Elissa Slotkin: "It doesn’t win elections to just speak to the base of the party"

[wbrocks67]

I'm confused here. Is Slotkin trying to insinuate that Harris only spoke to the base? Because that 100% was not true in any way, shape, or form. She went out of her way to speak to everyone. (many leftists got very upset that she WASN'T speaking enough to the base and are still incensed about it with their obsession with Liz Cheney's 3 campaign stops) Not only that but ... Harris got more votes in Michigan that Slotkin did.

As for her general point... I get what she's saying, but it's true and not true. Not only did Trump basically exclusively talk to the base and win, but you also can't win without your base either.

I thought her speech this week was very good. But this feels unnecessary.

https://twitter.com/YAppelbaum/status/1897452152332722397

[Existing in the context]

Girl, the Democrats been speaking to suburban Republican white women since the 90s.

[SnowLabrador]

This ain't it, chief. We need fighters.

[wbrocks67]

Girl, the Democrats been speaking to suburban Republican white women since the 90s.

Like, I get her annoyance at leftists who are going overboard about her speech, but this insinuation though is just not true... Hillary, Biden, Harris... when was the last time a Dem candidate spoke solely to the base? This isn't a thing that happens

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

I had literally forgotten her speech was a thing.
Why is she randomly picking fights?
No one cares.

[Existing in the context]

I had literally forgotten her speech was a thing.
Why is she randomly picking fights?
No one cares.

A lot of people felt like it wasn't forceful enough. The node to people like Reagan when FDR and Obama exist.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

I had literally forgotten her speech was a thing.
Why is she randomly picking fights?
No one cares.

A lot of people felt like it wasn't forceful enough. The node to people like Reagan when FDR and Obama exist.

We should stop the hagiography of Reagan, but really who is talking about this?
We are looking at a fascist takeover of the US and she’s worried about sticking it to the DFH on bluesky?

[Existing in the context]

Girl, the Democrats been speaking to suburban Republican white women since the 90s.

Like, I get her annoyance at leftists who are going overboard about her speech, but this insinuation though is just not true... Hillary, Biden, Harris... when was the last time a Dem candidate spoke solely to the base? This isn't a thing that happens

They haven't. The Democrat party apparatus has become solely centered on attracting college educated suburbanites for the past 30 years. They win Buckhead, Bloomfield and Potomac now. Who are these moderate suburbanites they think can bring over that they haven't already? We reaching a point where a lot of the people they think they are trying to attract are the same people they telling to shut up.

[Joe Rogaine]

She's right, but not in the way she thinks. The issue is Democrats aren't even speaking to their base right now. They're actually pissing them off. They don't seem to understand that the Republicans that were persuadable are already on board with them or at least have already opted out as long as Trump is around. And while there are still policy disagreements, particularly between the political class of traditional neocons and progressives, they all want to see Trump crushed, and that takes priority for those traditional neocons above other things.

These appeals to the non-existent remaining moderate suburbanites by harkening back to Reagan are pointless. YOU HAVE TAPPED NEARLY EVERY DROP OF THAT SUPPORT. They need to find ways to appeal to new sets of voters and claw back some of the progress that Republicans have made. Some of that might happen naturally, but it won't happen by completely ignoring the base. Republicans don't do that.

[DaleCooper]

The people they need to be reaching out to beyond the base are hispanic men, young men in general, Christians (not evangelicals), rural working class voters, etc. We've already convinced all the Romney voters with a conscience. The more Democrats try to win over Republican homeowners, the worse this situation will get.

[Voice of low info America]

Girl, the Democrats been speaking to suburban Republican white women since the 90s.

Yankee suburban white women are the Democratic base now.

[DaleCooper]

Girl, the Democrats been speaking to suburban Republican white women since the 90s.

Like, I get her annoyance at leftists who are going overboard about her speech, but this insinuation though is just not true... Hillary, Biden, Harris... when was the last time a Dem candidate spoke solely to the base? This isn't a thing that happens

The issue isn't so much that they speak only to the base, it's that they speak only to the people they wish were their base. Hillary, Biden, and Harris focused a lot on suburban women, social justice advocates, and socially moderate Republicans that don't like Trump. If anything, these three candidates (to varying degrees, and honestly I'd argue Biden was the worst even though he ironically was the one to win) ignored parts of their actual base in favor of pandering to the groups they want to win over.

For reasons that I don't think anyone understands, the Democratic Party's decision after their decisive win in 2012 was to focus almost exclusively on winning over white upper-middle-class Romney voters, happily sacrificing critical members of their coalition in the process. What scares me more than anything is that they still haven't figured out that this was a mistake. Instead of trying to win back people they lost, they're trying to win over people they never had in the first place.

