t talk about this. Since she said that trust was so important. Also that Courier really meets the voter where they are..so wondered how Courier felt they affected those voters in the final days.
Some of the points made above by Janie and Eric could help explain the apparent lack of importance of truth and trust to a segment of the voting public. Resentment and grievance are powerful motivators. And thus, the importance of avoiding statements that allow our political opponents to claim we are guilty of class warfare. Obama and Clinton both occasionally crossed this line, and in Clinton's case it really seemed to hurt her candidacy.
Millie Polli Haskell......I absolutely loved Tara McGowan. I think she will be a great asset in any particular part of our Democratic Party in the mid-terms. So, keep speaking out Tara. I hope you can come to Floriduh!! I enjoyed your conversation with Simon very much.
Terrific conversation, Simon and Tara! Simon's reemphasis of the importance of 'Strength' (real or imagined) -- also in tonight's live chat -- dovetails nicely with a fascinating video conversation today between Katie Phang and Alex Berros of Mi Vecino. Many of the people Alex interviewed (largely Florida Republican Latino voters) post Trump 2.0 were attracted by the façade of Trump's strength, and personal characteristics were largely more important than issues to these voters. (The aura of strength and charisma matter for candidates, just as they do in personal relationships.) That said, Alex described a sizable proportion (17%) of the electorate he interviewed who said they would now change party loyalty to Independent (11%) or Democrat (6%). Most of this change occurred since March. Alex has a large contingent of people that he repeatedly relies on for interviews, very much 'boots on the ground'. Lots more really insightful information in this conversation. https://katiephang.substack.com/p/live-with-mi-vecino?utm_source=podcast-email&publication_id=3002616&post_id=167912539&utm_campaign=email-play-on-substack&utm_content=watch_now_button&r=30f9km&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
I have one difference with what Tara says: I follow a number of Democratic Senators and Representatives, including my own, on Instagram because it’s an efficient way to follow what they’re doing. They did a lot of messaging/communicating during the Big Brutal Bill sausage making and voting. In fact, it was hard to keep up with. And there were lots of comments on their posts and stories. LOTS! It’s reasonable to think that this frequent updating was one factor driving down the bill’s popularity.
I wonder where Tara was looking for their messaging and not finding it.
Good point. Where I think Tara is finding it lacking is in the people that our messaging simply does not reach. That is the majority of voters, as she noted about overall legacy media. I think she cited a stat saying that half the country had not heard about the bill.
I don't love that she framed this in terms of a critique of Democrats, because they were doing what they can within the messaging infrastructure they have. Can we as a party do better in the future - I sure hope so. Are most Dems doing whatever they can now? Also yes.
Another thing that troubles me about that comment is that I don't know how many people other than activists actually want to follow the process of legislation-making. That has a lot of the quality that Tara described about political coverage in the legacy media - it's technical, full of jargon, and in the case of draft legislation - very hard to understand what is even there or not there.
I suspect a lot of people implicitly want to delegate politics to politicians. The citizen's job is to vote periodically, and then the people they voted for are supposed to do the work to get laws passed and the country governed. I don't have direct evidence for this, so I can't prove it, just a suspicion.
Trump, Epstein, and The Corruption Of It All -- This might be out of left field -- but if the premise of this program is correct -- is this an opportunity that should be used -- maybe not by Hopium but can be used by the Dems/ the 'community' -- I've never followed this issue that closely --- but maybe it is an opportunity for the Dems et al. https://thelefthook.substack.com/p/trump-epstein-and-the-corruption?
ADORE her. Watching now. (This is what I do: I wait for your videos to go live, then I take my walk and listen. Along the way I meet my friends and they listen in. When I pass a Trump household, I put the volume up to full blast and hold the phone in the direction of those windows. It's amazing that I'm still alive.)
Not to worry Beth. Many of them are like mice. Far more afraid of you than you'd ever be of them.
SO funny. On my worst days I literally stand at the base of their driveways, holding up my phone while Simon is calling Trump a big blubbery orange pathetic everything. Pretending to tie my shoe.
How do you subscribe to her national newsroom?
Courier has a lot of local sites. You can subscribe to any at https://couriernewsroom.com/about/
You can also sign up for latest update emails at
https://couriernewsroom.com/actions/sign-up/
You might be able to win them over with Penzeys. One of his subscribers said they brought a box of the trial-sized bags to the No Kings Protest. I liked the idea. It's a subtle reminder that food is healthcare. That spices are healthcare...and a FU to those who voted against healthcare. But if they want bland food and no healthcare, they should be able to have bland food and no healthcare. The rest of us shouldn't suffer for their stupidity.
FYI: Just now at Seatac (Seattle, WA) Delta flight 415 to NYC has been delayed for over an hour due to lack of air traffic controllers -- welcome to felon 47's America. Pass it on.
