Bill Maher the Messaging Czar
Maher tells the Democrats why they aren't winning and what's wrong with their message. You don't have to be a Maher fan to see the reality he is describing.
His focus is don't piss off the majority of voters you need to win—non-college-educated white folks in their 50s.
For any that don't understand the public's resistance to their most liberal pushes, He explains it in plain English, (so to speak). If you don't get it after viewing this link, then you ain't ever gonna.
Yes, winning is about expanding the electorate.
But, Can we engage with those 50 something white high school graduates without embracing David Duke at the same time? Now that is the question.
Sure you can engage with them.
Just don't tell them their little girl isn't a girl. Or that they don't know how to raise their children. Or that they can't have a gun because bad guys have guns. Or that abortion isn't murder. Or . . .
Hell's bells Cred. That was Maher's whole point and monologue. I think he even mentioned Duke. He's not coaching you to find those folks you can embrace, he's coaching you on how to stop doing the stuff that is alienating them, (us), and rallying them against you.
He's coaching them to lie and deceive, which is what many politicians have turned into an art form.
What Bill is saying is don't tell the whites what you really think and feel about them.
Don't tell them you want to destroy the concept of family, that you want to groom their children, programming them with concepts of victimhood and discriminization.
Tell them rising gas prices has nothing to do with their "go green" politics, that rising food costs and the coming recession has nothing to do with giving out trillions in "stimulus" after we were already out of the crisis.
They will lie about it, they always do come election time, but I don't think people will care, they will see $4.50 gas prices and $30 a pound hamburger and vote accordingly.
Ken, lie and deceive? What do you think that the GOP represents?
The Democrats is not an anti white party as you seem to be implying.
The lie is in shrouding the truth with fables, that is indoctrination in of itself. If telling the truth about America's past is indoctrination, then this is not the America that I believed it to be.
We are in trouble over economics, as I scowl over the prices at the pump. I don't blame Biden, directly, but a fickle electorate will and that will open the door for the tyrannical Republicans to get a firm foot hold. They, setting themselves up where even a majority of the voters cannot dislodge them.
That is my only real fear. I only see any Republican as making bad things worse, such is my level of distrust for them and everything they stand for.
The Democratic coalition is now a mix of non-college whites, whites with at least a four-year college degree (28%), nonwhites who have not completed college (also 28%) and nonwhites with at least a four-year degree (12%). The largest share of Republican voters are non-college whites (57%), followed by whites with a college degree (25%), nonwhites who do not have a degree (12%) and those who have completed college (4%).
I don't have a lot to say about the transgender stuff, never did.
Republicans have their own theories about child rearing, it is just that less well educated cling to those more fervently.
Do the less educated recognize that there is more to the abortion issue than just the viability of a zygote?
Or that the incidents of carnage in America is as such going beyond their immediate and personal circumstances regarding firearms proliferation. Does any light flicker "up there" that can go beyond all guns verses no gun?
I guess the stuff the Democrats advocate are more irritating to them then the stuff the GOP advocate are irritating to me? I am just reminded that there remains a surplus of pick-up truck, beer swilling Righties, whose fundamental values I and many like me will always be at odds with.
Greater Education correlates with more support for the Democrats, I may just have to wait for demographics to change further.....
Meanwhile, Bill suggests how to attract the lowest common denominator, (from an education standpoint) but the number Zero allows for no such option.
" I am just reminded that there remains a surplus of pick-up truck, beer swilling Righties,"
Following the intended message of the thread, it is charitable to say you just don't get it. Maybe I would be more persuaded to see your view if you offered me a beer and some gas for my F150 SuperDuty 4x4.
"Republicans have their own theories about child rearing, it is just that less well educated cling to those more fervently."
Yes, they do. Likely because they look at the delinquent/criminal activities of children reared under modern theories and turn the other way.
"Do the less educated recognize that there is more to the abortion issue than just the viability of a zygote?"
Yes, of course: God has told them not to murder the children.
