Do people not realize that David Shor, far from telling Democrats “what they don’t want to hear,” has prospered because he tells them EXACTLY what they want to hear?
“It’s not your fault you lose elections. Focusing on economics and avoiding controversy is correct. It’s the fault of BLM and ‘Defund the Police,’ and the best thing you can do is make them go away” - yes, these words definitely horrify the leaders of the Democratic Party.
Anyway, it’s sort of strange when you realize that m for all of its influence of his general worldview, Shor’s prescriptions are kind of… unclear. Let’s say you’re David Shor and you’re given full control of Cal Cunningham’s campaign. What do you do differently?
Shorism gives losing Democrats lots of outside agents to blame - the wokes on the streets, the wokes in the cities, the wokes on your own staff - but it doesn’t actually seem to give them any tools to win a campaign.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I guess ultimately one thing that bugs me about the current political discourse goes beyond specific ideas and people and is really about something more fundamental, which is the idea that it makes sense to rely very heavily on data and statistics as prediction tools in politics
It seems to me that reliance on data, especially left-of-center, has produced a lot of artificial certainty about "correct" political decisions, and created the impression we can predict effects of decisions with precision - but in reality, such predictions often fail completely
It makes sense that data tools come up short! You're talking about complex systems of tens of millions of actors all affecting each other, often in ways that are ill understood. Like predicting the stock market, but vastly more potential outputs. The tools aren't up to snuff
So there used to be a pretty broad consensus about what kind of politician and politics could win an election: white guy, moderate-ish, sort of boring, incrementalist, sticks to economics, sticks to policy, DEFINITELY avoids any questions challenging race or gender hierarchies.
And a certain kind of person - affluent, successful, usually white, usually male - was pretty comfortable with that consensus. It's less that they always agreed with the candidates in question, although they often did, but that it generally validated their lives and worldview.
For them, this consensus bolstered a sense of regularity in politics, that things were basically as they should be. It bolstered the sense that people talking about deep unfairness in the system or recommending radical changes were, if not incorrect, being deeply unrealistic.
It rules that we spent all summer and all of Biden’s momentum negotiating this goosed-up roads bill, literally for no reason except to be “bipartisan,” only to have the GOP withdraw its support and make it nearly as partisan as the reconciliation bill axios.com/us-chamber-pul…
There are basically two theories for why the Democratic Party sucks. One is that the leaders are smart and cunning and know what to do, but are continually derailed by activists and fringe ideologues.
But I think the better one is that the leaders are just… really bad at this?
I’m not sure “structural flaws” can be blamed for Dems deciding to bisect their agenda in a fruitless, months-long, clearly doomed quest for bipartisanship
Is there any stretch of congressional maneuvering in modern history as inept as the Democrats over the past six months?
"Hm, let's set aside our entire agenda and spend six months trying to get the GOP to strike a deal with us, despite them opposed every single thing we did for 12 years"
"Okay, what if we put all the easy stuff in our agenda in one bill and then watered it down a bunch to get GOP votes, and then put all the bigger stuff in another bill, I'm sure that won't backfire"
like half of our politics can be summed up as "people born at the top of society desperately trying to avoid the psychic distress of having to wonder if their privileges are unearned"
a lot of people seem to live inside carefully-maintained bubbles in which the comforts and conveniences of their day-to-day lives are regarded as fair and deserved. narratives that suggest that similarly deserving people have been deprived of those privileges threaten the bubble
injustice and unfairness that are geographically or historically distant are less threatening - most people can admit the universe was unfair in other times or places. but they freak out if they're asked to admit that the unfairness extends to the here and now, to their own lives
if you had to explain US politics to space aliens their first question would be why the smaller party gets to constantly attempt to write new rules to favor itself while the larger party has to endlessly labor under the least favorable interpretation of existing rules
People are responding to this arguing that it's good that Dems follow the rules and we shouldn't emulate the GOP's Calvinball tactics, and that's kind of true, the problem is that you can't do it unilaterally