I’m a data scientist and often fantasize everybody around me at work understands math and statistical method - and I would imagine the political world is hundred times worse nightmare version of it…
And for the moderation and messaging discipline part, I really have no realistic solution other than maybe restricting the social
media use of those activist…?
The veal pen model Matt Y mentioned was possible partially bc Democrats only needed to coordinate with the leadership but now all rank and file members have access to the platform to show (performative) disobedience in social media…
I agree that trying to appeal to the median voter is a good idea, but they’re a moving target. Republicans had plenty of policies that didn’t - and still don’t - appeal to median voters, but forced Overton’s window rightward through sheer force of will and by simply waiting for economic tides to turn their way.
I'd draw a distinction between policies Republicans ran on (lower prices, stopping immigration, lowering crime) and what they seem to want to actually do. The latter is far less popular. Not that they don't have coordination problems of their own, with folks on the right trying to push things far beyond what the median voters wants!
I just worry about this whole narrative of, "Democrats must change what they run on, or else," because I'm still not clear what this means. The Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein types are like, "don't run on things that are unpopular, and do run on things that are popular." While I like both of them, this is rather vague. What does this platitude mean? Throwing trans people under the bus? Trashing unions, particularly teachers unions? Blasting DEI? Supporting rash deportations?
I know this may sound like a silly analogy, but I'm reminded of when Rock bands started putting out disco records in the late '70s, thinking that they "had to" go where pop culture was headed, only to find they jumped onto a train that was careening off of a cliff, relevancy wise. What voters want now may be different than what they want 3 years from now (1 and 1/2, if we consider midterms). To stop campaigning on progressive ideals simply because Puerto Ricans in Allentown PA were upset over egg prices in 2024 seems self defeating in the long run.
"While I like both of them, this is rather vague. What does this platitude mean? Throwing trans people under the bus? Trashing unions, particularly teachers unions? Blasting DEI? Supporting rash deportations?"
I don't read Klein as much, but Matt Y has written many detailed proposals on this subect.
I think he's published ~8 pieces since the election, detailing his proposals. You can absolutely disagree with him, but the claim that he's been vague is completely without merit.
And yes, the disco analogy is extremely silly. Disco was a new fad in music. Voters having conservative views on energy, climate, gender, race, etc. is the furthest thing from a passing fad imaginable.
"And yes, the disco analogy is extremely silly. Disco was a new fad in music. Voters having conservative views on energy, climate, gender, race, etc. is the furthest thing from a passing fad imaginable."
Considering how voters often sided with democrats on these issues (or moved left on them - remember when 20 years ago, Gay marriage was a loser for Kerry? Now, no one cares), I'm not sure that voters are rock solid on these things. Also, do people know a fad is a fad when it's happening? I think you might be giving to much intellectual credit to voters.
And I read Yglesias too, and his proposals amount to little more than, "make public services run well again," or require voters to respond rationally to incentives to truly pay off. Yeah, I agree with him on general terms, but his suggestions seem to rely on a lot of things going right, or voters perceiving things as going right.
Conservative views aren’t just happening now, such that we have to guess whether they’ll persist. They have a long-term track record. It’s hard to know if something new is a fad, but old things are, by definition, not fads.
I couldn’t agree less with your Yglesis take. You’ve already flipped from him being too vague, to now he’s too demanding and requires too many things to go right.
It’s the Bernie / Liz wing that thinks you can buy votes. That is, voters “rationally responding to incentives”.
I’m a data scientist and often fantasize everybody around me at work understands math and statistical method - and I would imagine the political world is hundred times worse nightmare version of it…
And for the moderation and messaging discipline part, I really have no realistic solution other than maybe restricting the social
media use of those activist…?
The veal pen model Matt Y mentioned was possible partially bc Democrats only needed to coordinate with the leadership but now all rank and file members have access to the platform to show (performative) disobedience in social media…
The fact that everyone is online now and can get news coverage makes things trickier for sure
I agree that trying to appeal to the median voter is a good idea, but they’re a moving target. Republicans had plenty of policies that didn’t - and still don’t - appeal to median voters, but forced Overton’s window rightward through sheer force of will and by simply waiting for economic tides to turn their way.
I'd draw a distinction between policies Republicans ran on (lower prices, stopping immigration, lowering crime) and what they seem to want to actually do. The latter is far less popular. Not that they don't have coordination problems of their own, with folks on the right trying to push things far beyond what the median voters wants!
I just worry about this whole narrative of, "Democrats must change what they run on, or else," because I'm still not clear what this means. The Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein types are like, "don't run on things that are unpopular, and do run on things that are popular." While I like both of them, this is rather vague. What does this platitude mean? Throwing trans people under the bus? Trashing unions, particularly teachers unions? Blasting DEI? Supporting rash deportations?
I know this may sound like a silly analogy, but I'm reminded of when Rock bands started putting out disco records in the late '70s, thinking that they "had to" go where pop culture was headed, only to find they jumped onto a train that was careening off of a cliff, relevancy wise. What voters want now may be different than what they want 3 years from now (1 and 1/2, if we consider midterms). To stop campaigning on progressive ideals simply because Puerto Ricans in Allentown PA were upset over egg prices in 2024 seems self defeating in the long run.
"While I like both of them, this is rather vague. What does this platitude mean? Throwing trans people under the bus? Trashing unions, particularly teachers unions? Blasting DEI? Supporting rash deportations?"
I don't read Klein as much, but Matt Y has written many detailed proposals on this subect.
https://www.slowboring.com/p/public-services-are-for-users-not
https://www.slowboring.com/p/a-common-sense-democrat-manifesto
https://www.slowboring.com/p/defund-the-language-police
etc.
I think he's published ~8 pieces since the election, detailing his proposals. You can absolutely disagree with him, but the claim that he's been vague is completely without merit.
And yes, the disco analogy is extremely silly. Disco was a new fad in music. Voters having conservative views on energy, climate, gender, race, etc. is the furthest thing from a passing fad imaginable.
"And yes, the disco analogy is extremely silly. Disco was a new fad in music. Voters having conservative views on energy, climate, gender, race, etc. is the furthest thing from a passing fad imaginable."
Considering how voters often sided with democrats on these issues (or moved left on them - remember when 20 years ago, Gay marriage was a loser for Kerry? Now, no one cares), I'm not sure that voters are rock solid on these things. Also, do people know a fad is a fad when it's happening? I think you might be giving to much intellectual credit to voters.
And I read Yglesias too, and his proposals amount to little more than, "make public services run well again," or require voters to respond rationally to incentives to truly pay off. Yeah, I agree with him on general terms, but his suggestions seem to rely on a lot of things going right, or voters perceiving things as going right.
Conservative views aren’t just happening now, such that we have to guess whether they’ll persist. They have a long-term track record. It’s hard to know if something new is a fad, but old things are, by definition, not fads.
I couldn’t agree less with your Yglesis take. You’ve already flipped from him being too vague, to now he’s too demanding and requires too many things to go right.
It’s the Bernie / Liz wing that thinks you can buy votes. That is, voters “rationally responding to incentives”.
Matt says tell people what they want to hear.
This is extremely weird advice if the end goal of a party is policies not winning itself, which it hopefully is.