Democratic (Party) Direction

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

A thread for discussing the Democrats' "message"/framing/etc.

This is the most important-seeming article I've read yet.

― g@bbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:33 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Golden Globes follies 2006 (239 new answers)
Show Me the Love for SNL's "Live Duluth" sketch (105 new answers)
Democratic (Party) Direction (Unanswered)
Celebrity Big Brother 2006 - Thread Two - We all stand together? (165 new answers)
the mongrels don't want to play like that, they just want to talk to the sheepfuxors (254 new answers)
UK Watercooler Conversation 5: TOmorrow Sometimes Knows (322 new answers)

― ,,, Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:58 (twelve years ago) Permalink

That party is fucking dead and it's never coming back in a way that will change anything much.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:59 (twelve years ago) Permalink

maybe your beloved whig party will change something

― ,,, Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:02 (twelve years ago) Permalink

maybe your beloved dick will change something

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:07 (twelve years ago) Permalink

it's a long article. i got three phone calls while i was reading it!

― stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:23 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Pretty interesting stuff in that article -- I feel like I need to read it again to really digest all of it. The value shift it describes sort of reminds me of South Park -- the whole nihilistic individualistic thing -- is that what "South Park Conservatives" is about?

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:27 (twelve years ago) Permalink

and yeah, a lot of it is pretty otm, but i fear for what america will be like if BOTH parties are simultaneously doing the "moral yardstick" shtick. yes it's apparent that americans want to hear about christianity and family values, but if the dems start playing that card in earnest, hoo boy.

i'm also not convinced about some of those salary numbers -- how is he defining "household"? and is he giving salaries in cities like new york and san francisco equal weight to ones in poor rural regions? how does income tax figure in? it's kinda vague.

― stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:32 (twelve years ago) Permalink

For a while I've had the idea that the Democratic Party could improve its future by putting more money and resources into local party organizations, campus recruiting, things that give people real human connections to the party. People are much more likely to listen to their neighbor than some internet ad.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:36 (twelve years ago) Permalink

xpost

Yeah, I'm not sure about the salary numbers either -- plenty of households still struggle on an income of $60,000 a year. The article gets it right that those people don't receive any government assistance, but that's just where the problem lies -- they end up too well off to get assistance but still unable to afford their debt and medical bills.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:37 (twelve years ago) Permalink

2ndxpost

or hollywood actor

― josh w (jbweb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:37 (twelve years ago) Permalink

thanks for the link, reading now. glad to see there's a direction not chosen by Lakoff, I think he has no clue.

― dar1a g (daria g), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:38 (twelve years ago) Permalink

The real problems with the Dems over-focus on economic policy are that 1) Policy is not very exciting to talk about and hard to understand, and 2) No one actually believes the Dems when they say they'll "create jobs."

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:38 (twelve years ago) Permalink

2x post back to Josh: OTM

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:39 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I'm not sure about the salary numbers either -- plenty of households still struggle on an income of $60,000 a year.

the article suggested that the dividing line between affluent and poor was $50K per household, but for a married couple where both spouses work that only comes out to $25K per person, which isn't much once you figure in the high cost of living in america. plus, the article doesn't say who in these salary ranges pay for their own insurance and retirement funds.

― stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:43 (twelve years ago) Permalink

2) No one actually believes the Dems when they say they'll "create jobs."

read: "we won't send your existing jobs to india."

― stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:45 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Right, but won't they?

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:47 (twelve years ago) Permalink

it remains to be seen. let's get some dems in office and we'll find out.

― stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:48 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Well, by not "send your existing jobs to India," I assume you mean "pass some kind of law to prevent companies from doing that." I'd be very surprised if that actually happened under Democrats.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:50 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I assume you mean "pass some kind of law to prevent companies from doing that."

it could happen, provided the elected politicians don't have any vested corporate interests. and monkeys might fly etc.

― stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:52 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I wonder how much of this affluence tipping point is skewed due to debtwarp. Take away the credit cards and there are a lot less Republicans, maybe?

― Polysix Bad Battery (cprek), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:53 (twelve years ago) Permalink

provided the elected politicians don't have any vested corporate interests

hahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hohohohoHOHOHOHOHOHOOH
heheheheheHEHEHEHEEEHEHEEEHEEHAHAHAHAHAHASNORTSNORTSNORT!

sorry

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:54 (twelve years ago) Permalink

OK, this is really depressing! not re: Democrats, but the direction of the country as a whole.

