Chambers for Senate

[Kyle]

Here's how you do a campaign commercial:

[Mike]

Wow. I'd vote for that.

[Kyle]

Right?!?

[Mando]

I think it is unifying...the people who already like him...like a Trump rally.

But, I could be wrong

[Mike]

I think it is unifying...the people who already like him...like a Trump rally.

But, I could be wrong

You're not wrong. It is speaking to a base that feels disaffected and discriminated against. A base that feels taken advantage of by people in power. Who feel like they are taken for granted and repeatedly given lip service to keep their vote while never delivering on any promises.

The difference is that that Trump is speaking almost exclusively to white people who think of themselves as working class. This guy is speaking to people of color. Trump played on the eternal theme that immigrants and people of color (and liberal elites who support them) are largely to blame. Chambers here blames a system created by white people to keep the selves in power.

The truth as I see it (and I think Chambers' view comes closest to it) is that both sides are 100% correct in seeing themselves as oppressed and taken advantage of and lied to and disregarded, but the people to blame are rich people. Rich people (who are almost entirely white in this nation) have always had the reigns of power and have used them to build and protect their own fortunes and power at the expense of anyone who is not them, and this includes getting different groups of poor and middle class folks to spend all their time fighting each other rather than looking for real ways to overturn the current power structure. All of this serves to make Chambers' point mostly true. Not unifying... but true.

If you want to make real change, you're going to need to bring together the working class of all races and convince them they have a common goal and a common enemy. Efforts at doing this are easily thwarted, because the current culture of negative news and outrage clickbait is overwhelmingly more viral than any message of unity.

[Phoebe]

Everyone thinks MLK Jr was on their Team, apart from actual white supremacist/nationalists, so (assumption A) some useful seed of real unifying ideology is contained there. Same things are being read for radically opposed purposes, but still, everyone thinks MLK was on their team!

[Mike]

I don't think that is true. I have known several baby boomers who are still convinced that MLK was a trouble maker who wouldn't have gotten himself killed if he hadn't been out there stirring shit.

Secondly, with MLK Day having just passed, there were any number of people that day who quoted the man and invoked his name as supporting their cause, but the out of context, misrepresented quotes they used indicate they are either disingenuous OR unaware of the full context of King's message OR both. So yes, everyone wants to invoke his name, but that is no indicator of any sort of unifying underlying principles that would being people together.

[Kyle]

I know Mando is being sarcastic, but it spoke to me, and I'm a white lawyer that lives in rural Texas.

[Phoebe]

I thought he meant it would be unifying in the way that a trump rally is because it gathers together all those voters and gives them common stirred up cause?
I think it's hilarious that a former apprentice is now accusing Trump of eating documents, lol, eating!
It doesn't even matter whether it's true, it's just hilarious that this is the type of thing we have come to now. Hilarious like you're in the boat while watching the hole leak water. Yes that can be funny.

I'm still sticking with my plan that MLK marks the dividing line between the racist Republican and the non-racist one, and they may be misquoting or misinterpreting right now, but that's still an opening. Hope springs eternal. Nobody wants MLK to be on the other team.

[Kyle]

[Mando]

my point was simply that this kind of rhetoric does not grow and spread, it only bolsters the followers it already has.

I watched the Senate races in GA and saw all the ads...I guessed the outcome before the election.

Ossoff and Warnock both had very positive inclusive messages, that while they did not appeal to me were at least demonstrating a hopeful positive outlook.

Purdue and Loeffler did nothing but forecast doom and gloom and tell us how the world would end if their opposition won. They also spent their time talking negatively about their opposition.

A negative message only attracts negative people. At best you might keep your own base, but political victories come from keeping your own and sweet talking the other candidate's base.

That was the intent of my comment.

[Kyle]

Oh sure. I want to be clear- I don't think this guy has any chance of winning. But I don't agree that a negative message only attracts negative people. The point of negative messaging is to motivate your base to actually show up and vote. And with the black community in Louisiana, they have a poor turnout for voting. So this type of campaigning might actually work in some situations to get underrepresented groups out to vote in numbers they don't normally show up for. But I don't think it's going to work here.

But the ads are pretty powerful.