this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
34 points (73.6% liked)

Political Weirdos

739 readers
751 users here now

A community dedicated to the weirdest people involved in politics.

founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
Ghostalmedia
34
What the hell is wrong with John Favreau? (lemmy.world)
submitted 5 days ago by FlyingSquid to c/political_weirdos
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The way I read this is there’s nuance in the messaging of (as one example) “Gender Affirming Surgery for All Who Want Them!” and “All People Deserve to Get the Care That it’s Determined They Need by a Medical Professional!”

The first one is unpopular with the general population because it’s different and scary. Similar to the time before the Civil Rights Act was passed Civil Rights for black Americans was incredibly unpopular because the general populace is stupid. There are many messages like that, Pete Buttigieg’s “Medicare for All Who Want It” when he was running was the same thing. People are afraid if you tell them you’re taking away their insurance, but make it an option and an attractive one at that and you’ll get converts.

Sometimes massaging the messaging to de-center positions that are “scary”, is better in the long run to get the people elected that can actually bring about the change. This isn’t about throwing any group under the bus.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Except they never said either of those things. The Republicans lied and repeated the lies non-stop until the dumbasses believed the Democrats' agenda was entirely about putting migrant trans criminals in their girls' bathrooms. It's fucking lies all the way down.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

Yes, my hypothetical example to written to serve a specific point in my comment was not something anyone said, that’s usually how hypotheticals work.

[–] neatchee 14 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

I'm not entirely sure what about this you have a problem with?

On its face, the statement seems reasonable.

What am I missing?

[–] FlyingSquid 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That's exactly what Democrats did. They decided to not listen to a bunch of groups suggesting they do things like take a strong stance against Israel because they thought that's not what the electoral majority wanted and they thought they would lose if they didn't. It didn't work out for them.

Note, I am the opposite of one of those "Kamala lost because of Israel and it's 100% here fault" people, I think there is lots of blame to go around, both from her and the Democrats, but also from people who told others not to vote for her because of Israel or people who just sat out the election. I even feel like I'm at fault for not doing more to get others to vote for her.

But they still made a really stupid move because they thought it's what the electoral majority wanted (i.e. continuing to slide rightward with their policies) rather than figure out that has not worked for them over and over.

[–] neatchee 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I see. I think you are applying specific definition to what Favreau means by "the electoral majority" when that is a fairly abstract, undefined thing. I think the more generous interpretation is that we need to figure out what that electoral majority (for Democrats) actually is through research, and then apply the logic Favreau is putting forward.

The electorate is everyone. Not just current active voters. The Democrats tried to go after the current, active voting majority and failed, while leaving a huge number of potential voters on the table.

It's even possible Favreau is specifically saying the Democrats DIDN'T go after the electoral majority because they were influenced unduly by special interests to go after the centrists when they could have been going after the people who didn't vote at all (for whatever reason)

I guess I'm saying your reading of Favreau's post may carry some of your own biases towards what you think went wrong and what his choice of words means to you.

Do you think that's possible?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

It's even possible Favreau is specifically saying the Democrats DIDN'T go after the electoral majority because they were influenced unduly by special interests to go after the centrists when they could have been going after the people who didn't vote at all (for whatever reason)

That's how I first read it. Idk though, I'm not exactly sure what Favreau's trying to say here

Edit: I reread the tweet a couple times and I think that your interpretation is correct. He specifically calls out corporations and donors as the groups that Dems should resist, and calls dems to focus on the electoral majority (like you said, potential voters) and if that's what he meant then I agree with him.

[–] billiam0202 10 points 5 days ago

Depending on who he means when he says "electoral majority" I don't see a problem with what he said. It sounds to me like he's agreeing with Hasan.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago

What's the quote that Mehdi is talking about, then?

[–] Viking_Hippie 5 points 5 days ago

All I see here is Mehdi Hassan being right and Favreau agreeing 🤷

[–] PlasticExistence 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

From the reply, it looks like maybe Favreau is quoting something from an article perhaps?

[–] FlyingSquid 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what article you mean. That's Favreau replying to a tweet by Mehdi Hasan.

[–] PlasticExistence 12 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Oh, right. I’m tired and don’t use any microblogging platforms.

So yeah. How are things?

My own take on this is that Dems need to focus (not exclude anything specific) on the economy and the working class, that the correct way to strengthen the party and serve everyone’s needs is to focus on the class war. But they’re too cozy with billionaire donors for that to happen right now.

[–] Alwaysnownevernotme 1 points 4 days ago

Um I guess what's wrong with John Favreau is he has a misguided impression that the point of becoming a politician is to materially improve the lives of your constituents rather than scrounge as many bribes as you can without being imprisoned or assassinated.