All good changes. Not running on climate change doesn't mean not promoting climate change initiatives once elected. Ossoff's hits on Trump's corruption also seems like it's getting traction, in part because it has some authenticity behind it rather than simply following the political winds on such themes as affordability, scaled down progressive left themes, and simpler messaging.
Searchlight is Fetterman's ex-chief of staff, Matthew Yglesias' former intern, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, etc etc. It's the same group of centrist dem consultants and bloggers that have been kicking around forever, backing the same politics and politicians.
Changes in rhetoric is the only thing they have to offer. They are utterly convinced that every failure is a messaging failure and that people will vote for their slate of 80-year-old do-nothing candidates if those candidates say that trans women shouldn't be allowed in sports.
It's almost as if this piece is advocating for abandoning the climate change issue all together. I'm not sure if the strategy is "get elected and then we'll do something about climate change," or "let's ignore climate change altogether because it's not as popular." Neither should be adopted by the DNC. Everyone can see that man-made climate change is real, as the evidence is overwhelming, and its effects are all around us and are encountered every day in every part of the world. We cannot bow to the anti-science right as the consequences are too dire. We must figure out a way to elucidate an intelligent strategy and communicate it.
100% agree that the evidence for climate change is overwhelming. I would also say that climate change is the existential, looming problem of our age. To have the power to pass laws and implement initiatives in a democracy, though, you need to get elected. To get elected, the messaging has to appeal to enough voters. So reframing the messaging is mission critical. It could be: we'll bring down the cost and increase the reliability and frequency of (public) transport- if focus groups show that that resonates with voters. Hopefully that would get more people out of their cars. It could be: we'll bring on big new infrastructure works (that happen to be wind and solar farms) to create well paying jobs. Does climate change have to be explicitly mentioned on the hustings? I don't think so, so long as you do have a plan to do something about it, one which is visible to those who care about it and can see the implications of what you're planning. To get elected, you have to show people that you care about their immediate problems and issues. Solving some of those issues, such as by creating good jobs building wind farms, can mesh with climate change mitigation goals. It's genuine climate change stuff, but you have to direct voter attention to the aspects of the plan that they're going to really like.
This is a good turn of events. I am curious though, how they plan to implement their affordability promises. It’s encouraging to see Mandani pivot and embrace some supply side policies but I am still skeptical others on the left follow suit.
Forgot about Latinx! Good times.
All good changes. Not running on climate change doesn't mean not promoting climate change initiatives once elected. Ossoff's hits on Trump's corruption also seems like it's getting traction, in part because it has some authenticity behind it rather than simply following the political winds on such themes as affordability, scaled down progressive left themes, and simpler messaging.
Feels like you're over indexing on changes in rhetoric
Searchlight is Fetterman's ex-chief of staff, Matthew Yglesias' former intern, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, etc etc. It's the same group of centrist dem consultants and bloggers that have been kicking around forever, backing the same politics and politicians.
Changes in rhetoric is the only thing they have to offer. They are utterly convinced that every failure is a messaging failure and that people will vote for their slate of 80-year-old do-nothing candidates if those candidates say that trans women shouldn't be allowed in sports.
It's almost as if this piece is advocating for abandoning the climate change issue all together. I'm not sure if the strategy is "get elected and then we'll do something about climate change," or "let's ignore climate change altogether because it's not as popular." Neither should be adopted by the DNC. Everyone can see that man-made climate change is real, as the evidence is overwhelming, and its effects are all around us and are encountered every day in every part of the world. We cannot bow to the anti-science right as the consequences are too dire. We must figure out a way to elucidate an intelligent strategy and communicate it.
100% agree that the evidence for climate change is overwhelming. I would also say that climate change is the existential, looming problem of our age. To have the power to pass laws and implement initiatives in a democracy, though, you need to get elected. To get elected, the messaging has to appeal to enough voters. So reframing the messaging is mission critical. It could be: we'll bring down the cost and increase the reliability and frequency of (public) transport- if focus groups show that that resonates with voters. Hopefully that would get more people out of their cars. It could be: we'll bring on big new infrastructure works (that happen to be wind and solar farms) to create well paying jobs. Does climate change have to be explicitly mentioned on the hustings? I don't think so, so long as you do have a plan to do something about it, one which is visible to those who care about it and can see the implications of what you're planning. To get elected, you have to show people that you care about their immediate problems and issues. Solving some of those issues, such as by creating good jobs building wind farms, can mesh with climate change mitigation goals. It's genuine climate change stuff, but you have to direct voter attention to the aspects of the plan that they're going to really like.
This is a good turn of events. I am curious though, how they plan to implement their affordability promises. It’s encouraging to see Mandani pivot and embrace some supply side policies but I am still skeptical others on the left follow suit.
Where has Mamdami moved towards supply side policies?
Housing
Kinda*