I find it amusing that their company is called Red Edge. During the 80s, in the UK, there was a group of singers and performers who supported the Labour Party (the left wing party) called Red Wedge.
If the GOP wants to stop being seen as obsolete, perhaps they should remove themselves and their policies from the 19th century and start treating women, people of color, gay people, and poor people like human beings.
Exactly! Oh, yeah, they might get some small boost out of a makeover - and out of avoiding things like the Orca fiasco - but delivering their stinky message better isn't going to win them back that Dayton-middle-class-white-couple-of-today mentioned in the article who has a gay daughter and a black son-in-law.
I'm too high to read this right now, but in this age where social media = legit news source, you do have to be careful of how you do anything. Obama's team and the DNC are slowly adopting the internet and knowing how fads work, is helping them.
Look at Mayor Booker in Newark. He's using social media to help get shit done asap and now others are doing the same, as well as Republicans who want to save the sinking ship.
An interesting article I read with a fair amount of Schadenfreude.
...while the Romney campaign raised slightly more money from its online ads than it spent on them, Obama’s team more than doubled the return on its online-ad investment. But doesn't this make perfect sense? It's not that Obama's team was using new technology to attract voters, but the Democrats already *have* tech-savvy staff and voters, so using new technology is just the next logical step of communication. On the other hand "old and influential" Republicans don't care about it, and most of their base don't demand it, so even if they'd used better online strategies, the turn-out probably wouldn't have been much better
( ... )
I will admit to wondering the same thing. It talks about Cupp being anti-abortion and fiscally conservative. So that explains her and I would guess her guy.
But I'm not sure with the others. Anti-regulation and fiscal conservatism seem to be the thing.
And then there's how the GOP techies broke up and made money, so maybe they're Michael Keaton Republicans and there's a strong drive to make a name for themselves and make money, that's their cause?
I'm starting to think of it as 'One Point Syndrome'. They find one point that suits them (fiscal conservatism claims, anti abortion claims, etc) and willfully ignore everything else in the platform.
tbh in my experience, it's b/c young people are raised in the politics of their parents, and it's so entrenched in their worldview that to admit that their parents were wrong, or to admit that they themselves were wrong.... it would completely shatter their world. so they choose to stick their heads in the sand and ignore any rationality whatsoever. also, privileged little shits who have bought into the idea that they got where they got all by themselves, and are so detached from reality to see how the boosts that they were given out of the womb have helped them, and that others may not have received those same boosts.
Reading through this, my initial thought was "Why would that be so bad?" Because it has happened before. We've had parties rise and fall, and if the "GOP brand" can't keep up, what would be so bad about it going away and being replaced by some other brands? Ultimately it would probably cause the Democratic party to fracture a bit and realign as well, and then maybe we'd get some work done around here and actual representation would take place with a plethora of smaller parties
( ... )
One of the side effects of more smaller parties is that you can end up with some being one policy parties. Whilst that is in some ways not a bad thing as it raises awareness. It is also a disaster waiting to happen as a majority party cannot run a legislature (national or local) with a single agreed policy.
Oh it's stupid but it pretty much all comes down to just how freaking expensive politics is nowadays.
Which is in itself stupid.
What I'm hoping will happen, but what I'm not banking on, is that the Republican party has a serious schism and splits into the moderates and the hardliners. It's nice to see people like John Huntsman basically call out his own party for their stupidity and actually get some attention but then again, John Huntsman crashed and burned during the primary season for "not being Republican enough."
But what seems to be happening is that they've rigged the state elections to their benefit so they can essentially keep running Republicans at a federal level and at least keep the house while making harsher laws (hi Virginia and that dick voting law that was designed to kick out John Edwards) that would eventually lead to Republicans, Republicans everywhere.
Yes, but then think ahead further: Their jackboot tactics just alienate more people, you get more anticorruption campaigns, you get more young people pushed into the arms of the Democrats, along with fiscally conservative gay people and people of color ... great for them that they hold power for a little bit longer, but ultimately that just makes everyone madder at them when the pendulum finally shifts.
It's pretty much the same mistake W. made with his approach to Afghanistan and Iraq: control through raw power, focusing on punishment of those who disagree with you, just breeds more terrorists.
In this case control through raw power, forcing your morals onto a society that wavers between outright rejecting them to simply believing in freedom of choice on moral issues breeds more and more vehement opposition.
Comments 44
Reply
Reply
Reply
That's just too crazy to work!
Reply
Reply
Reply
Look at Mayor Booker in Newark. He's using social media to help get shit done asap and now others are doing the same, as well as Republicans who want to save the sinking ship.
Reply
...while the Romney campaign raised slightly more money from its online ads than it spent on them, Obama’s team more than doubled the return on its online-ad investment. But doesn't this make perfect sense? It's not that Obama's team was using new technology to attract voters, but the Democrats already *have* tech-savvy staff and voters, so using new technology is just the next logical step of communication. On the other hand "old and influential" Republicans don't care about it, and most of their base don't demand it, so even if they'd used better online strategies, the turn-out probably wouldn't have been much better ( ... )
Reply
But I'm not sure with the others. Anti-regulation and fiscal conservatism seem to be the thing.
And then there's how the GOP techies broke up and made money, so maybe they're Michael Keaton Republicans and there's a strong drive to make a name for themselves and make money, that's their cause?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Which is in itself stupid.
What I'm hoping will happen, but what I'm not banking on, is that the Republican party has a serious schism and splits into the moderates and the hardliners. It's nice to see people like John Huntsman basically call out his own party for their stupidity and actually get some attention but then again, John Huntsman crashed and burned during the primary season for "not being Republican enough."
But what seems to be happening is that they've rigged the state elections to their benefit so they can essentially keep running Republicans at a federal level and at least keep the house while making harsher laws (hi Virginia and that dick voting law that was designed to kick out John Edwards) that would eventually lead to Republicans, Republicans everywhere.
And not the good ones.
Reply
It's pretty much the same mistake W. made with his approach to Afghanistan and Iraq: control through raw power, focusing on punishment of those who disagree with you, just breeds more terrorists.
In this case control through raw power, forcing your morals onto a society that wavers between outright rejecting them to simply believing in freedom of choice on moral issues breeds more and more vehement opposition.
Reply
Leave a comment