i am certainly not dunking on the ridiculous “if trmp is a fascist, then everyone is”, because this judgement on fascism is likely to error in the same way as “soviets we’re actually anti-imperialist 
”. yeah it’s a tedious and complex topic, but they most certainly were if you take propaganda/disinformation of the Foreign Minister (doesn’t matter which era) for, in fact, propaganda and disinformation.
it’s somewhat surprising to double down on that.
No matter how much you use all caps it doesn’t add to your argument.
Can you cite any evidence that;
using the term defund led to greater support?
the term defund is brilliant marketing?
It’s seems very odd to be so emotionally invested in the phrase alone.
Most people are not disagreeing with the cause, although some may quibble with specifics.
luckily the commercial immediately following that segment told them to call a doctor if their erection lasts more than four hours.
No idea why you are resorting to insults. Also not sure how you know what books I’ve read.
You seem wildly invested in the phrase for some reason. I don’t understand why it is so important?
All I am suggesting is the policy could have greater support with a different slogan. In fact, the 538 article posted earlier by nobody shows that other phrases tend to garner greater support than “defund the police” for the same policy suit.
Part of the problem, of course, is that not everyone means the same thing when they say “defund the police” as ggoreo has illustrated.
That’s because eDems are weak-tight poker players.
But does she distance herself from people who do use that language?
Having a watered down message may lead to more widespread support, but that support will be less intense. We do want slogans that cause people to become more emotionally invested. The Republicans gain from having intense support from single-issue voters on things like guns and abortion, even if those the majority of the country are against their beliefs.
Maybe Democrats can strengthen their coalition by cultivating a single-issue ACAB constituency even if “defund the police” isn’t hugely popular.
Some data showing it’s a confusing term where support varies pretty widely depending on the exact language used.
Who is arguing for watered down? Again, if we are talking about the slogan only and not the policy I don’t see why another slogan is “watered down”.
If we are talking about the actual policy that’s a different argument. The “hard defund” position as in completely abolishment has very little support. Perhaps an argument can be made that pushing that policy lays groundwork for the “soft defund” position of demilitarization, funding reductions and reallocation of funds and job tasks. I am not sure.
It’s exactly how that works. You can water down the message so that more people support what you are saying, but they won’t care as much about a message that doesn’t mean as much. It won’t be something people will fight for. Someone like clovis wants a poll-tested message that garners the most yeses, but that won’t translate into election-day success like how he thinks because such weak language isn’t going to be the reason why people vote. It’s not going to override other concerns people have. It’s not going to be the motivator for standing in line in the face of massive voter suppression.
It’s better to have a message that appeals to fewer people but affects them strongly rather than a message that appeals to more people in a shallow and superficial way reminiscent of a corporate PR campaign.
You have some evidence the defund language resulted in more people at the polls?
I’m confused, isn’t the purpose of political movements to get more people to support them? You are acting like that is a bad thing.
The basic position is that the police are the enemy and that it’s not just a few bad apples who can be excised with some mild reform. Right now, a lot of people still have respect for the police as an institution. If the goal is trying to get more people to believe the police are bad, how would you go about doing that?
Political mobilization isn’t a simple binary between yes and no. Intensity of support matters.
That’s the “hard defund” position, essentially abolishment. That position just isn’t serious policy, IMO. Of course, I recognize some smart people disagree with me on that. If that’s the goal then I have no comments on how to achieve it.
If the goal is some version of “soft defund” then this discussion has value.
For the record, I’m for massive downsizing of police forces, slashing their budgets, demilitarization and allocating those funds to social services.
I’m saying that trying to come up with a less radical, inoffensive, watered-down way to say “defund the police” is a bad idea. Are you under the perception that I am saying otherwise?
I might have described a position that is harder than what I personally believe, but I think the goal should be to destabilize popular support for the police to make reform more politically viable. Whether that is a “soft” or “hard” defund is a debate that can be kicked down the road for when change is possible.
How do you feel about “repeal and replace the police”?
All of those things, but worth making clear as day that Bush:
Started two needless wars based on false pretenses that resulted in millions of deaths and millions more displaced, causing turmoil throughout the entire Middle East . . . so his buddies could make billions in profits.
None of what Trump has done is remotely approaching that. We’ll see on COVID I guess.
Nah, it says nothing really
I’m no fan of Nancy Pelosi, but how many Congresspeople in either party from safe districts do you think regularly debate their challengers? (I can assure you the number approaches zero if you don’t want to waste your time looking.)
Hell, my congressman doesn’t even bother campaigning. I see his various challengers putting out signs, but I have not seen a single sign of his since he won his seat and I doubt I ever will unless the upcoming gerrymandering somehow hurts him.
I think that’s a decent slogan as it makes it clear there will be a police force of some kind.
It worked for Republicans.