[The People's Liberation Army of Rancho Cucamonga]

Trump is living proof that this isn't true.

[Voice of low info America]

Girl, the Democrats been speaking to suburban Republican white women since the 90s.

Like, I get her annoyance at leftists who are going overboard about her speech, but this insinuation though is just not true... Hillary, Biden, Harris... when was the last time a Dem candidate spoke solely to the base? This isn't a thing that happens

The issue isn't so much that they speak only to the base, it's that they speak only to the people they wish were their base. Hillary, Biden, and Harris focused a lot on suburban women, social just advocates, and socially moderate Republicans that don't like Trump. If anything, these three candidates (to varying degrees, and honestly I'd argue Biden was the worst even though he ironically was the one to win) ignored parts of their actual base in favor of pandering to the groups they want to win over.

For reasons that I don't think anyone understands, the Democratic Party's decision after their decisive win in 2012 was to focus almost exclusively on winning over white upper-middle-class Romney voters, happily sacrificing critical members of their coalition in the process. What scares me more than anything is that they still haven't figured out that this was a mistake. Instead of trying to win back people they lost, they're trying to win over people they never had in the first place.

Perfect diagnosis. Unfortunately, Democrats will never learn, because they either live in the same bubble or are some form of grifter.

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

Red avatars on this site seem to be missing this and get annoyed when any dem politician tries to fix it.

Harris lost. If by some magic handwave she exactly matched Biden 2020 numbers in all the swing states, SHE STILL LOSES the election

You can even add every single Jill Stein voter from last year to Biden's 2020 total and they still lose.


To win future presidential elections they need at least some Trump 2024 voters. The Dem base and voters to the left of them are not enough.

[Horus]

Shut up Meg

[DaleCooper]

Girl, the Democrats been speaking to suburban Republican white women since the 90s.

Like, I get her annoyance at leftists who are going overboard about her speech, but this insinuation though is just not true... Hillary, Biden, Harris... when was the last time a Dem candidate spoke solely to the base? This isn't a thing that happens

The issue isn't so much that they speak only to the base, it's that they speak only to the people they wish were their base. Hillary, Biden, and Harris focused a lot on suburban women, social just advocates, and socially moderate Republicans that don't like Trump. If anything, these three candidates (to varying degrees, and honestly I'd argue Biden was the worst even though he ironically was the one to win) ignored parts of their actual base in favor of pandering to the groups they want to win over.

For reasons that I don't think anyone understands, the Democratic Party's decision after their decisive win in 2012 was to focus almost exclusively on winning over white upper-middle-class Romney voters, happily sacrificing critical members of their coalition in the process. What scares me more than anything is that they still haven't figured out that this was a mistake. Instead of trying to win back people they lost, they're trying to win over people they never had in the first place.

Perfect diagnosis. Unfortunately, Democrats will never learn, because they either live in the same bubble or are some form of grifter.

Democrats, especially during Obama's administration, grew to hate the people their party represents. Democrats didn't want to be the party of unexciting ordinary American families that just want to work for a living and don't have any interest in what you learned about in your college sociology course. The Democrats don't want to win with the votes of vulgar Michigan union guys and their families.

It's kind of like how Reaganite Republicans secretly hated being the party of white trash and evangelicals, but Republicans just embraced it. Democrats chose to try and invent a coalition that's more to their liking, and we've seen how successful that was. Progressives have the exact same problem, by the way.

[Existing in the context]

Red avatars on this site seem to be missing this and get annoyed when any dem politician tries to fix it.

Harris lost. If by some magic handwave she exactly matched Biden 2020 numbers in all the swing states, SHE STILL LOSES the election

You can even add every single Jill Stein voter from last year to Biden's 2020 total and they still lose.


To win future presidential elections they need at least some Trump 2024 voters. The Dem base and voters to the left of them are not enough.

Literally everybody in this thread is talking about Democrats needing to be able to win votes of different people. Nobody is missing the point The only thing you did was put a Trump sticker on it.

[Storr]

Girl, the Democrats been speaking to suburban Republican white women since the 90s.

Like, I get her annoyance at leftists who are going overboard about her speech, but this insinuation though is just not true... Hillary, Biden, Harris... when was the last time a Dem candidate spoke solely to the base? This isn't a thing that happens

The issue isn't so much that they speak only to the base, it's that they speak only to the people they wish were their base. Hillary, Biden, and Harris focused a lot on suburban women, social just advocates, and socially moderate Republicans that don't like Trump. If anything, these three candidates (to varying degrees, and honestly I'd argue Biden was the worst even though he ironically was the one to win) ignored parts of their actual base in favor of pandering to the groups they want to win over.