― dar1a g (daria g), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:54 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Yeah, it is. I already had this vague fear that Americans were becoming these kind of paranoid, fat, lonely, nihilistic internet addicts who didn't talk to their neighbors.

Er wait, am I talking about Americans, or ILXors?

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:57 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I wonder how much of this affluence tipping point is skewed due to debtwarp. Take away the credit cards and there are a lot less Republicans, maybe?

it is funny how many "affluent" "property owners" are up to their necks in mortgages and high-interest loans. it's like that commercial where the rich white suburban lawnmower dude says "i'm in debt up to my eyeballs!"

― stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:58 (twelve years ago) Permalink

The most important part of the article is where they reveal that by telling people that you're espousing Christian values because you're actually a Christian, they decide they agree with you, even if they they claim Christian faith as well but are only down with the first half of the Bible.

In the vast swaths of country between the megapolises there are people raising families of 5 on $57,000 a year and doing it relatively painlessly. And yeah, economic issues don't mean a goddamned thing to them.

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:00 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Plenty of families of five with $57,000 a year would still like a better health insurance system, you just can't win an election on that alone.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:03 (twelve years ago) Permalink

hey, gabbneb, thanks for posting that article. it takes some time to think about....

― patrick bateman (mickeygraft), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:04 (twelve years ago) Permalink

"the American Environics team argued that the way to move voters on progressive issues is to sometimes set aside policies in favor of values"

Wow, what an incredible insight. Very novel!

"Environics found social values moving away from the authority end of the scale, with its emphasis on responsibility, duty, and tradition, to a more atomized, rage-filled outlook that values consumption, sexual permissiveness, and xenophobia. The trend was toward values in the individuality quadrant."

I've long thought that if the Democratic party would focus their message on individualism (and the resulting freedom it implies) that they might get somewhere.

Today’s average American “worker” is, in short, very much on his or her own -- too prosperous to be eligible for most government assistance programs and, because of job laws that date back three quarters of a century, unable to unionize. Such isolation and atomization have not led to a new wave of social solidarity and economic populism, however. Instead, these changes have bred resentment toward those who do have outside aid, whether from government or from unions, and an escalating ethos of every man for himself. Against that ethos, voters have increasingly flocked to politicians who recognize that the combination of relative affluence and relative isolation has created an opening for cultural appeals.

"Every man for himself" has been an American credo for hundreds of years. It's the essence of competition, of capitalism, of industry. There's a bridge somewhere between individualism and community--is the Democratic party forcing people over a bridge or seeking one?

American voters have taken shelter under the various wings of conservative traditionalism because there has been no one on the Democratic side in recent years to defend traditional, sensible middle-class values against the onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows.

Maybe they're taking shelter because they don't think it's an economy that's pitting man against man, it's shelter from the resulting culture war. What are "traditional, sensible middle-class values" anyway? The only hint we get from this article is that candidates should talk about religion and that will mitigate their stance on the death penalty (in Virginia.)

I am happy to see the wasteland that is the Democratic Party looking inward. The Republicans wouldn't dare stare into their own dark abyss.

― don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:35 (twelve years ago) Permalink

It's amazing to me that people still think that Republicans are better at creating jobs. We've had a Republican president and congress for the past 5 years, and what have we got? A "jobless recovery". The brilliant Republican plan for creating jobs is to give more money back to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts. They are still trying to sell the country on a supply-side economics platform. Look at Gov. Pataki's new budget in NY that came out this week. 24% of the tax cuts going to those who make over $200K per year. His rationale: it will create jobs and boost the economy. I think people need to start to question if that strategy really helps to create the kind of jobs this country needs. The one thing that we can be sure it does is make the rich even richer. I mean maybe if you're a BMW dealer or you sell Piaget watches, then these tax cuts are good for your business, but the average middle class type of jobs are probably not getting much of a boost.

As for the "average American household" that makes $60K a year, it would have been more informative to see the median income, because the average is skewed upwards by those at the top of the scale - ie., less than 50% of Americans make the "average" income.

