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 6281 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

lmao https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2018/08/09/de-blasio-is-raising-money-for-state-senate-candidates-but-does-anybody-really-want-his-help-548304

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio wants to help his fellow Democrats take back the New York Senate. To close the gap, he’s launched a federal leadership political action committee, and he wants to raise money to spend in competitive races around the state.
There’s just one problem. Almost nobody wants his help.
A majority of the 15 Democratic state Senate candidates running in competitive districts who POLITICO surveyed said they wouldn’t accept the mayor’s aid even if offered. The would-be senators are distancing themselves from the unpopular mayor, who faces criticism from upstate for being a tax-and-spend liberal and complaints from some in New York City that he’s not liberal enough and has been too friendly with developers. It doesn’t help that the last time de Blasio got involved in helping candidates, it led to an investigation into his fundraising practices.

― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Monday, 13 August 2018 18:25 (four days ago) Permalink

He also endorsed Julia Salazar's opponent, Martin Dilan. Not an IDC member but a very shitty machine dem.

― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Monday, 13 August 2018 19:04 (four days ago) Permalink

Cuomo has agreed to debate Nixon - 08/29, mark yer calendars.

― wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Monday, 13 August 2018 22:18 (four days ago) Permalink

A case for keeping Pelosi as speaker.

― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 13 August 2018 22:55 (four days ago) Permalink

otm

― Οὖτις, Monday, 13 August 2018 23:02 (four days ago) Permalink

That's always been the case for Pelosi - she's fucking great at her job, and no one who wants her job can explain how or in what ways they would do it better than she does.

― grawlix (unperson), Tuesday, 14 August 2018 00:22 (three days ago) Permalink

I assure you, I'm not working for the Keep Nancy campaign.

― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 14 August 2018 17:18 (three days ago) Permalink

thx Krugman, i had no idea she did better things than Newt, Hastert, Cheatham & Howe

― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 14 August 2018 17:27 (three days ago) Permalink

social security / medicare for all

http://theweek.com/articles/789956/biggest-policy-mistake-last-decade

― reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 14 August 2018 22:34 (three days ago) Permalink

Oh good, the week weighs in on some retrospectively “obvious” shit

― El Tomboto, Tuesday, 14 August 2018 22:51 (three days ago) Permalink

it was pretty prospectively obvious too!

― k3vin k., Tuesday, 14 August 2018 23:32 (three days ago) Permalink

guys guys the important thing is that the economists will get it right NEXT time, they swear!

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 14 August 2018 23:40 (three days ago) Permalink

When Congress failed to commit $1.5 trillion or so to public works jobs in 2009, financed by debt at 0.2% interest, with the prospect of much of that being monetized by the Bernanke Fed, I was near to tearing my hair out, provided I still had hair. I can't recall if I did or not in 2009. But you get the idea.

The other big failure was to let hundreds of high level bank, insurance, and financial services executives off the hook for their fiduciary crimes. Instead, the bastards walked off with big bonuses, generous severance packages, and smiles as wide as the sky.

― A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, 14 August 2018 23:47 (three days ago) Permalink

Wisconsin primary polls close in an hour. The (sparse) polling has shown Tony Evers (state superintendent of ed.) way ahead, but I gotta say, the sign primary and the people-I-know primary both seem totally mixed, with substantial support for I'd say 5 candidates (Evers, Kelda Roys, Mahlon Mitchell, Mike McCabe, and Kathleen Vinehout) each representing, in their own way, a potential direction for the Democratic party.

I know this isn't Republican (Party) Direction but the GOP Senate primary to choose Tammy Baldwin's opponent is pretty interesting too, a test of an far-right but fundamentally establishment WI-GOP state sen (Leah Vukmir) who went hard against Trump in the primary and now praises him with transparent insincerity, and her "anti-establishment" former-Democrat opponent who is hammering her for not being Trumpy enough. Trump got absolutely crushed against Ted Cruz in the primary here, so it'll be interesting to see how effective the "doesn't love Trump enough" message is among 2018 GOP voters. (Trump has not endorsed, as far as I know.)

