General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBen Rhodes, Obama's Deputy Nat'l. Security Advisor and speech writer, weighs in on Graham Platner.
Fascinating interview, wherein he covers a wide range of issues, but if you want to cut to the chase, I suggest starting about 48 minutes in. Thats where he discusses Democratic messaging in general, moving on to promising young Dems, and then hones in on Platner.
democrank
(12,697 posts)Ben Rhodes makes sense to me. I like his common sense, down-to-earth way of speaking and his suggestions about how Democrats could connect with voters.
ariadne0614
(2,206 posts)Thanks for the validation.
Amaryllis
(11,470 posts)cally
(21,877 posts)Glad I watched for 48 minutes on.
Amaryllis
(11,470 posts)Amaryllis
(11,470 posts)The whole thing is excellent though if you have the time. Ben Rhodes never disappoints.
Sympthsical
(11,201 posts)I appreciate you.
Agree with him 1000%. This has been a chief complaint I've hammered over and over. The party is too beholden to the consultant class, and the messaging constantly sounds like none of these people have ever met an actual voter. Sure they've focus-grouped, tested slogans, done marketing research, etc. etc. Then entire campaigns get shaped around this.
But there's no sense that these politicians or the people they surround themselves with have spent more than 10 minutes around people who exist outside of their political bubble. That five minute photo op in a diner ain't gonna do it.
And he touches on another incoming problem. The barrier to entry is going to get worse now that Millennials on down have social media histories. If we want candidates who understand voters - who understand flesh and blood humans - they're probably not perfectly curated political bots.
Perfectly curated political people are probably the ones you don't want in there. That means they're playing the game, navigating the power structures, already lining up their donors and their machine favors.
The result of that is not people who want meaningful reform. It almost never is. The result is the much vaunted incrementalism, which is really just, "How few crumbs can I give you to shut you up and re-elect me?" And just because there are oftentimes enough sycophantic people who see politicians as celebrities they're fans of instead of servants who should earn their power, it doesn't make it a great system.