"Does any light flicker "up there" that can go beyond all guns verses no gun?"
Of course. Then they look around and recognize that it is never about limiting guns to those unlikely to murder; it is about limiting gun ownership to all. Plus, of course, there are a few liberals willing to admit that the goal is the disarmament of all people.
I got a good chuckle from the stark truths he shared. On a side note thanks for introducing me to Maher, though knew his name. I like his humor.
I really was hit by the Virginia example with the following day headline/comments proclaiming why the vote results were the way they were.
Maybe oddly I feel the advice he gave applies to both parties for expanding their voter base.
Mahar dished up good common sense. However, one must possess common sense to hear it.
Funny as Hell! And with truth buried (or right out front) in almost every sentence. Judge Judy points out that we have two ears and only one mouth for a reason; perhaps the liberals need to close the one and open the two instead of the other way around.
Yep, but as blunt and clear as it was to us, some folks didn't get it, (*cough, Cred cough) Bless their hearts. ;-)
Am I just picking on the group that Hillary Clinton once defined as the "deplorables"?
This goes into anti-intellectual attitude from the GOP
Trump as their King says he loves the less educated, why would he say that?
Conservatives when attacking Obama and other Democrat candidates accuse them of being "over educated", what does that mean?
Texas would rather have truck drivers and slingers of hash design their history books over trained and educated historians
Conservatives resist the idea of climate change when the preponderance of climate scientists say that it is quite real.
There is nothing virtuous about being under educated and ignorant. This is the "no-nothing" party resurrected. Instead of promoting education, they would prefer to put ignorance on a pedestal as their adherents would naturally be more gullible from the dearth of knowledge.
"There is nothing virtuous about being under educated and ignorant."
There is nothing virtuous about being educated, either. All that matters, either way, is what actions are taken, what kind of life is being led.
Caught the end of this news blurb and thought of this thread, (I didn't want another abortion thread)
This is so nuts that it is incredible that anyone would not view it as nuts.
In the reality of a Congressional hearing, an invited pro-abortion activist stated that everyone can decide for themselves what a woman is, and followed up with that she believes men could get pregnant and also choose to have an abortion. There is a context issue that most folks will never see. Her statements are defended by the claim that she meant her answer to be relative to a woman transgendering to a man. I don't think the public will buy that explanation.
I'm not presenting her statements as representative of all liberals or pro-abortion activists. I am showcasing her statements as an example of the damaging liberal image the conservatives see.
"So you think a man can get pregnant and have an abortion, sure, we'll listen to you.'
The link is 16 secs. I've given the context but the article of the link supplies more if you need it.
Dem Pro-Abortion Witness “Yes” Men Can Become Pregnant And Have Abortions
" example of the damaging liberal image the conservatives see."
This is just another example of a non-sensical statement from someone that gets on a platform and speaks of something they know nothing about. Not sure if some liberals would even claim her or if she could be taken to be a serious liberal.
The worst of it is that many with this woman's same mindset or lack of scientific knowledge hear her statement or see it on social media, and believe it. Yes, this sort of non-sensical rhetoric is just one problem liberals have to deal with. I would assume many liberals would cringe at her statement.
However, this kind of non-sensical statement stands to hurt the liberal image in the eyes of some conservatives.
I understand what you're saying. But, do you ever consider "the damaging conservative image the liberals see? I mean, do you even care?
As someone living outside (yes) US, it's always funny to me how some "moderates" and C/conservatives always want liberals to listen to their side, be flexible, be inclusive, be unifiers, and so on. But when it comes to their side... Everybody has to conform to what THEIR ideas and needs are.
Maybe they know liberals are more reasonable? I wonder.
Not only do I understand the negative image some conservatives present, and like this 'liberal', I understand that sometimes they have earned it. Your question about caring was unnecessary.
I also understood that the most probable 'rebuttal' would be a 'yeah, but . . . ', so I think I chose my words carefully, even noting that I wasn't painting the whole of any group with her idiocy. A whole paragraph of caveats.
