What moves swing voters

[The Minsky Moment]

That is some good stuff.

The resistance to this *data* on the left is rather telling.

The critique of Shor is not resisting his data.  The critique is that Shor won't and can't release some of the data that he claims supports his conclusions because it is proprietary.  That is why some skepticism remains.

[DGuller]

Here is another article I saw: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/05/1052650979/mcwhorters-new-book-woke-racism-attacks-leading-thinkers-on-race.

[crazy canuck]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/opinion/wokeness-racism-politics.html

Language is extremely powerful.

The stories it tells become our greatest religions, the credos of great nations and the mantras of our greatest wars.

The ways in which we define people and things can be liberating or trammeling; they can advance the cause of liberty and equality or cause societies to regress.

It is for that reason that we battle over language, over who gets to control and define it, over whose stories get told and how. It is for that reason that words that gather power are set upon by those who wish to defang them.

Perhaps no other word of the moment is so under attack as "woke," a word born as a simple yet powerful way of saying: "Be aware of and alert to how racism is systemic and pervasive and suffuses American life. Wake up from the slumber of ignorance and passive acceptance."

But because of its petit power, this small word was a prime candidate for co-option, for being turned against the people who used it. The opponents of wokeness — whether they be conservatives who believe it injures the ideal of America as inherently good, or moderate Democrats worried that it handicaps their electoral prospects — want to kill it.

Republicans want to recast "wokeness" as progressive politics run amok, and many establishment Democrats shrink from the term because they either believe that Republicans have succeeded at the task, or, of even more concern, they agree with those Republicans.

Being awake to and aware of how our systems of power operate creates enemies across the political spectrum because wokeness indicts both Republicans and Democrats alike. Wokeness indicts the status quo.

And so, wokeness has been referred to in the most hyperbolic language imaginable, from ideology to religion to cult. It has been so derided and adulterated that young people who are what one would have called woke five years ago no longer even use the term.

Perhaps nothing helps to illustrate the chasm between moderates and progressives as well as a skirmish last week between the Democratic strategist James Carville and the Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

On "PBS NewsHour," Carville was asked what went wrong with the Democratic Party to enable Glenn Youngkin to win "53 percent of suburban voters in Virginia," when only last year Donald Trump won just 45 percent.

"Well, what went wrong is this stupid wokeness," Carville responded. Broadening his response to races in cities across the country, he blamed the "defund the police lunacy" and said "some of these people need to go to a woke detox center or something."

But then he brought it back to language. "They're expressing language that people just don't use. And there's a backlash and a frustration at that," Carville said, adding: "We have got to change this and not be about changing dictionaries and change laws. And these faculty lounge people that sit around mulling about I don't know what are — they're not working."

Ocasio-Cortez had a different view: In an Instagram story, she said she thought the results showed "the limits of trying to run a fully, 100 percent, super moderated campaign that does not excite, speak to or energize a progressive base."

She never invoked wokeness, but that didn't stop local news outlets from running an article from the Sinclair Broadcast Group about her comments under the headline, "AOC Says McAuliffe Lost Because He Wasn't 'Woke' Enough, Carville Says the Opposite." (The headline was later changed to "AOC Says McAuliffe Lost Because He Didn't Energize a 'Progressive Base.'")

To be clear: Democrats didn't lose Virginia because progressives were too "woke." They lost because Youngkin lied about critical race theory to activate white racial anxiety. Don't blame wokeness for the reactions of whiteness.

Ocasio-Cortez objected on Twitter to the way her comments were originally characterized and tweeted that she had "Said nothing abt 'wokeness' which is a term almost exclusively used by older people these days btw."

She followed up with another tweet: "Like the average audience for people seriously using the word 'woke' in a 2021 political discussion are James Carville and Fox News pundits so that should tell you all you need to know."

This exchange does tell us something informative: "Woke" is now almost exclusively used by those who seek to deride it, those who chafe at the activism from which it sprang.

No wonder young people are abandoning the word. Opponents to the idea are seeking to render it toxic. They use it to stand in for change itself, for evolution, for an accurate assessment of history and society that makes them uncomfortable and deflates their hagiographic view of American history.