― Guayaquil (eephus!), Tuesday, 14 August 2018 23:50 (three days ago) Permalink

The polls were right and Evers wins by a long way in Wisconsin, drawing 40% of the vote in a field of 8. Strong statements of party unity and support for nominee from the other candidates. I guess I'd call this a win for the "establishment" since Evers was one of the only current Democratic elected officials in the race. (Along the same lines, Vukmir, a sitting state senator, easily beat Nicholson -- Nicholson won the parts of the state where Trump did well in the GOP primary, but Vukmir dominated in the most densely populated, Republican, affluent parts of the state, the Milwaukee suburbs, which were Ted Cruz country in 2016.)

As for Democratic Party Direction, one interesting race is Engebretson v Ewert in WI-7. (That's an uphill race against Sean Duffy in a pretty Republican district.) Engebretson is Medicare for All, Ewert (a doctor) backed Choose Medicare (the Murphy-Merkley bill.) Engebretson won by 15. But again, note that *both* candidates in this race are backing healthcare proposals much more public and broad than what's in the ACA.

― Guayaquil (eephus!), Wednesday, 15 August 2018 12:46 (two days ago) Permalink

The other big failure was to let hundreds of high level bank, insurance, and financial services executives off the hook for their fiduciary crimes. Instead, the bastards walked off with big bonuses, generous severance packages, and smiles as wide as the sky.
― A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, August 14, 2018 11:47 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

and the myth of obama being above all of it/able to fix it was exploded forever

― officer sonny bonds, lytton pd (mayor jingleberries), Wednesday, 15 August 2018 15:26 (two days ago) Permalink

Cuomo, 1:30 p.m.: "We're not going to make America great again. It was never that great."

Cuomo press secretary, 4:11 p.m.: "The Governor believes America is great ..." pic.twitter.com/DpYz52hkPn
— Jon Campbell (@JonCampbellGAN) August 15, 2018

― wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Wednesday, 15 August 2018 20:29 (two days ago) Permalink

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/15/17683022/elizabeth-warren-accountable-capitalism-corporations

Zero chance of happening and a much more complicated sell to the average person than free college/Medicare For All/basic income/etc..

― louise ck (milo z), Wednesday, 15 August 2018 20:34 (two days ago) Permalink

I mean that's the relatively wonky vox article, seems pretty easy to go from those ideas to 'hold the 1% accountable' which has been a rallying cry for the Sanders faction. Not to mention that it seems a relatively good step between 35 years of austerity measures the US has endured and free college.

― Van Horn Street, Wednesday, 15 August 2018 20:57 (two days ago) Permalink

Capitalism is beyond meaningful reform. It can only be eroded.

― wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Wednesday, 15 August 2018 21:18 (two days ago) Permalink

Speaking optimistically, that is.

― wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Wednesday, 15 August 2018 21:20 (two days ago) Permalink

That entirely depends on what you believe to be meaningful.

― Van Horn Street, Wednesday, 15 August 2018 21:53 (two days ago) Permalink

Yes.

― wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Wednesday, 15 August 2018 21:55 (two days ago) Permalink

For example, limiting buybacks would be great reform that is bound to help move the needle towards a better society.

― Van Horn Street, Wednesday, 15 August 2018 22:02 (two days ago) Permalink

lol, is that cuomo statement real?

i have to say, a little-discussed barrier to entry vis a vis "normal" people entering american politics is that you have to nod your head and say stuff you would never say in private company, like "America is great" (and pretend you're a christian, in most districts)

― Karl Malone, Thursday, 16 August 2018 02:56 (yesterday) Permalink

The funny part is, they were some of his least objectionable comments in a while

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/15/politics/andrew-cuomo-america-was-never-that-great/index.html

― wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Thursday, 16 August 2018 11:23 (yesterday) Permalink

excuse me while i go achieve maximum greatness

― illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 16 August 2018 11:36 (yesterday) Permalink

Good sentiment badly expressed. Probably has something to do with the fact that he's completely empty as a human being.

― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Thursday, 16 August 2018 14:26 (yesterday) Permalink

anybody want a job?