Yet, your first response is to treat it as a slam against liberals and defend against it with a 'yeah, but what about those conservatives!' Tsk. Tsk.
It wasnt a "yeah, but". It wasn't about her. I asked because I've seen you asked mostly to liberals. So I was curious.
Im glad you do.
You're right, I do tag liberals, more than conservatives. That's because I think liberals are most in need of seeing themselves through their opposite's eyes.
This topic is an example of that; I clearly tried to present it as an illustration, not a group condemnation.
As for that 'liberals need it most' remark, here's the deal: I think most conservatives that are as Cred describes, 'red necks with pick-up trucks and beer' know how the liberals see them. They don't care. Some of them even wear it like a badge. And that's not a really bad thing. I think it's at least honest.
I try to let really extreme or fringe comments have their space so that only leaves red necks and reasonable conservatives for me to tag. I would just be stating the obvious to them. And you know what they say about 'stating the obvious'.
You folks are the ones that most need the prod. As a community member, I'm just doing my duty to help my buds see the light. ;-)
So I was right.
Maybe they know liberals are more reasonable? I wonder.
Is that a quote or your thought? I don't think I would be one of the "they".
You can be right twice. I was right twice, once, back in '78.
I don't know if conservatives can see what I am seeing?
Same thing an illustration
I have to wonder what kinds of people go around with "Brandon" and "Trump won" flags from their back of their pickups. Never seen that level of coarseness and vulgarity from the Left even in situations of the greatest disappointment. The same people ,"exuberant patriots" that trashed a building, more than that, a symbol of democratic Government. Vandalizing property and relieving themselves through out these hallowed halls. What kinds of people are these? What is there to understand? Then we follow that course of resentment and anti-democracy to the manifestos of those that would kill innocents in supermarkets.
Then there is the other image, the guys in the Brooks Brothers suits as oligarchs that through their lobbyist and inordinate influence in Government and its machinery, usurps the will of the people. Yes, corporations are people, and the Government is for sale to the highest bidder.
And finally, that of the Bible Thumpers who somehow believe that I have to the conform to the hypocrisy of their beliefs being imposed upon us all.
So, conservatives are typecast among many of us. Why they may not care what we believe regarding them, I am not supporting these types in anyway, politically. They may need to be concerned about that.
"Never seen that level of coarseness and vulgarity from the Left even in situations of the greatest disappointment. "
Really? All the rest of us have. (Have you forgotten all of the protests in your country when Trump defeated Hilary?) Are you sure you are not wearing Leftist blinders?
And where have you seen it Mark? There is nothing wrong with peaceful protests, but there is something wrong with ransacking and trashing the U,S capital solely because "your man" did not win in a fair contest, as acknowledged by everyone except the Rightwinger, who says otherwise without proof.
And when were there not misgivings by those that lost? Trump had even a more narrow victory over Clinton than the margin that he lost over Biden. Trump was not popular due to his stance and policies, but no one spent 2 years denying the fact that Clinton lost and Trump won. No one stormed a federal capital building seeking to change the outcome of a democratic process in place for over 200 years. And finally, no one from the left schemed as Trump and his henchmen did deliberately from the very top to usurp the will of the people.
Trump created the angst against him on his own with his behavior and policies and still no one brought the house down.
Both sides do it, yeah. But it is also an convienient excuse for covering the sheer extent and magnitude of one side doing it over the other. So, from that standpoint, I am biased against the Right, generally and am honest enough to admit it.
Selective memory. I recall the losers telling everyone how they were going to impeach Trump even BEFORE he because president
Mark, words are words but actions have more weight. When Trump was impeached it was on the abuse of Discretion surrounding his behavior in office at his own doing. No, I did not like Trump as a man let alone a President long before any of his desires to hold the office, but I (the left) did not attempt to unravel the Democratic process because of it.
Do you really think that the differences are just political, can you not see magnitude and extent in my argument?
No, I think you are unable tô see any value of arguments you do not agree with.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are flooded with biased documentaries on Netflix and other média. Can you not see that?