The opponents of wokeness are fighting over an abandoned word, like an army bombarding a fort that has been vacated: They don't appear fierce, but foolish.

[The Minsky Moment]

Ocasio-Cortez had a different view: In an Instagram story, she said she thought the results showed "the limits of trying to run a fully, 100 percent, super moderated campaign that does not excite, speak to or energize a progressive base."

That doesn't explain what happened in New Jersey.  Nor does it explain why the official candidate in Buffalo lost to a write in candidate.

[Berkut]

The people who are promoting the woke agenda are not telling us the word is lame and nobody uses it.

OK. Give me another label. I don't care about the word, I care about the ideas that it represents.

And those ideas are what is damaging progressives. Simply saying that people who use the term are old and just mean "progressive" is bullshit, and the people making that argument know it is bullshit.

Call it anything you want. The label isn't the point.

But once again, we will get into an argument about semantics, instead of content. Blast Carville for using a word, that is a lot easier then addressing the content, for sure. Do note that the article in question that we are supposedly discussing, isn't using "woke" in a derogatory way at all, and even the "woke" soundbite has nothing in it any of use who call ourselves progressives would even object to - but that isn't the point.

[DGuller]

The problem with the label is that no matter what combination of letters you use to create it, pretty soon that label is going to become toxic, because the ideas behind that label are toxic.  Offering an acceptable label also opens up your ideas for a succinct discussion, which is also not good for those whose ideas can only survive when they're not honestly and openly discussed.

[Zoupa]

What proof do you guys have that the left promoting "woke" ideas is what led to the defeat of the democratic governor in Virginia?

I struggle to see the link honestly.

[Josquius]

I haven't seen someone use "woke" positively for many years. In the UK at least its just a word thrown about by nutters to demean anything vaguely leftish they don't like ala SJW and virtue signaller.
And far more than the left being woke it's the anti woke cult that are the problem. There are far left taking things too far people out there but they're not anywhere near power. They're randomers on the Internet.

[Berkut]

"I would much rather win the argument then win elections"

[Berkut]

What proof do you guys have that the left promoting "woke" ideas is what led to the defeat of the democratic governor in Virginia?

I struggle to see the link honestly.

The OP lays out the link pretty clearly.

1. Non-politically aligned voters decide elections. They elected Obama, Trump, and Biden. These tend to be blue collar voters who have voted in either direction, and more importantly, are not super politically engaged, and often simply do not vote at all.

The poll instead finds that working-class swing voters hold a swirl of progressive and conservative views. "To mobilize these voters will take a lot of grass-roots organizing efforts, particularly more labor-union-centered organizing," Sunkara said. "There is no simple programmatic solution" — for either party.

2. Among those voters, the poll asked them about what they responded to, and included several positive sound bites. "Positive" meaning each one was crafted to portray its message in a manner that was seen as most desirable to the political element that would tend to promote that particular idea.

Populist Progressive - "This country belongs to all of us, not just the superrich. But for years, politicians in Washington have turned their backs on people who work for a living. We need tough leaders who won't give in to the millionaires and the lobbyists, but will fight for good jobs, good wages, and guaranteed health care for every single American."
Republican - "freedom is under threat from radical socialists, arrogant liberals and dangerous foreign influences."
Mainstream Moderate
Woke Progressive
Woke Moderate - "Our unity is our strength, and our diversity is our power. But for too long, special interests have blocked critical progress in addressing systemic racism, climate change, and access to affordable health care. We need creative leaders who will fight for our values, listen to the experts, and make real change happen."

THe "Woke Moderate" polled the worst among these particular voters.

But the much more interesting point is that the Progressive Populist polled the BEST.

So these are not people who are just absolutely opposed to the populist message - not at all. They are in fact more receptive to it then the GOP message.

This is not about being against anything "vaguely leftist" unless you define being in favor of a progressive populist message as being against the left.

[DGuller]

I haven't seen someone use "woke" positively for many years. In the UK at least its just a word thrown about by nutters to demean anything vaguely leftish they don't like ala SJW and virtue signaller.
And far more than the left being woke it's the anti woke cult that are the problem. There are far left taking things too far people out there but they're not anywhere near power. They're randomers on the Internet.

