2024 Election Lounge

Dem polling memo: Treat Black Americans like swing voters

Democrats are fretting about President Biden’s weaker numbers with Black voters. The new messaging shop Blueprint has a solution: Keep talking about his record until these voters hear about it.

In a new batch of polling, Blueprint found that Black voters, while overwhelmingly Democratic, have priorities and issue awareness much closer to swing voters. The vast majority want the president to bring down prices and raise wages, which the White House is already messaging; between 35% and 40% of Black voters aren’t aware of Biden policies designed to drive down drug prices and end junk fees, which are overwhelmingly popular.

“You don’t have to do some crazy targeted ad buy that only goes on conservative talk radio in swing counties in Wisconsin,” said Blueprint strategist Evan Roth Smith. “You can talk about these things everywhere, at the loudest possible volume. You can put the president on a podium in front of a pharmaceutical company headquarters, talking about bringing the prices down.”

Blueprint, whose first round of polling found that voters were more concerned with prices than unemployment, focused on a sample of 335 Black voters to get the new numbers. Another conclusion from their data: Black voters are more likely to consider the president “too liberal” than “too conservative.” That, said Roth Smith, should show Democrats that “we don’t have to force some big intraparty fight over who really matters to us.”

David’s view

The Biden campaign has already run economy-focused paid messages for Black voters, starting with a series of ads in September that talked about the president “lowering the cost of living, including health premiums, prescription drugs, and the cost of insulin.” Blueprint’s advice mirrors what most Democrats already think. What’s it not advising? Appeals to racial equity and justice that Biden ran on then implemented after the summer 2020 protests.

 


Full text
At first I thought the media questions at the last GOP debate were just stupid. Thinking back, I realized that they were all designed to alienate various constituent blocs from the GOP. Some examples:

Q: Should we ban TikTok?
A: Yes
Alienated: under 25 years

Q: Should we increase retirement age?
A: Yes and no
Alienated: scared older people

Q: Should the US bomb Mexico for Fentanyl?
A: Yes
Alienated: Hispanics

Q: Should government fund more child care to alleviate the shortage
A: No:
Alienated: moms

Same with abortion and you name it. There were very few intelligent questions related to the general good. In other words, these questions were not stupid. They were a plot.

That would explain why Vivek has been targeting RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel and the GOP Party.
 
Last edited:

Presidential debates may not happen in 2024. Here’s how we can save this valuable tradition​

The Commission on Presidential Debates announced the forthcoming slate of debate sites for presidential election season 2024. Since 1976, there have been consistent televised presidential debates in the United States. Originally broadcasted and conducted by the League of Women Voters, the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) took over the sponsorship and organization of the debates in 1987. The impending election raises the most serious doubts about whether this televised debate series will continue.

Both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Republican National Committee (RNC) have refused to commit to the proposed debates of 2024 that are to begin in San Marcos, Texas, next October. Serious problems in the last several CPD events may prevent the necessary parties from agreeing to debates that are typically viewed by 50 to 100 million Americans.

One of the most serious problems faced by the CPD events is the moderators. Journalist moderators have been chosen for these debates for decades. The problems with moderators are two-fold. First, journalists have come to occupy a prominent argumentative position in the debates. In the 1990s, journalist moderators would occupy roughly 5 percent of the speaking time in debates. In the most recent series, moderator Chris Wallace consumed more than 25 percent of the speaking time.

There are no established limits for moderator monologues about politics to which candidates are expected to respond. Secondly, journalist moderators indicate a pattern of favoritism toward the Democratic nominee. At times, the reactionary behaviors of moderators have allowed Democratic candidates to receive more speaking time, as they did in most debates prior to 2016 or resulted in the removal of moderators who actively coordinated hostile questions for the Republican candidate. Currently, the RNC requires that its ultimate nominee for 2024 refuse to cooperate with or attend the CPD events in 2024.

It is important to make plans for solutions and even alternatives to the CPD proposal. One of the best solutions for future debates would be to remove journalist moderators to create a more authentic debate event that features the candidates rather than an iterative press conference constrained by the narratives set by the American journalistic community. Non-journalist moderators could simply identify topics with single words — abortion, inflation, immigration, Gaza, government spending — and allow the extra time be given to candidates to explain their views.

Remember that in 1960, Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy had eight-minute opening remarks to make their case to the public. Typically response times today are two minutes or less, while journalist vigorously criticize such limited presentations as “lacking context.”

It is increasingly likely that journalist moderators will take more time crafting the question for a candidate than the candidate will have while answering. Cross examination conducted by debaters rather than moderators is a common staple of many American debate formats used by high school and college students. Utilizing this debate practice in presidential debates would allow candidates to ask, in a limited time period such as three minutes, questions of their opponent.

The venues for these debates could be vastly improved from the current slate of college campuses. The first 2024 debate — which is typically the most watched debate — is to take place at Texas State University. It will be the first such debate in Texas in the history of this series. Texas State is where Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson graduated and as recent news reports indicate, Democrats were successful in 2022 in flipping key local voting precincts from red to blue. The activism of San Marcos and the university reverse a trend common to most of South Texas since 2020 where Hispanic voters are voting in increasing numbers for Republicans.

Instead of the highly partisan campuses, debates could be conducted at more than a dozen presidential sites maintained throughout the U.S. Those debates could blend Democratic and Republican president locations such as LBJ and Reagan to create a stronger bipartisan impression.

There are many more things that could be done to restore the credibility and improve the quality of presidential debates. These are important steps that need to be considered and probably acted upon if this important civic tradition is to continue in 2024. The CPD needs help to overcome its past miscues in carrying out the presidential debates.
 
Trump refusing to debate the other GOP nominees set a terrible precedent (although it was a shrewd tactical move on his part). The Democrats would be complete idiots to wheel Biden out for a debate against Trump when they can just point at Trump's own refusal to debate in the primaries - along with his manufactured legal troubles - as justification for having Biden skip the debates.
 
It ultimately wouldn't have made a difference, but I would've liked to have seen DeSantis grill Trump in a debate. It was cowardly of Trump to dodge them but it's always smart to run out the clock.
 
While Shiva is pretty based, I would caution anyone away from this man because he is unstable. He has a bad temper and he is unsuitable for leadership.
Maybe it's his frustration watching his country get flushed down the toilet repeatedly? Something alot of Americans can and do sympathize with?

I will say he does seem petty about Vivek. His opinion (Shiva) is that they threw Vivek out in the race due to Shiva's against the norm view where as Vivek is more moderate. I don't know enough about Vivek to talk about his views but Shiva seems legitimate. Our country could use a strong figurehead after Biden.
 
The fact that only an ethnic Indian candidate (Dr. Shiva, not Vivek the snake) who isn't even an incumbent is the only one opposing international jewry speaks volumes to all these white American political prostitute sellouts. I believe his anti-jew stance comes from being formerly married to Fran Drescher, but if that's what it takes to "save" America, he's a better choice than any of the ZOG sellouts currently being offered to the American "right".

This is all a big exhausting joke. That is why instead of voting people need to do mass civil disobedience to any unjust and fake "law" the jews crap down the pipeline of their toilet in DC onto the citizenry.
 
Back
Top