Conservatism in of itself is a negative concept of wanting to return to what was before. When what was before was woefully inadaquare and simply "won't do". Progress is preferred over regress, so outside Fox and conservative oriented media outlets a positive view of conservatism is difficult to hold.
But, obviously, you hold a different opinion.
Two sham, (that should light a fuse ;-)), impeachments weren't an unraveling of the democratic process?
GA, impeachment is enshrined in the Constitution as remedy for high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the President, storming and trashing the Capitol is not.
Well, it is supposed to be, I have to just look at the one Bill Clinton received in the Nineties to realized that the process can be highly political.
But again, my theme is the extent and magnitude when looking at either side.
Many are willing to look the other way or make very well-put-together scenarios to explain away the violence and destruction that resulted from the "Summer of Love".
CNN offered a live report with a reporter standing in front of burning cars and buildings and what did he report --- "The protests are mostly peaceful." One with any form of common sense should have at that point seen the truth. The footage of violence and destruction went on all summer. Yet some still call it "mostly peaceful.
Sharlee, To your comment, I offer this...
ACLED, a widely cited source for data on civilian casualties in Yemen, has been a non-partisan monitor of protests and violence in the Middle East, Asia, Europe and Latin America, and launched its US Crisis Monitor in July, citing concerns over hate crimes and rising political violence.
ACLED found that the overwhelming majority of the more than 9.000 Black Lives Matter demonstrations that took place across the US after the killing of George Floyd have been peaceful. News reports at the height of demonstrations over Floyd’s killing cited dozens of deaths in connection with protests, but many of those turned out to be examples of deadly crimes carried out in the vicinity of protests, rather than directly related to the demonstrations themselves, the researchers concluded. ACLED’s dataset only focuses on political violence.
Again with a Maximum of 25 death over several months since the George Floyd protests began compared to one rightwing racist shooter killing 11 people in a single afternoon, we need, again, to focus on magnitude and extent.
Why are you defensively offering conservative counter-examples? I didn't offer my original comment as a comparison of how bad the liberals are. I didn't offer any support for conservative issue positions, (even though I might if that were the topic).
In any conflict, the side that best understands its opponent is better informed about how to proceed. You guys are blinded by your own self-righteousness. Because you think you are right, (not saying you aren't), you think that is all you need to win the battle. As you can see in our current times, being 'right' isn't enough.
Maybe understanding "why" your struggle to convince conservatives of your 'rightness' isn't working could help you pick a better tactic. Or, y'all can keep on the way you are; fighting an opponent you don't understand.
Judging by the defensive responses to the OP, the latter is your choice.
We can't understand them without compromising our core values.
Everybody thinks that they are right, GA, otherwise why debate or put forth policy.
Maybe they are beyond convincing and simply must be outvoted. Much like the attitude Republicans take in attracting the Black vote, from my first hand knowledge of the community.
We will let changing demographics do for us what persuasion cannot.
I knew the odds were against me, but what the hell, I gave it a try. Maybe I'm the one looking at this wrong. I don't think so, but . . . *shrug
Just as a parting shot, why do you think you would have to compromise anything to understand them. You weren't asked to. This was simply an effort to show liberals the image they are presenting to their opponents. With a goal of achievement, the implied question was if this is the image you want to present in your battle to win hearts and minds—which is the only way either side can achieve anything.
The liberal, (it's a general categorization, not a jab), response amounts to an answer that the goal is to fight the ideological war, winning be damned as long as the 'good fight' gets fought.
So sally forth bud, keep fighting those Rightwingers. Maybe that Art of War guy everyone quotes had a thought about this:
IThe responses here have shown you don't know your enemy.
Sure you can engage with them.
Just don't tell them their little girl isn't a girl. Or that they don't know how to raise their children. Or that they can't have a gun because bad guys have guns. Or that abortion isn't murder. Or . .