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:37 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Campus recruiting is definitely needed. I went to Rutgers, nicknamed "Kremlin on the Raritan" by some for its supposedly left-leanings, yet the Dems had almost no visibility on campus. Granted I went to school during the Nader years, when being a Democrat seemed like the lamest possible option. But the Dems need to pull talent at that level -- that's where Republicans end up with people like Rove.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:44 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Hmm, maybe "almost no visibility" is an exaggeration.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:45 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Re: Lakoff, despite the writer's early dismissal of him, I don't think the article suggests anything significantly different that what he's been talking about for years.

Lakoff's extensively written about the need for Democratic candidates and progressives in general to start explicitly talking about values. Also, for campaigns to work at creating more of an overall narrative for a candidate than just a laundry list of policies. It's only his work on the framing aspect that's received attention lately, not so much his work on defining the values systems that right/left folks tend to hold(e.g. "maintaining authority" vs "care & responsibility").

He's offered up Schwarzneggar's campaign as an example of a guy who ran entirely on narrative & perceived identity, and expressively refused to offer up any policy suggestions. Most folks don't have the time/energy/inclination to get into policy specifics, but if they trust your guy, they're trust him to take care of the details.

As he says,

"The pollsters didn’t understand it because they thought that people voted on the issues and on self-interest. Well, sometimes they do. But mostly they vote on their identity -- on persons that they trust to be like them, or to be like people they admire"

which connects to that aspirational bit that the article mentions.

Jim Wallis has talked about several of these same issues over the last year as well, especially with on the whole "onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows" bit.

― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:52 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Also, re: the poorer folks freaking out more about culture, I don't see the article acknowledging that it was a deliberate multi-year campaign on the part of conservertive politicos to get folks so het up about cultural issues that they didn't worry so much about the economics. It's a causal thing similar to Ethan's thread yesterday about outrage used for political gain.

Wallis has written about conversations his group has had with Frank Luntz and some other Repub pollsters who were quite open about their m.o. being to get voters so caught in such intense issues that they vote against their economic interest.

As other folks have pointed out, the Republicans have been better that bring the polls to them(gay marriage is the biggest thing you care about) vs the Democrats moving to where the polls now seem to be(well i guess we need to move rightward on gay marriage).

― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:53 (twelve years ago) Permalink

interesting stuff. i don't really believe a lot of it, but i believe it's what people say, which still makes it significant. (i.e. a lot of people allegedly alarmed by the culture are also watching "desperate housewives" and "E!") it's not so much that the moral center is disgusted by the out-of-control culture, it's that a lot of people feel guilty about the very things in the culture that they participate in. massive moral cognitive dissonance, which the republicans exploit by convincing people that it's all someone else's fault (hollywood liberals, big-city elitists, gays gays gays). i'm not sure how the democrats can effectively tap into the same thing, and i sort of hate the idea that they need to, but maybe they don't have a choice.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:01 (twelve years ago) Permalink

It's amazing to me that people still think that Republicans are better at creating jobs.

That's the thing, innit? If you build up an entire apparatus to both promote & reinforce certain narratives, people will believe them even if they have no basis in fact. George W. Bush is steadfast & strong, Kerry's a weak-willed flip-flopper, Republicans are all about a smaller government, supply-side economics works, etc

― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:06 (twelve years ago) Permalink

massive moral cognitive dissonance

oh fuck yeah this is a major bit of it, too. But since when did we start promoting self-reflection and critical thought?

― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:07 (twelve years ago) Permalink

hard to promote self-reflection and critical thought when you're fighting hand to hand and desperate for power.

― don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:39 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Well, is John Edwards' "Robert Kennedyization" for real? Making corporate / lobbyist theft vs. poverty / economic struggle a moral issur for Church People hasn't worked so far.

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:47 (twelve years ago) Permalink

very true. and I think that the number of folks who have to struggle is increasing.

xpost

― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:49 (twelve years ago) Permalink

The Democrats are fucked - a weak, demoralized, decentralized party with no unifying political will, no narrative, and no reliable bases of power. The only thing keeping them around is the fact that the two-party system is so heavily institutionalized and entrenched. They're coasting on past glories and slowly squandering away all of their political resources so that they can become the eternally emasculated "opposition" party.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:54 (twelve years ago) Permalink

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

Please God, take Hilary quietly so she won't fuck up the party with a presidential campaign. WORST POSSIBLE CANDIDATE EVER.

