Quote:
Originally Posted by SwoopAE
If they nominate him he won't win. Being gay isn't 'poison' politically the way it would have been 30-40 years ago, but it's going to be a negative unrelatable trait to the young male demo Dems are trying to reach for the most part. You just can't lose that 3% or whatever it'll cost him.
Buttigieg is a smooth talker to some degree but they need a charismatic and masculine dude to reverse losses among young men; unfortunately too many non-college educated men of all races on the building site are not going to listen to a 'fkn f----t' no matter how good a debater he is and how well he speaks.
Now on the other hand.... IF YOU SMELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL WHAT THE ROCK IS COOKIN'
If Dwayne is willing to risk half of the country hating him (he def feels that need to be loved by everyone with his movie choices etc) he absolutely can win imo and you just KNOW he wants to be president, surely Young Rock (the TV show) was a test for reactions there
The left has to build their own influence platform to speak progressive values in a masculine way towards young men that isn't preachy or shaming them. You can't be all like THE PATRIARCHY! BE ASHAMED OF BEING A WHITE MAN BECAUSE HISTORICALLY THEY HAD THE POWER! TOXIC MASCULINITY! etc and expect young men to vote for you.
They have to tailor their message to the working class, and actually sell the truthful message of 'economically speaking, you are actually better off voting for progressive parties unless you are wealthy, which most of you are not'. If they're ranting about trans rights, the working class will be tuned out and listening to the other guy.
If they don't learn from the experience and get the right infrastructure and messenger in place they won't win, if they can do that, they should since demographically the boomers are the next generation to die off but Dems need to turn it around quickly with Gen Z men or they're ****ed
This is pretty right. The problem is, both parties are set up to promote materially right wing, neo-liberal hawkish policy, wrapped in either L or R identity politics. because that is what brings in the money. Trump and Bernie were anomalies who in Bern's case, almost slipped through the cracks, and in Trump's case did.
Posting in the politics forum, I've been astonished at how many older Dems still live in 1999 and are informed entirely by like, MSNBC and the daily show. It's like Iraq never happened and they don't have internet connections.
I stumbled on this interview with Vance.
Yes, he is likely FOS. However, he was sitting down with some podcaster whose audience is probably 8x CNNs. He was having a natural conversation and expressing what seemed to be a coherent worldview. He explained how firms like Blackrock borrow at lower rates, which is part of why they have bought up so much residential property. And young people have gone from dreaming of home ownership, to realizing they will always rent, to worrying if they will even be able to pay rent.
The total antithesis of a Harris or Walz appearance, and far beyond the capabilities of either.
In 1998 MSM and duopoly land, issues like this simply aren't discussed, particularly from a big picture perspective. And, of course, most Ds and Rs are in favor of these kinds of economic shifts because they profit from them. Everyone over 40 "does their own research" which leads some to crazy town, but most are vastly better informed about how the world actually works, whether they are left or right.
Having celebrities worth $800 million lecture us about how we must vote, relying on divisive ID pols, and doing propaganda hits on Saturday Night Live is not the way anymore. Answering everything with a little canned speech that has nothing to do with reality isn't gonna work.
It's going to be very interesting moving forward, because the vast majority of the increasingly irrelevant MSM and politicians from both parties still exist in this outdated ideological narrative and they have no real incentive to change. Even if they lose elections, they make mountains of money individually by clinging to these narratives, whether they believe them or not.
The pool of people in either party who are even somewhat normal human beings, connected in any way to the reality young (or informed) people know, is quite small. Very few could do something like sit down and speak naturally, and explain what is actually going on with housing, or have answers on foreign policy that aren't like "America is the greatest country in the world and we are spreading democracy."