For reasons that I don't think anyone understands, the Democratic Party's decision after their decisive win in 2012 was to focus almost exclusively on winning over white upper-middle-class Romney voters, happily sacrificing critical members of their coalition in the process. What scares me more than anything is that they still haven't figured out that this was a mistake. Instead of trying to win back people they lost, they're trying to win over people they never had in the first place.

Perfect diagnosis. Unfortunately, Democrats will never learn, because they either live in the same bubble or are some form of grifter.

Democrats, especially during Obama's administration, grew to hate the people their party represents. Democrats didn't want to be the party of unexciting ordinary American families that just want to work for a living and don't have any interest in what you learned about in your college sociology course. The Democrats don't want to win with the votes of vulgar Michigan union guys and their families.

It's kind of like how Reaganite Republicans secretly hated being the party of white trash and evangelicals, but Republicans just embraced it. Democrats chose to try and invent a coalition that's more to their liking, and we've seen how successful that was. Progressives have the exact same problem, by the way.

Even if you want to argue Democrats didn't hate the people they represented in the Obama era. The fact that's the impression unexciting ordinary families had of Democrats by the end of Obama's second term still shows it is and was a problem for the party.

[GAinDC]

I like Slotkin, but this schtick is getting old. She says some version of this every election cycle.

We get it -- Dems need to work on some things. However, these people are nowhere to be found any time the party does well.

I guess to some people, a Dem winning a competitive election does not elicit any response because in their minds, that's what SHOULD happen. Trump and the Republicans are awful, right? So Dems should always be favored, and if they lose, it's because they massively f****d up.

I see it differently. I see a party that has to manage an unwieldy, big tent coalition going up against an increasingly authoritarian party with an extensive and sophisticated propaganda network. Any time Dems can overcome that, I think it deserves a lot of applause, and I think we can learn MORE from those winning campaigns that we can from the losing ones.

[ingemann]

I think it’s a mistake to focus on Harris’ ideology, in my view she lost because she was a bad candidate, not because of any specific ideological views or vibes of hers. I know it’s easier said than done, but if you want to win you should run good candidates, the problem is that it’s only obvious afterward. But I think a simple litmus test would be if you can answer what the candidate in question want beside being president (even if latter it was clear that it was all an act). Biden wanted to reestablish order, Trump wanted to overthrow the existing order, Obama wanted change, Bush II wanted to strengthen Christian influence on USA. Clinton is the last president where it was really unclear what he wanted beside being president.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Trump is living proof that this isn't true.

Actually Trump is living proof this is . Trump really doesn’t care unlike many politicians who is supporting him as long as they are supporting him .

There is a reason why Trump is both the Republican who did the worst out of any Republican in RGV/Dade in the modern era and the best since 72/84 . There’s a reason he did the worst with Indian Americans in a while and the best , and the list goes on and on .

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

I like Slotkin, but this schtick is getting old. She says some version of this every election cycle.

We get it -- Dems need to work on some things. However, these people are nowhere to be found any time the party does well.

I guess to some people, a Dem winning a competitive election does not elicit any response because in their minds, that's what SHOULD happen. Trump and the Republicans are awful, right? So Dems should always be favored, and if they lose, it's because they massively f****d up.

I see it differently. I see a party that has to manage an unwieldy, big tent coalition going up against an increasingly authoritarian party with an extensive and sophisticated propaganda network. Any time Dems can overcome that, I think it deserves a lot of applause, and I think we can learn MORE from those winning campaigns that we can from the losing ones.

Slotkin ran a winning campaign.....just last year in a swing state Harris lost.....

She is trying to give lessons from a winning campaign....

She is doing exatly what you want. You don't like the answer.

[DaleCooper]

To be clear, Slotkin is still better than 90% of other Democrats, there are just some elements of her strategy that really concern me.

[GAinDC]

I like Slotkin, but this schtick is getting old. She says some version of this every election cycle.

We get it -- Dems need to work on some things. However, these people are nowhere to be found any time the party does well.

I guess to some people, a Dem winning a competitive election does not elicit any response because in their minds, that's what SHOULD happen. Trump and the Republicans are awful, right? So Dems should always be favored, and if they lose, it's because they massively f****d up.

I see it differently. I see a party that has to manage an unwieldy, big tent coalition going up against an increasingly authoritarian party with an extensive and sophisticated propaganda network. Any time Dems can overcome that, I think it deserves a lot of applause, and I think we can learn MORE from those winning campaigns that we can from the losing ones.

Slotkin ran a winning campaign.....just last year in a swing state Harris lost.....

She is trying to give lessons from a winning campaign....

She is doing exatly what you want. You don't like the answer.

I have been following her for years, and she does this every election cycle: "Dems are in trouble!" no matter what the landscape looks like

I acknowledge and appreciate her close wins, but not every state or district looks like hers and there are many different winning formulas