Ugh!
Did they tell passengers that?!
Bringing this comment up from the earlier thread: Simon, I thought your talk today with Tara was one of the best things I've listened to in a long time. At one point, she mentioned that Dems haven't done enough to listen to people and that she believes they're afraid to do so. She was going to come back to that point, but the conversation went in a different direction. Do you know what she meant or do you know a way I can contact her? I have my own theory about this, but I'd love to hear hers!! Thank you!
Good catch! I was wondering what she was going to say as well!
Going to send her some money. Wish I were a billionaire.
She is so right about pathetic Dem messaging. They need a young Bernie. I wish a white male weren't essential, but to get on-the-fence male voters is what Dems need. Cultural and societal conditioning start at an early age and it's hard for some men to overcome it, not to mention the MAGA message that women and people of color have taken all the jobs.
Does anybody under 40 tune in to congressional speeches?? Focusing on young voters and where they get their info is so right on, they are the future.
Dolos and his enablers would like this nation to be Russia-lite (e.g. an ongoing list of suspicious deaths in Russia and how this becomes the norm) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_Russia-related_deaths_since_2022 and https://substack.com/@vladvexler/p-167838035.
Let us review the APA’s Goldwater rule: https://www.psychiatry.org/news-room/goldwater-rule.
One need not hope in order to undertake, nor succeed in order to persevere.
- William The Silent, aka William, Prince of Orange, April 24, 1533 - July 10, 1584.
Was a Dutch Revolt leader against Spain. He was the first European politician to be assassinated by a gun.
“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
― Frank Herbert, Dune
Project 2025 Trackers:
https://www.project2025.observer .
https://substack.com/@project2025progress .
https://substack.com/@ahmedbaba/p-158109308 .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPElaGebGPc (timestamps 13:10 and 55:07).
Here is an explanation of the “End Times Fascism” of the “Bunker Boys” (AKA “Tech Lords”): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HAeAHcCW14 .
Folks:
Like Simon, Professor Barbara Walter provides practical advice on fighting authoritarianism. If possible, she should be followed. Here are two excellent Substack articles by Professor Walter, an expert on preventing civil wars:
https://barbarafwalter.substack.com/p/the-hidden-battle-that-decides-whether .
https://barbarafwalter.substack.com/p/authoritarian-power-is-mostly-performance .
In addition, please watch this foreign psychiatrist’s YouTube explanation of MAGA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T8jF8BEeCM&list=TLPQMDkwNzIwMjVE3ae5164Kxg&index=3 . The world is watching. Many in the “Global South” understand that this nation has an identity/race problem where a large percentage of the population will give up on democracy in order to maintain their “status” in society. It seems that we keep coming back to LBJ:
"I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it," [LBJ] said. "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
CARTHAGO DELENDA EST (via nonviolence).
P.S. : DEMOCRATIC officials keep mentioning (and showing) Jan. 6 and the PARDONS relative to the current “law and order” push by Dolos and his associates. This is a simple but strong contrast. Use social media to promote testimonies by former “January 6 Commission” members and witnesses. YES, re-litigate Jan. 6 - again and again and again. Dolos needs to realize that he lives in a GLASS HOUSE. Go on Faux News Channel because it is just like an “unrepresented” Republican district - i.e. plenty of visuals devoid of facts. The VISUAL EVIDENCE IS NOW ON YOUR SIDE. GO ON ESPN (a male-leaning channel) and express concern about the viability of the pending World Cup with actors like Dolos and Miller in the mix. With measles rampant and anti-vax officials influencing policy, will tourists want to visit the USA (weak ticket sales?): https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/soccer/heres-what-fifa-president-gianni-infantino-said-about-ice-cbp-agents-at-club-world-cup/ar-AA1GwUkA ?
P.P.S.: Do the following now! FIRST, TEACH CIVICS. Second, register voters. THIRD, TEACH CIVICS. Rinse. Repeat.
P.P.P.S.: Every local office of the Democratic Party and of the elected officials (including state representatives on up) must become a site for civic teach-ins and a clearing house for needed services (with Federal departments being sabotaged). The fact is that Democrats believe in the value of government and of government service, and the other side (i.e. the MAGAts and the illiberals) simply doesn’t. This engagement process will make registering partisan voters and teaching civics much easier.
Yes, passengers were told that...
That's actually great!
Interesting, never heard of her or Courier -- will explore.
Simon, I really want you to interview Nathan Heller, author of the Ambience of Information article, in the New Yorker. Really important! You just referenced the article, but you didn’t share the name of the author. Below is a link to Heller’s article. Colleagues, this article thoroughly engaged me. What do you Hopium buddies think of it?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/republican-victory-and-the-ambience-of-information
We've invited him on and hope to get him on this summer.