― elmo, patron saint of nausea (allocryptic), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:54 (twelve years ago) Permalink

i think something that's still missing from a lot of this is an understanding that the current republican base was built from the ground up. it wasn't just a matter of coming up with the right code words or whatever, it was a long and systematic takeover of the party by various interest groups with overlapping or at least complementary agendas. the democrats at the moment seem disconnected from whatever constitutes their base, and even suspicious of it. it seems very top-down.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:55 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Well, is John Edwards' "Robert Kennedyization" for real? Making corporate / lobbyist theft vs. poverty / economic struggle a moral issur for Church People hasn't worked so far.

Huh? He's only been going this stuff in the press for about two years. Second, there are plenty of other folks who have made the connection, but have gotten shit for coverage(not fitting in with "religious = rightwing conservative" media narrative?), even when they got arrested for it on the Capitol steps.

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

DLC-candidate-in-centrist-message shocker

― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:56 (twelve years ago) Permalink

very much otm. The change will come from the outside.

― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:58 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I think values do matter to a lot of voters, and I agree that Democrats are going to keep losing national elections until they figure out how to participate in the values conversation. This doesn't necessarily mean they have to move to the right on cultural issues - I think it does mean they need to convince voters that they are people with integrity and mainstream values. Monica-gate did a lot of damage. People like to savor the voyeuristic souffles cooked up in Hollywood, but they won't buy Hollywood people preaching to them about values. I think the Dems need to take an antagonistic stance towards some of the amoral trends in our society. Evincing a sense of decency and morality is not the same thing as being conservative - but as long as the voters think it is, the Dems are going to have a hard time winning elections.

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:00 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Clinton is the worst. I'd stay home before I'd vote for her. Jonathan Tasini, who is pretty great on a lot of issues, and is a pretty good speaker as well, is running against her in the primaries. I really hope he has an impact.

Re the direction of the party, past actions indicate the party will be quicker to line up behind someone with Clinton's politics as opposed to Tasini's. I'm not too hopeful when it comes to the future of the Dems.

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:02 (twelve years ago) Permalink

do you think it's necessary for dems to use the religious right's language ("morals" and "values")? would a less-loaded word like "ethics" skew too liberal?

― stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:03 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I think values do matter to a lot of voters

my question is, when do they not? unless a voter has completely descended into some cynical nihilism, of course.

i mean, yeah, "values" has come to signify a very specific set of values, which just goes to further show that democratic types do need to start talking about theirs.

― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:05 (twelve years ago) Permalink

haha "what's the difference between morals, and ethics..."

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:06 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Skipping 7283 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

Low Energy Jeb! Lying Ted! Very Conflicted Mueller! (They can't all be winners.)

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 6 December 2018 22:19 (one week ago) Permalink

how soon we forget the only actually funny Trump nickname

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-may-replace-jim-mattis-new-nickname-moderate-dog-2018-9

― Οὖτις, Thursday, 6 December 2018 22:19 (one week ago) Permalink

Isn't it 10 Angry Democrats or something?

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 6 December 2018 22:19 (one week ago) Permalink

Lil Bob Corker, Adam Schitt.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 6 December 2018 22:20 (one week ago) Permalink

Interview with Greg Carlock, lead author

I will listen to this later but again, no bill has been introduced (Congress isn't even in session yet) so I am p skeptical of premature obituaries or dismissals. The New Deal wasn't just a single jobs bill and I doubt anything tackling an issue this big will be either.

― Οὖτις, Thursday, 6 December 2018 22:20 (one week ago) Permalink

Crooked Hillary!

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 6 December 2018 22:21 (one week ago) Permalink

POLL

― sleeve, Thursday, 6 December 2018 22:22 (one week ago) Permalink

thanks for reminding me of all these terrible nicknames, except for "lyin' ted," i'll give him that one

― jolene club remix (BradNelson), Thursday, 6 December 2018 22:22 (one week ago) Permalink

He tried Crazy Bernie but it didn’t take.