Current openings:
1) Political/Policy Director: You will be responsible for building relationships with local and national political groups and managing the endorsement pipeline for our campaign. You will also be responsible for working with our movement allies to both create detailed policy planks as well as short policy briefings for Alexandria. You will be responsible for creating your own goals and plan for you and your team between now and November 6 in line with the campaign plan.
2) Organizing Director: You will be responsible for outreach to local community groups and for working with the political director to mobilize the memberships of our political allies for our general election campaign. You will also be responsible for hosting public events in the district for Alexandria and turning those events into organizing output. You will be responsible for creating your goals and plan for your team between now and November 6 in line with the campaign plan.
Both positions require you to be in New York.

https://airtable.com/shrRpHENxBG2C2W5M

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 16 August 2018 14:29 (yesterday) Permalink

HOOS pls clone yourself and take both of these

― wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Thursday, 16 August 2018 14:32 (yesterday) Permalink

haha <3

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 16 August 2018 14:44 (yesterday) Permalink

Good sentiment badly expressed. Probably has something to do with the fact that he's completely empty as a human being.
― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Thursday, August 16, 2018 10:26 AM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

NEW: @CynthiaNixon responds to @andrewcuomo comment that “America was never that great.”
Nixon: “I think this is just another example of Andrew Cuomo trying to figure out what a progressive sounds like and missing by a mile.”
— Zack Fink (@ZackFinkNews) August 15, 2018

― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Thursday, 16 August 2018 15:49 (yesterday) Permalink

Haha iceburn

― faculty w1fe (silby), Thursday, 16 August 2018 15:55 (yesterday) Permalink

commenter on Splinter wrote "Listening to Cuomo try to sound progressive is like listening to Andy from 40 Year Old Virgin try to describe having sex."

― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 16 August 2018 18:42 (yesterday) Permalink

do you actually get that joke I thought you didn't watch Apatow movies

― Οὖτις, Thursday, 16 August 2018 19:04 (yesterday) Permalink

I too would love to join the Cuomo zingfest but turns out I wholeheartedly agree with the notion that america was never great.

― Van Horn Street, Thursday, 16 August 2018 19:16 (yesterday) Permalink

and away we go

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

― reggie (qualmsley), Thursday, 16 August 2018 19:53 (yesterday) Permalink

never fail to marvel at FDR's margins of victory/congressional majorities

― Οὖτις, Thursday, 16 August 2018 19:57 (yesterday) Permalink

Cool I love odds-based US election predictions

― wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Thursday, 16 August 2018 19:59 (yesterday) Permalink

https://www.thoughtco.com/thmb/BtuNPf2ZJp8YDh4W9BY5RsiBo6U=/768x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/GettyImages-3309224-58e154f13df78c5162a8711d.jpg

L-R: Simon, Shakey

― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 16 August 2018 20:01 (yesterday) Permalink

learned from 538's district map that someone named Joseph Brumbles is running in WA-10 as a Republican lol

WA-9 guaranteed to be won by a Democrat with surname Smith

― faculty w1fe (silby), Thursday, 16 August 2018 20:04 (yesterday) Permalink

after hearing Apatowfans like Shakey talk about 40YOV forever and ever, i probably have heard all the dialogue in it secondhand

― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 16 August 2018 20:22 (yesterday) Permalink

I suddenly realized I've lived too long when I instantly recalled the name of FDR's dog.

― A is for (Aimless), Thursday, 16 August 2018 20:25 (yesterday) Permalink

there's a marble statue of him in his master's memorial

― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 16 August 2018 20:27 (yesterday) Permalink

every pres dog's name is checkers morbs

― Hunt3r, Thursday, 16 August 2018 22:59 (yesterday) Permalink

lol I like a grand total of four things Apatow has done (Larry Sanders, Freaks & Geeks, 40YO Virgin and Knocked Up) and the latter is def the weakest of the four

― Οὖτις, Thursday, 16 August 2018 23:13 (yesterday) Permalink

Whoa, is MN-8 the only non-tossup currently D district that 538 projects to flip to R in the entire country??

― Dan I., Friday, 17 August 2018 03:10 (five hours ago) Permalink

no senate forecast yet?

― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Friday, 17 August 2018 03:14 (five hours ago) Permalink

If you’re listing more than two things and want to reference the final list entry you say “the last” not “the latter”

― El Tomboto, Friday, 17 August 2018 04:57 (three hours ago) Permalink

no senate forecast yet?

― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), 17. august 2018 05:14 (five hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

On the ModelTalk podcast they say it's coming, that it's relatively simple and uninteresting, and Nate Silver assumes that Democrats won't be ahead. It's a pretty fun podcast.

― Frederik B, Friday, 17 August 2018 08:17 (thirty-five minutes ago) Permalink

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