And the article is linked to in the post.
This interview with Tara about Courier engaged me thoroughly.
This was a fascinating conversation that has so much applicability beyond the media environment.
At minute 37, Simon talks about how funders in the democracy space fund their own theories of change, not what the social entrepreneurs or people on the ground think would work. I'd argue this is the exact same issue in every social justice space (I know the women's rights space the best) - the funder comes up with the idea and then looks for the implementer; as opposed to being a catalyst, you become just a minder. When you look at the anti-rights movement (anti-women, anti-LGBTQ, anti-pluralism, anti-immigrant, anti-children, married with pro fossil fuel and pro authoritarians), they figured out a new formula roughly 30 years ago: long-term, flexible funding for people and organizations. Meanwhile, we have gone deeper and deeper into "projects and program" mode: fixed 18 month - 3 year projects with logframes and predetermined outputs that are supposedly leading to outcomes. Spoiler: they haven't. My mantra as I try to get my own thing off the ground is "people and platforms, not projects and programs."
At minute 42, Tara builds on this by talking about meeting people where they are, not where you want them to be. This has been a hard lesson to learn as a lifelong Dem (who also lives and work(ed, sadly, Trump ended the active tense for me) in a bubble) - what drives someone to vote against health care? Against public education? Against clean water or air? One of the most powerful potential explanations I've seen for this came from a cult psychologist, who ran a series of videos explaining how often times the emotional psychology of seeing someone you dislike have less than you, or a poor outcome, or somehow be the victim of some sort of "revenge" is actually more powerfully addicting than you gaining something positive for yourself. That's a profound (and sad) indictment of human nature - but maybe a lesson we on the left need to learn if we want to continue to drive the "larger narrative" and win an information war. That would mean leaning into things like Epstein (IE, you're not getting the revenge you were promised), things like Tesla (did you really want to be sold cars for rich people via the White House?), flood relief money that is never going to come (you and your neighbors were sold out).
There's something both Tara and Simon are circling on by the end re how to drive a larger narrative while also following and understanding national sentiment - I'm just not sure we've quite nailed what it means in practice. Would love others' thoughts.
There's a great book entitled Dying of Whiteness by Jonathan Metzl that goes into how people will vote against their own interests in order to see someone else get hurt. We don't want to believe that because it's not how most of us think, but, having lived in a very red area, I can tell you that it absolutely motivates a chunk of the electorate. We could use it by attacking, say, billionaires, but in any event, we need to understand it.
Great book! He was on Dr. Ben-Ghiat's weekly chat.
I think what you're describing in terms of "revenge" is about status. Nearly all human interactions involve status structures of some sort. The currency of that status - i.e. what gets you more status - varies from group to group.
Progressive elites have developed views on status that in my view are detached from how most of the country looks at status. I believe that's because the way our professed values of egalitarianism combine with the actual currency of status in educated, cosmopolitan progressive circles which is a lot about erudition, expertise, and not being too conspicuous about material wealth but still enjoying it.
This has made us blind to status markers that many other communities use: toughness, overt wealth, stylishness, etc.
Most people openly measure their status against others with whom they feel competition or conflict. Yet our side is shocked to learn that many immigrants look down on other immigrants; we see them mostly as members of social outgroups we believe should be "included" but completely overlook the status conflict between them.
IMHO this blind spot is why so many progressives find it so hard to understand why the "anti-woke" stuff has real traction, and reflexively label any reaction to status threat as one or another "-ism".
I'm not saying we should embrace the divisive, zero-sum views on status the right uses ("dominion" as Simon calls it), but we urgently need to open our eyes to how other folks think about status.
Tara referenced something important about the structure of the Democratic party - we don't really have long-term party bosses at all anymore. Almost 20 years ago, I heard a quote from none other than Rush Limbaugh that explained that once the cigar-filled rooms of the Democratic Party were emptied out, our advocacy groups (The Groups as Ruy Texeira calls them) began to exert more power over the party but also fracture it. I think explains an awful lot about our party's lack of infrastructure and messaging - there are no long-term *party* bosses, just candidates, campaigns, and The Groups. Of course our party thinks in issues - it's run by issue groups!
Another thing I think MAGA and Trump recognized early is that the GOP had also basically run out of party bosses. They were also quicker to realize that to become new bosses they needed to build a bridge between old industry (extractive and heavy industry) and new industry (tech monopolists). Dems assumed that the shared cosmopolitan outlook would be enough to keep tech in our court, and this assumption has badly backfired.