Yes, but, as an example, how can I "understand" their ideas of giving human characteristics to zygotes while in the same breath we say that women have rights in the reproduction process? There is an example of compromise that is not negotiable. They perceive that all liberals want to take their guns, just like toddlers, they are bottle fed by Fox News. Do the problems associated with massacres have any meaning to them? They would naturally recoil at our beliefs, as I would with theirs.
I don't know that we need this demographic to win, necessarily. They will become less relevant with time.
The conservatives fight the ideological war with a different set of weapons. For instance, Machiavelli Mitch says that it is better to surreptiously pursue GOP policy, keeping as many people unaware as possible until the very last moment. That is what is going on regarding the abortion issue. Keep it quiet because if there is a storm, the unpopularity of their views will be aired to the world, making it all the more likely that they would be defeated come election time. We can't win their hearts and minds over these social issues short of dishing out mumbo-jumbo over every issue of the day. What do we stand for and what are we against?
While the left is candid the Right dodges and hides. The "enemy" is the watering down of values and principles to appeal to a demographic that is not exactly invincible at the ballot box and to which there is too much difference for either one to accept the other, no matter how much we "bottle the acid".
So, let loose the dogs of war, we all prefer it that way, don't we? It has been a war that has been well underway for sometime, as it is,
And there you go, the proof that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.
It sounds like you think to understand something you need to agree with it. I wouldn't think so, but if thinking that works for you . . .
Since I can't get you to understand my point, maybe one of your 'dogs of war' can:
Cred and GA are walking along when one of those dogs of war comes up with tail-a-waggin'. GA reaches out to give a scratch under the chin and the dog loves it. Cred reaches out to pat the dog on the head and gets barked and snapped at.
What the hell, says Cred. This must be a racist dog, he let a white man pet him but not a black man.
How could I 'understand' that dog's actions when they're obviously racist, he says?
GA says he's not racist bud, he's a dog. By instinct, a movement coming at them from over their head is seen as aggressive, a potential threat of danger, whereas a movement coming from a level below their head is seen as a submissive gesture.
If you tried to understand, (or just listened to your bud GA), that dog you would know why he snapped, but you don't, so you think he's a racist dog and you won't compromise your views on racism for anyone, not even a dog. To hell with him, put a muzzle on him and be done with it. Damn racist mutt.
psst. the over vs under thing is well-known by dog trainers. Would you still think the dog racist if you understood that he 'mistakenly' saw you as a threat?
I am following your analogy here, GA, finding holes to poke in it. It is interesting all the same.
Scratching the dog under the chin is akin to telling this demographic what he has always believed and wants to hear. I can't give him that same comfort although my message is palatable to the cat, representing the other demographics with a altenate understanding, at least so I believe, who allows me to pet it on the top of its head. While, my cats would take offense at your attempt to allure it with a nuzzle under its chin.
I understand the idea of instincts but people are more complex than dogs. Giving a dog a milkbone does not compensate for the fact that I have to give it regular beatings (political opposition) regularly to appeal to the cats with my tuna (political support) of which I have ample supply.
Under those conditions, it is not surprising that the dog would not trust me nor allow me to approach at all, let alone touch it. Dogs are reluctant to take anything from someone that beats it regularly, how could they trust you?
I understand, but we have an agenda to pursue as does the Right, the lines in this current political climate are starkly drawn. We don't have the luxury to coddle those that are unlikely to vote our way because of glaring differences in opinion, particularely on social issues.
Thus, the philosophy of driving your supporters to the polls in herds, instead of wasting time trying to appeal to those(Republicans) that by their very definition exist contrary to your every principle and idea, has been the more palatable option.
What if your "herd" isn't big enough to win the battle, what would you do?
It appears you are saying that knowing what a reaction will be can't be a factor in your choice of action. You are going to pet that dog on the head, no matter what, because if you acknowledge something, (that natural instinct), it is the same as giving in, or giving up something.
I considered a few replies, and 'That's bullshit' was at the top of the list, but since we're buds, I'm just going to say that you still don't get the point and you have convinced me that you won't. The battles of the 'good fight' are all that are important to you. Success doesn't matter, it's the fight that matters to you.
