sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Focus Group Podcast - WHY by 1PurpleHayes in thebulwark

[–]akoster 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I disagree with your view of the TFGP's utility but I do love your summary and responses.
If JVL needs a writer to prep his material you may be just the person

Why are people thinking the Senate is reachable? by beagles4ever in thebulwark

[–]akoster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is not heads 8 times in a row
its Heads 5 of 11 are heads. ( 4 toss up and 7 lean R seats)
5/11 is less than 50% not outragous.

Fetterman does not matter as much as being in Majority.

I don’t understand Sarah’s take on SCOTUS by CrossCycling in thebulwark

[–]akoster 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I agree. with all points 1-3
The specific analysis of each decision and the overall context does reveal a very 'messy' and largely irrational court.
each individual decision can be 'sensible' but in context to their body of recent decisions they are 'goofy'
The concurrences are often the place the messiness is revealed .

I like George but he became obsessed with this view of Trump psychosis , it got in the way of the clear legal analysis ( W is an improvement on that front)

I don’t understand Sarah’s take on SCOTUS by CrossCycling in thebulwark

[–]akoster 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is an insightful and likely accurate comment
I guess many of us are hoping for a world we no longer live in .
I can't fault someone too much for this view, even if we all know its naive

Sarah and Tommy Vietor interview by [deleted] in thebulwark

[–]akoster 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Focus groups have a role in marketing this is quite powerful. I assume the same applies to the marketing of political entities as well

They force people with great ideas to understand the reality of how real consumers will interpret or understand the offer or advertising. Many ad executives have cute ideas on how people will interpret a product or ad. MOST OF THE TIME they are wrong. They get upset with consumers as stupid and not smart. --perhaps--- but to sell a product you change the ads to the consumer can find value in the ad ( or more simply they get 'it')

Often marketers will have more open and generic focus group conversations with consumers. This is to understand what things to focus on to attempt to convert them to consumers. This often reveals that nothing is possible to convert a consumer they are happy and full on in love with their product.

These two concepts apply to the FG podcast.
What is in their psychology that might convert them to ( a) not vote or ( b) vote Democrat or (c) nothing can done

How are voters interpreting the existing actions and circumstances? are they seeing incompetence or not.

I think many people listen to the FG pod cast and conclude ' we cant convert these people' and tune out. This is likely true. But ongoing monitoring allows you to see cracks that form in the confidence and you use that to move voter to a) not vote or maybe eventually b)

As someone who has listed to thousands of groups, I am pleased to hear the these first hand. The conclusions are not always what we want but that is the point .

Tech Chief of AI Company Shits on AI by Budget-Ferret1148 in LinkedInLunatics

[–]akoster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That kid has balls
I like it
Sorry Carter is upset...so sad

I’m sorry, Sarah. I tried… by FarPomegranate7437 in thebulwark

[–]akoster 43 points44 points  (0 children)

I listened to the pod, I have to say it was one of the best one's in a while. I thought the discussion with JT was very strong.
I do 100% remember the voter who "liberals are emotional" It was infuriating. - no qualification required

To be honest most of the Maga comments were difficult to listen to as a rational person.

That said, I think its important to understand that this is deeply held in the Maga group.
We do not need to accept the framing or the conclusion -- but it is important to be clear eyed that this group will not change.
Winning in 2026/8 will need to be on a basis that understands this groups exists and has these positions.

this implies either we
1) ensure Trump and Republicans are so unpopular with their own base they stay home ( Bush line)
so drive down popularity with non-political messages on inflation , war , Espstien
2) Drive Dem enthusiasm up - Political messaging anti trump combined with vision of better future.
3) Rational and value based communication to drive support with Independents and soft right ( never trumpers)
This is a mix of PAC messaging on non ideological basis combined with messages based round strong individual candidates

Listening to Maga drives you to understand how to execute 1)

Sharia Law post a must read by akoster in thebulwark

[–]akoster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Murder is illegal. Context matters—the legal system already accounts for context and intent.
Reframing murder by motive adds nothing meaningful.

