Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Jared 🎩
@javabu.eth
My work's been having internal discussions on the following question. Do we begin to advocate for the policies that the majority of voters want/voted for even if it destroys historic social programs. I'm in the yes camp but interested to hear your thoughts.
8 replies
0 recast
11 reactions
aferg
@aaronrferguson
Voters overwhelmingly voted against their interests this cycle. These policies are not actually what they want - it’s an issue of not being properly informed due to overwhelming amounts of misinformation. Advocacy should take this into account first and foremost.
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
Ryan
@ryanfmason
If I was trying to convert Trump voters into Democrats I would never mention anything close to the idea of misinformation. That attitude is exactly the kind of thing they voted against, and if they hear anything like that, they’ll immediately tune out any other message you have that they might actually agree with
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Jared 🎩
@javabu.eth
I largely agree with @aaronrferguson's take. There's a significant lack in policy understanding amongst voters. I've also heard lots of conversations that people didn't/don't think Trump will really do what he said he'd do while campaigning. That being said, people voted for change. The question that I'm struggling with is the definition of change.
3 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Ryan
@ryanfmason
My point is that it would be an extremely ineffective strategy to tell Trump voters that they are voting against their interests because of “misinformation” Regardless of the actual validity, these people hate the attitude that elites/PMC/deep state/etc. have who are telling them that they know their interests better than they do. His response was that it’s not an attitude, it’s just a fact that they know better. This is the exact attitude that makes people vote for Trump/MAGA/broader RFK anti-establishment people. In a conversation about convincing people to vote for somebody else, it will fail and antagonize those voters to tell them that they are wrong about their own interests.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Ryan
@ryanfmason
@javabu.eth if it was framed differently, maybe something more like “there should be more transparency about the effects of a bill, a bipartisan office that maps out 2nd, 3rd order etc. effects of policies” (In practice there’s probly a lot of issues with something like this) but if you said things like that, those voters would be more amenable to it. But telling them that they’re uninformed because of misinformation or that their values are not in their interest, or they would change parties if they were more educated, or that they don’t *actually* believe what they say they believe, they will hate you
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