I may get pilloried for saying this, but I think our party may need some bosses. Bosses, who are good people (unlike those running the GOP), but are centers of power within the party itself. That is, people who are committed to the party (not campaigns, not groups) for decades, and also can pick up the phone (or send the right text) and make stuff happen. I just can't see how a party can have a cohesive strategy or understanding of overall political power if its power centers are issue-driven organizations.
Speaking of which, might I suggest get Ruy Texeira on to Hopium?
He is pretty critical of Dems and progressives these days, especially since leaving CAP, but he is much further along in "meet people where they are" than almost any other political scientist on the left. His perspectives on class, culture, and the body politic are required reading IMHO.
Tara talked a lot about the importance of truth. Being able to trust. But never mentioned that Trump‘s platform was based entirely on disinformation, which now is very obvious. So although truth and trust is important, how does it play out among the Republicans and Republican supporters. Tara also talked about the importance at the end of connecting with potential voters and that we didn’t do that. But she has platforms at 11 states and is a national presence. How did she play out or affect the potential voters in the end with what she was providing? That wasn’t clear to me and I don’t know Courier so I’m unaware of what their presence was or how they affected voters in the last few weeks of the election.
Deborah, you might want to follow Asha Rangappa, who talks a lot about that.
Yes I have. I just wondered why Tara didn’t talk about this. Since she said that trust was so important. Also that Courier really meets the voter where they are..so wondered how Courier felt they affected those voters in the final days.
Some of the points made above by Janie and Eric could help explain the apparent lack of importance of truth and trust to a segment of the voting public. Resentment and grievance are powerful motivators. And thus, the importance of avoiding statements that allow our political opponents to claim we are guilty of class warfare. Obama and Clinton both occasionally crossed this line, and in Clinton's case it really seemed to hurt her candidacy.
Millie Polli Haskell......I absolutely loved Tara McGowan. I think she will be a great asset in any particular part of our Democratic Party in the mid-terms. So, keep speaking out Tara. I hope you can come to Floriduh!! I enjoyed your conversation with Simon very much.
Terrific conversation, Simon and Tara! Simon's reemphasis of the importance of 'Strength' (real or imagined) -- also in tonight's live chat -- dovetails nicely with a fascinating video conversation today between Katie Phang and Alex Berros of Mi Vecino. Many of the people Alex interviewed (largely Florida Republican Latino voters) post Trump 2.0 were attracted by the façade of Trump's strength, and personal characteristics were largely more important than issues to these voters. (The aura of strength and charisma matter for candidates, just as they do in personal relationships.) That said, Alex described a sizable proportion (17%) of the electorate he interviewed who said they would now change party loyalty to Independent (11%) or Democrat (6%). Most of this change occurred since March. Alex has a large contingent of people that he repeatedly relies on for interviews, very much 'boots on the ground'. Lots more really insightful information in this conversation. https://katiephang.substack.com/p/live-with-mi-vecino?utm_source=podcast-email&publication_id=3002616&post_id=167912539&utm_campaign=email-play-on-substack&utm_content=watch_now_button&r=30f9km&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
I have one difference with what Tara says: I follow a number of Democratic Senators and Representatives, including my own, on Instagram because it’s an efficient way to follow what they’re doing. They did a lot of messaging/communicating during the Big Brutal Bill sausage making and voting. In fact, it was hard to keep up with. And there were lots of comments on their posts and stories. LOTS! It’s reasonable to think that this frequent updating was one factor driving down the bill’s popularity.
I wonder where Tara was looking for their messaging and not finding it.
Good point. Where I think Tara is finding it lacking is in the people that our messaging simply does not reach. That is the majority of voters, as she noted about overall legacy media. I think she cited a stat saying that half the country had not heard about the bill.
I don't love that she framed this in terms of a critique of Democrats, because they were doing what they can within the messaging infrastructure they have. Can we as a party do better in the future - I sure hope so. Are most Dems doing whatever they can now? Also yes.
Another thing that troubles me about that comment is that I don't know how many people other than activists actually want to follow the process of legislation-making. That has a lot of the quality that Tara described about political coverage in the legacy media - it's technical, full of jargon, and in the case of draft legislation - very hard to understand what is even there or not there.
I suspect a lot of people implicitly want to delegate politics to politicians. The citizen's job is to vote periodically, and then the people they voted for are supposed to do the work to get laws passed and the country governed. I don't have direct evidence for this, so I can't prove it, just a suspicion.
Thank you, Eric! That makes sense.
Trump, Epstein, and The Corruption Of It All -- This might be out of left field -- but if the premise of this program is correct -- is this an opportunity that should be used -- maybe not by Hopium but can be used by the Dems/ the 'community' -- I've never followed this issue that closely --- but maybe it is an opportunity for the Dems et al. https://thelefthook.substack.com/p/trump-epstein-and-the-corruption?