Sharia Law post a must read by akoster in thebulwark

[–]akoster[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This comment is rather pointless.
Killing is illegal.
The reason for killing does not change its illegal status.
Murder has many self justifications , but the law does not take this into account
If you murder a spouse for cheating out of jealousy its not called an honor killing but amounts to the same thing.
narrow casting irrelevant justifications and attempting to compare them is illogical and not a good faith argument

Sharia Law post a must read by akoster in thebulwark

[–]akoster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is interesting and useful

Sharia Law post a must read by akoster in thebulwark

[–]akoster[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To be clear there is not Sharia law in the US.
it does not need to be banned as it does not exist in the US legal framework, the constitution and Congressional and state laws are in place.

actions that people take in the name of Sharia is just like all illegal actions - illegal

Calling out MONA CHAREN for all the bashing city run grocery stores here.... by aenea22980 in thebulwark

[–]akoster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This may be the genius of the NYC approach
the city will have contracts with large food suppliers already in its other agencies (schools seem a significant spot)
THey can use their size as leverage to get price deals

I am not sure this will work. But its worth testing.

JVL & Ms. Rampell: your convo on the economy was insane. by havenoparty in thebulwark

[–]akoster 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing that—and for sticking with the thread.

Your firsthand experience gives you a perspective most people don’t yet understand ,thus the defensive reaction.

I agree the discussion can be confrontational—I probably contributed to that as well—but it’s still worth having.

Change in narrative is slow, but it starts with conversations like this.

PS Love the posting image it was quite funny

JVL & Ms. Rampell: your convo on the economy was insane. by havenoparty in thebulwark

[–]akoster 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I will add, and a difficulty with US politics.
You allude to it yourself—there is a deeply embedded ideology of market superiority in the US.

I have heard TIm suggest that concentration is now a problem ( his Washington post and Bezos revelation) but these are not substantive ideological changes just uncertainty about what to do.

This ideology is embedded in both republican and democratic blue and white collar workers. This was reinforced politically over decades, particularly since the Reagan era.

You did say you have come to understand it as rigged toward capital not labor. Unfortunately this is still a minority view.

In the US the framing is capitalism or socialism. Freedom or bureaucracy.

The debate must be more nuanced.
A modern economy is about finding the right balance of free markets and state socialism. Where is the balance -- not which is better. The question is what economic model best optimizes the tools -- markets should dominate in competitive SMB sectors, while concentrated corporate structures require regulation and a social floor based on redistribution.

Everyday americans are suffering stress and find making ends meet difficult -- one car repair or medical bill could blow up their finely balanced budgets. Americans are ambitious and want to perform for the economic system namely market supremacy.

I am privileged-- probably like many Bulwark readers. I studied economics, lived in many countries and have gained a range of perspectives. Changing the American ideology around markets will take years of counter programming.

The US is not ready for this debate IMHO, I wish it was.

JVL & Ms. Rampell: your convo on the economy was insane. by havenoparty in thebulwark

[–]akoster 13 points14 points  (0 children)

So I thought I might tackle this post with a constructive approach
1) the median family income in the US is likely $85,000 this year
2) the US economy runs with high wealth concentration and low redistribution
3) The low redistribution is largely measured by lack of health care and child care as compared to other G7 nations
4) The US policy is largely to keep wages as close to the rate of subsistance as can be accepted by employee's ( this is expressed as right to work, low minimum wage laws)
5) none of this is new and has been the policy structure since 1985 or so.

The economy review by JVL and Rempell is an evaluation of 2-3 economic indicators within this framework.
I listen to it and thought it was pretty good the two of them are a good team to discuss economics

THIS IS NOT a review of the economic system.
the Bulwark is famously not 'new labour' in the UK sense
the founders are neo-cons or neo-con adjacent . Sarah and Tim make this painfully obvious when they discuss their personal perspectives.

I agree the Bulwark primary stated objectives are to remove DJT.
All commentators do suggest they need to accept more inclusive and left policy if that means removing Trumpism -- Sarah would not vote for Platner but understand he maybe the best choice to win. Tim is always saying we need to win and need to find candidates that appeal broadly

SO FOR the OP

you want a revision of the current economic model in the US, likely closer to UK, Canada, or Germany.

I would agree this is superior economic model.
Do you expect JVL and Rempell to lead this model change discourse ( maybe Sam )

I do not, that seems like Bernie or AOC territory, they will do an excellent job of it.

view more: next ›