There are many problems with wokism, but the biggest one is the self-censorship it very successfully imposes.  When somebody feels like they can't say something reasonable and nuanced because with sufficient motivation it may be interpreted as bias in the present or future, they're being victimized right here right now.  They may not be getting cancelled, no one except themselves and their closest people may even suspect that they harbor some nuanced thoughts, but the mere perception that self-censorship is necessary to engage in to avoid devastating consequences breeds resentment. 

If woke left seriously pisses off people like me, then maybe they're not doing something right.  Obviously I wouldn't vote for the right in any case in the present situation, but what about people more marginally attached to the left?

[Berkut]

And far more than the left being woke it's the anti woke cult that are the problem.

That depends on what problem you are talking about. Personally, I am talking about the problem of not winning elections. I think it is pretty clear from the data and how elections work that not getting enough people to vote for progressives is the actual problem.

That is kind of the nature of democracy. You have to get people to vote for your side. And that means convincing people who are not already convinced, by definition, convincing people who don't already agree with you.

IE....winning elections instead of arguments. You are engaged in the latter, I care more about the former.

There are far left taking things too far people out there but they're not anywhere near power. They're randomers on the Internet.

They certainly do influence elections, whether they have the power you believe or whether they are actually as dangerous to free speech and democracy as others believe. Again, your point here doesn't address the argument being made. Even if you are right, it isn't about power, it is about messaging and perception.

Again, you have to look at the entire picture. You cannot argue this is about being anti-progressive, since the core point here is in fact that the progressive message actually resonates with these voters! Just not the identity politics version of it.

Do you want to win elections so we can actually do things, or do you want to feel superior about being able to effectively signal how in tune you are with your fellow highly educated liberals? You can do the former, btw, without damaging the latter....

[Berkut]

I haven't seen someone use "woke" positively for many years. In the UK at least its just a word thrown about by nutters to demean anything vaguely leftish they don't like ala SJW and virtue signaller.
And far more than the left being woke it's the anti woke cult that are the problem. There are far left taking things too far people out there but they're not anywhere near power. They're randomers on the Internet.

There are many problems with wokism, but the biggest one is the self-censorship it very successfully imposes.  When somebody feels like they can't say something reasonable and nuanced because with sufficient motivation it may be interpreted as bias in the present or future, they're being victimized right here right now.  They may not be getting cancelled, no one except themselves and their closest people may even suspect that they harbor some nuanced thoughts, but the mere perception that self-censorship is necessary to engage in to avoid devastating consequences breeds resentment. 

If woke left seriously pisses off people like me, then maybe they're not doing something right.  Obviously I wouldn't vote for the right in any case in the present situation, but what about people more marginally attached to the left?

The weird thing here is the resistance to the message.

The article is not saying wokism is terrible, or wrong, or anything like that - that isn't the point.

It is just saying that the message does not resonate with a particular group of voters who are rather important to actually winning elections...but don't worry, because there is another core progressive message that DOES resonate with them! In fact, it resonates with them better then any other message! The core progressive *economic* message is in fact the #1 message that this group responds to, even more then the right wing populist message.

How is this not amazingly good news to everyone on the left, *including* those who personally like the "woke" message the most? Surely if your goal is to actually effect change and make things better, then the #1, #2, and #3 priority should be "get elected!" and here is a clear way to do that more effectively by focusing the message on progressive ideas that resonate with the voters!

I am simply baffled.

[Josquius]

That depends on what problem you are talking about. Personally, I am talking about the problem of not winning elections. I think it is pretty clear from the data and how elections work that not getting enough people to vote for progressives is the actual problem.

That is kind of the nature of democracy. You have to get people to vote for your side. And that means convincing people who are not already convinced, by definition, convincing people who don't already agree with you.

IE....winning elections instead of arguments. You are engaged in the latter, I care more about the former.