― Nerdstrom Poindexter, Thursday, 6 December 2018 22:26 (one week ago) Permalink

lol there is an actual wikipedia page that lists all of them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Thursday, 6 December 2018 22:31 (one week ago) Permalink

POLL

― sleeve, Thursday, 6 December 2018 22:34 (one week ago) Permalink

I miss the days of GWB, Fart Blossom, etc.

― nickn, Thursday, 6 December 2018 22:36 (one week ago) Permalink

Turd Blossom!

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 6 December 2018 22:46 (one week ago) Permalink

xpost LOL that list is like the new Garbage Pail Kids America deserves.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 6 December 2018 22:48 (one week ago) Permalink

OK but my actual original point was, he stopped being able to make these up a while ago. he is no longer even good for that one thing he was almost never even any good at.

― resident hack (Simon H.), Thursday, 6 December 2018 23:05 (one week ago) Permalink

I know he is the president and by definition newsworthy, but I will buy that the day I manage to go a week without hearing about any of his stupid tweets.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 6 December 2018 23:10 (one week ago) Permalink

I guess the counterpoint is that the one thing he is good at is being an asshole, and Twitter is merely his vector.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 6 December 2018 23:11 (one week ago) Permalink

"the 'hood" ?

none of his post-election taunts have caught on in any way. his tweets do numbers because he is a celebrity and the president. at this rate ppl who imitate him are better at taunts than he is

Bernie Sanders doesn’t need to worry about Beto, Trump’s gonna call him “Beta O’Dork” and it’ll all be over.
— Goy Division/Jew Order (@ben_geier) December 7, 2018

― resident hack (Simon H.), Friday, 7 December 2018 00:27 (one week ago) Permalink

beta o'rourke

― Freda VanFleet (symsymsym), Friday, 7 December 2018 02:21 (one week ago) Permalink

Climate change won't be solved by solar rooftops in the 'hood.

― Sanpaku, Thursday, December 6, 2018 9:29 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

of course it won't. the GND is about shifting the horizon of american climate politics to put something like carbon pricing firmly in the realm of political possibility.

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 7 December 2018 02:44 (one week ago) Permalink

Rob Meyer in that Atlantic piece pithily calls it 'politics by slogan,' but in the organizing tradition I come from we talked about it as campaigning on 'symbolic instrumental demands,' a way of framing demand targets that's all about calling for singular material changes while also serving to demonstrate the present limits of politics and activate the general public around something that feels bigger than the singular material change being called for. Stop KXL. Mini Wiconi. Medicare for All. Green New Deal. What the wonk puts in the bill matters, obviously, but no matter what winds up in eventual legislation GND is one move among others in a strategy, not a silver bullet.

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 7 December 2018 03:01 (one week ago) Permalink

*mni lol

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 7 December 2018 03:03 (one week ago) Permalink

"politics by slogan" is good, ppl like it and it works

― I have measured out my life in coffee shop loyalty cards (silby), Friday, 7 December 2018 03:04 (one week ago) Permalink

like where would "medicare for all" be right now if ppl hadn't started memeing "medicare for all"

― I have measured out my life in coffee shop loyalty cards (silby), Friday, 7 December 2018 03:04 (one week ago) Permalink

yeah i think that is my/rob's point even if the phrase carries a whiff of dislike

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 7 December 2018 03:07 (one week ago) Permalink

we need a better slogan for it

― I have measured out my life in coffee shop loyalty cards (silby), Friday, 7 December 2018 03:08 (one week ago) Permalink

"Policy memes"

― I have measured out my life in coffee shop loyalty cards (silby), Friday, 7 December 2018 03:08 (one week ago) Permalink

yeah, the thing I like about "green new deal" as a policy meme/slogan/whatever is that it implies a sweeping, generation-defining level legislation, and any formal proposals down the line that fall short of that can very simply be accused of falling short of the obvious demand.

