And I still believe you should be able to succeed if you play by the rules, work hard, and build a life you’re proud of—without being a jerk about it, understanding that you were able to succeed because of the foundations of this country and ensuring that foundation continues to exist for everyone.
Genuinely begging you and all dems to stop saying “work hard and play by the rules”. My sister has long covid. She and other disabled people can’t “work hard”, and most of the rules suck. They still have the right to a good life. I hope you consider this. Cheering you on from Chicago!
@mallorymcmorrow.bsky.social and team, I hope you consider this!
That’s why I’m showing up everywhere we can—brewery tours, podcasts, small-town events—not just to talk policy, but to get to know you person-to-person. Success, empathy and strength aren’t values at odds with each other. Let’s dream bigger and believe in a future where there’s a place for all of us
This is some very muddled messaging, in my opinion. I don’t understand why you’re focused on “success.” No one is against success. I don’t understand what is resonant about this and hope some other Michigan voters will chime in to enlighten me.
I don't want to put words in her mouth, but I read it that we should be less "democrats helped you get food/housing/medicine" and more "democrats leveled the playing field so that you could get ahead ...". Same stuff, different messaging.
Does that message resonate with you? Do you think it’s widely appealing? Genuinely asking.
I think it resonates when success is defined by having the opportunity (which many now lack even w/ hard work) to achieve the life you want. A chance to: Learn & get a job you like w/ fair wages & benefits Have a home where you want to live & maybe kids Enjoy some leisure Retire in health & dignity
There's an interview where she disagrees w the idea that extreme wealth is a problem & says that democrats who say that are against 'success.' But, at the root of the reason why people are unable to get the things on your list is extreme income inequality and increasing concentration of wealth.
In my view, it's important to be v explicit about how income inequality is the problem, which is v different from criticizing 'success.' Both Slotkin & McMorrow shy away from talking about oligarchy, which imo is a mistake. I want Dems to take on oligarchs, many of whom use their $ to be lawless
I agree about income inequality & oligarchy. I do think she's getting at that using language that resonates with everyday people. Most voters can't define oligarchy & think solving income inequality means if others will get more, I'll get less. Dems can get too wonky and it puts people off.
It's just my opinion, but knocking on doors and explaining socioeconomics to a person who feels left behind by their government for any reason is a doomed effort. She's listening to their concerns, which undoubtedly lie in income inequality, but explaining her ideas in language accessible to them.
That’s fair, and it’s unlikely that my ability to do politics is better than hers.
So, instead of using "oligarchy," use "extreme wealth." I disagree, though, about people not being able to get terms like oligarchy. In fact, I think the term can allow people to name the thing they're seeing.
I'm a constituent, and when I see my representatives refusing to call out "rule by and for the wealthy" I think they probably won't do a good job coming up with policies that help us get away from that.
Also, current events and many, many people seem to exemplify the exact opposite of American exceptionalism right now. So much about the last several years makes the idea of American exceptionalism seem like something that has always been a fantasy.
True. I think this a shock to a lot of people.
Meh, I guess? That said, I have poor political instincts - not something Sen McMorrow suffers from. Also, I don't think that message is meant for me. I think it's meant for the red regions.
That's fair. Thanks.