And the problem there is anti-woke. Not "woke".
The right's favourite game of identity politics is very well served by the existence of people who have nothing to do with left wing candidates. Its truly bizzare how often you see left wing politicians being smeared with stuff dredged from the internet that has absolutely nothing to do with them.
On these issues it is very much the right that is on the offence and left wing politicians can not abandon vulnerable groups to them. When the right are going on about how foreigners are bad and trans people are evil then the left would be fundamentally abandoning their core values to go along with this. It would be a step away to such an extent that it wouldn't even help win any elections as it would open a gaping chasm between themselves and left aligned people.
Its a delicate balance for the mainstream left. They absolutely 100% have to defend the vulnerable whilst at the same time they need to find a way to counter the anti-woke agenda that would smear them as being identical to the wackiest of shouty twitter nutters.

I haven't seen someone use "woke" positively for many years. In the UK at least its just a word thrown about by nutters to demean anything vaguely leftish they don't like ala SJW and virtue signaller.
And far more than the left being woke it's the anti woke cult that are the problem. There are far left taking things too far people out there but they're not anywhere near power. They're randomers on the Internet.

There are many problems with wokism, but the biggest one is the self-censorship it very successfully imposes.  When somebody feels like they can't say something reasonable and nuanced because with sufficient motivation it may be interpreted as bias in the present or future, they're being victimized right here right now.  They may not be getting cancelled, no one except themselves and their closest people may even suspect that they harbor some nuanced thoughts, but the mere perception that self-censorship is necessary to engage in to avoid devastating consequences breeds resentment. 

If woke left seriously pisses off people like me, then maybe they're not doing something right.  Obviously I wouldn't vote for the right in any case in the present situation, but what about people more marginally attached to the left?

So what do you suggest we do about them?
They're there and they always will be. Thanks to the internet we are more exposed to them than we would historically be. Its the same as with the far right; they've been allowed to connect with each other and become more extreme from mutual feedback loops and the way twitter works.
Left wing politicians outright coming out and blanket condemning them would be a bit weird as unlike with the far right what they tend to do isn't so obviously "bad", merely stupid and counter-productive.

[Berkut]

I haven't seen someone use "woke" positively for many years. In the UK at least its just a word thrown about by nutters to demean anything vaguely leftish they don't like ala SJW and virtue signaller.
And far more than the left being woke it's the anti woke cult that are the problem. There are far left taking things too far people out there but they're not anywhere near power. They're randomers on the Internet.

There are many problems with wokism, but the biggest one is the self-censorship it very successfully imposes.  When somebody feels like they can't say something reasonable and nuanced because with sufficient motivation it may be interpreted as bias in the present or future, they're being victimized right here right now.  They may not be getting cancelled, no one except themselves and their closest people may even suspect that they harbor some nuanced thoughts, but the mere perception that self-censorship is necessary to engage in to avoid devastating consequences breeds resentment. 

If woke left seriously pisses off people like me, then maybe they're not doing something right.  Obviously I wouldn't vote for the right in any case in the present situation, but what about people more marginally attached to the left?

So what do you suggest we do about them?
They're there and they always will be. Thanks to the internet we are more exposed to them than we would historically be. Its the same as with the far right; they've been allowed to connect with each other and become more extreme from mutual feedback loops and the way twitter works.
Left wing politicians outright coming out and blanket condemning them would be a bit weird as unlike with the far right what they tend to do isn't so obviously "bad", merely stupid and counter-productive.

We should keep challenging them on social media, and the left as a whole ought to bring into our mainstream message the rejection of any kind of speech silencing. This doesn't even have to be direct, it can be entirely indirect.

But again, this is really a tangent to the basic point I was trying to raise in the thread. No matter what you think about the woke ideals, the point is that they don't convince the people who need to be convinced when it comes to ending the right wing stranglehold on the non-highly educated middle class.

But there is a progressive, leftist message that can. Focus on that. It isn't easy, because that woke message (and seriously, I am using the term to simply reference the ideas behind them, in this context I don't even think those ideas are negative at all, the soundbite for example  "Our unity is our strength, and our diversity is our power. But for too long, special interests have blocked critical progress in addressing systemic racism, climate change, and access to affordable health care. We need creative leaders who will fight for our values, listen to the experts, and make real change happen." is perfectly fine with me - nothing there that I disagree with at all) does energize a left wing voting bastion who, while they are not likely to vote for the GOP instead, might just not vote at all if you ignore them.

I think the left has to start winning a lot more elections. Not just the presidency, and not just at the national level. They have to become relevant locally again outside of their urban bastions.