― resident hack (Simon H.), Friday, 7 December 2018 03:12 (one week ago) Permalink

scribo en posternum xp

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 7 December 2018 03:14 (one week ago) Permalink

there are a bunch of good points in the first section of this (i.e. up to "turnout watch")

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/paloma/the-trailer/2018/12/06/the-trailer-how-the-left-is-already-writing-the-platform-for-2020-democrats/5c07ff011b326b60d1280128/?utm_term=.54a96bf260c1

― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Friday, 7 December 2018 05:40 (one week ago) Permalink

'Politics by Slogan' is great if its:

Medicare for All, Legalize Weed, Free College etc. These aren't slogans, these are tangible things easily labelled and conceptually understood

and bad if its:

I'm With Her, Yes We Can, I'm on Your Side, Lets Get To Work, Keep Calm and Carry On. vague shite that doesnt mean anything at all

― anvil, Friday, 7 December 2018 08:32 (one week ago) Permalink

Yes We Can was successful iirc

― Nerdstrom Poindexter, Friday, 7 December 2018 11:39 (one week ago) Permalink

Feel the Bern was pretty succesful as well. In fact, those are two different kinds of slogans, and whoever wins the nomination will probably use both...

― Frederik B, Friday, 7 December 2018 11:47 (one week ago) Permalink

Yes We Can was successful iirc

Indeed it was! for the electorate of 2008 it was more than sufficient, but for 2020 we need something tangible

― anvil, Friday, 7 December 2018 11:57 (one week ago) Permalink

someone save my life today, fancy bear, cozy bear?

― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 7 December 2018 12:29 (one week ago) Permalink

Feel the Bern was terrible

― The Poppy Bush AutoZone (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 7 December 2018 13:48 (one week ago) Permalink

The originator of Feel The Bern still has "Momma of #FeelTheBern" in her bio and I wish she did not

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 7 December 2018 15:35 (one week ago) Permalink

the boss emails to say he's in with the congressional progressive caucus this morning and there's a lot happening to put GND folks in dialogue with CPCers that've focused on infrastructure, which feels smart and good

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 7 December 2018 16:11 (one week ago) Permalink

yes, that is the way to go

― Οὖτις, Friday, 7 December 2018 17:03 (one week ago) Permalink

― Οὖτις, Friday, 7 December 2018 17:06 (one week ago) Permalink

Never believe a sentence that contains the words "Schumer" and "insist."

― grawlix (unperson), Friday, 7 December 2018 17:22 (one week ago) Permalink

I will vote for any democratic presidential nominee who says “clean coal is bullshit”

― Karl Malone, Friday, 7 December 2018 17:23 (one week ago) Permalink

well a) it's highly unlikely that the GOP will actually put forward any infrastructure package at all afaict, and b) I dunno that Schumer has such control over his caucus that he could deny the GOP the necessary 60 votes if climate change measures are not included

BUT

it is good that Schumer is (accurately) reading the temperature of the broader Democratic party on this issue

― Οὖτις, Friday, 7 December 2018 17:28 (one week ago) Permalink

i lol'd

pic.twitter.com/nrms5m2d08
— Ron DOV (@rez512) December 7, 2018

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 7 December 2018 20:22 (one week ago) Permalink

she's not a rapper

― The Poppy Bush AutoZone (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 7 December 2018 20:49 (one week ago) Permalink

twitter the creator

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 7 December 2018 20:56 (one week ago) Permalink

Ryan Cooper invites the slugfest.

This doesn't need to be some gentlemanly parlor discussion, where everyone agrees to disagree and shake hands afterwards. The politics of health care, financial regulation, foreign policy, and so on have enormous moral stakes. Liberals and leftists generally disagree on Medicare-for-all versus ObamaCare, whether big banks should be broken up, whether America's imperial machinery should be drastically scaled back, and much more. It will likely get pretty heated and personal, and that is simply to be expected.
It also can't just be policy details alone — there is probably no way of keeping various personal stories and dirt out of it. But those should also be a topic of discussion, if for no other reason that they will certainly be raised by Trump and his Republican toadies, and whoever faces him should be ready for it. All-out personal feuding is poor strategy, as it may depress turnout on the left, but neither should people's foibles be considered out of bounds.
At any rate, it's going to be a rough 18 months or so before someone comes out on top. But there is no way out but through. Let's lace up and slug it out.

― resident hack (Simon H.), Monday, 10 December 2018 17:22 (one week ago) Permalink

looking forward to centrist democrats in safe seats getting primaried from the left in 2020

👀👀 https://t.co/haCrzfam0c
— we're going to abolish ICE (@SeanMcElwee) December 16, 2018

― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Sunday, 16 December 2018 21:36 (yesterday) Permalink

that’s what happened in my district...

― maura, Monday, 17 December 2018 00:25 (twelve hours ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.