Lets not say that I am coming across as obtuse?
Winning is important with values and principles intact, I won't take my strong elixir and turn it into the equivalent of pond water to win. That is how I end up with Joe Biden instead of Elizabeth Warren.
Look at the GOP, they are successful because they take no prisoners, just doubling down on guns and abortion, not even giving a second thought to moderation and broadening the base over these issues. Why tell the truth, when the lies have so much more resonance among their followers? When have they express any serious interests in moderation to attract more Democrats?
As their demographic supporters shrink, they don't moderate to expand their base of support. They gerrymander, suppress votes and acquire illegitimate control over the entire process. With that reality, why is my side being asked "to tip toe through the tulips" in response?
Success in the form of a "nothing burger" is meaningless.
To settle for a glass of kool aid when I started with a TOm Collins is not winning but coopting in wrong direction.
It is a war in a sense, GA, and weakness from my side by failing to resist disheveling and compromise until you are no longer recognizable is not winning. I am forced to acknowledge that as such.
You are going to say"two wrong don't make a right".
If standing behind the convictions of my party and its values is wrong, in the face of an intractable enemy like today's Republican Party..... then so be it.
That is my point...
A Tom Collins? You wussie. Now I understand why you 'sally forth.' It's no wonder you're being so obtuse. ;-)
"Maybe they know liberals are more reasonable?"
This funny to me. Tell that to the justices on the Supreme Court who had liberals illegally protest them at their homes. Tell that to the churches who were protested against because liberals were angry. Thell that to the cities that liberals burned to the ground and caused over a billion dollars in damages. Tell that to the many high-profile speakers such as Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens and others who have had things thrown at them, called names, and experience death threats when invited to speak at college campuses. Tell that to the people who were assaulted, even today, for wearing a MAGA hat, in 2020 a liberal was arrested for driving through a Republican registration booth, pro-life counseling centers firebombed, countless Republican campaign headquarters attacked every election cycle.
I could go on...but reasonable is not an adjective I would use to describe liberals. I think communist thugs would be a pretty accurate description in my book.
Something Democrats and Republicans have in common? Exaggerated stereotypes about both parties.
People think that both parties, but especially the "other" side, are far more socially homogeneous than they actually are. Stereotyping just fuels partisanship.
Interestingly, this study shows that Republicans and Democrats agree on nearly these 150 issues.
https://publicconsultation.org/defense- … ats-agree/
You get the award for turning a bi-partisan discussion into one of common ground. Kudos to you.
by Readmikenow 2 years ago
It is an example of the hypocrisy of the left. They believe they protect black people, except for black conservatives. I know black conservatives who have been lectured by white, female, liberals about being black. If a white liberal says anything racist about a black...
by Tim Mitchell 8 months ago
More in Common partnered with YouGov using a survey of 2,100 people to discover the Perception Gap regard political parties. "The conclusion? Americans have a deeply distorted understanding of each other. We call this America’s “Perception Gap”. Overall, Democrats and Republicans imagine...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 months ago
The Democratic Party have institutionalized socioeconomic policies which are the detriment to America such as welfare & a governmental health program known as Obamacare. Because of the Democratic Party, we have generational welfare which the onus of tax is on the middle...
by Readmikenow 22 months ago
I have been confused as to exactly how to handle a Biden presidency. I consider him a babbling old fool who got rich selling out the United States and his vice president as a female who is a socialist/communist and had to sleep her way into a career. My opinion of both is extremely...
by Onusonus 9 years ago
This is an actual plaque hanging at Northeastern Illinois University in Chicago. The excuses given from the Liberals who made this are a wide stretch of the imagination.
by American View 10 years ago
I find it interesting when Democrats say the only reason people will vote for Romney is because he is a Republican. They chastise the people on the right who are loyal to their party. They cannot see that people will not vote for Obama because he is doing a lousy job. OF course it is Ok for them to...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|