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

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.

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

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

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

so what did we expect the Dems to manage re DACA? cuz we got nothin'.

― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Friday, 16 February 2018 18:23 (five hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Be fair

They're putting at least some children a safe distance from American gunmen

rum dmc (darraghmac), Friday, 16 February 2018 23:44 (one week ago) Permalink

x-post: The important word in that sentence was 'workable'. There was a bi-partisan agreement that passed the senate and would have passed the house if it'd been put forth there as well, but it died because of the Hastert rule.

Frederik B, Friday, 16 February 2018 23:51 (one week ago) Permalink

So it was workable because the house is controlled by... oh right, not the Democrats. So not actually workable at all, but they gave it a shot anyway. I’m sure a prolonged shutdown would have moved Paul Ryan to the left though.

El Tomboto, Saturday, 17 February 2018 01:01 (six days ago) Permalink

The Dems looked poised to take over the house in 2018, so pushing a senate compromise blocked by the house would have been a step forward. Instead it quite honestly seems as if they've taken a step back, and the US is further from reform than it was before the talks started.

Frederik B, Saturday, 17 February 2018 07:10 (six days ago) Permalink

Huh?

morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 17 February 2018 11:56 (six days ago) Permalink

Yeah no clue how to parse that

El Tomboto, Saturday, 17 February 2018 12:40 (six days ago) Permalink

DACA was and is a highly motivating issue among young voters seeking social justice, so the 'opticals' of the budget & immigration reform compromise have probably sapped the enthusiasm of those voters, which might have been amped up by a bloody fistfight between Democrats and Republicans over the issue.

The problem is that the longed-for fistfight would have resulted in a deadlock that would have lasted right until the Democrats capitulated. The shutdown would have been blamed on the Democrats and the capitulation would not have felt much better to the young voters for having come a few days or a week later than it did. One could quibble and say that the Democrats should have held out over the weekend, but that entirely symbolic option would have wasted a huge amount of time and money for no tangible gains.

Once more, the Democrats' greatest weakness was messaging, imo. The actual compromise that was made was a small net gain for socially progressive goals aside from DACA, but the message was not sufficiently strong and unified to project a strong, unified direction for the party.

A is for (Aimless), Saturday, 17 February 2018 19:06 (six days ago) Permalink

Nobody wants to get out in front yet. First mover disadvantage etc

El Tomboto, Saturday, 17 February 2018 19:48 (six days ago) Permalink

That’s why I don’t think there’s much straightforward messaging, if that wasn’t clear.

El Tomboto, Saturday, 17 February 2018 19:54 (six days ago) Permalink

In front of what?

Frederik B, Saturday, 17 February 2018 22:16 (six days ago) Permalink

Nobody is prepared to try and position themselves as the putative leader of the Democratic party, an utterly thankless and mostly impossible job unless you actually win the Presidency, at which point it remains mostly impossible but at least Paul Krugman might notice you. And without a leader or a hierarchy there's no place for coherent, consistent messages and strategies to come from. Each candidate has their own priorities and ways of trying to achieve them.

I thought this was a fair rundown on the issue, although there's not nearly enough gnashing of teeth and angsty spittle for some of us, I'm sure: http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/02/senate-democrats-immigration

El Tomboto, Saturday, 17 February 2018 22:57 (six days ago) Permalink

Is it time to trot out the old Will Rogers joke about the Democrats, yet?

A is for (Aimless), Saturday, 17 February 2018 23:00 (six days ago) Permalink

i agree that the party not in the presidency should have a "leader". "but we're not europe, that's not how it works here" - well the way it "works" appears to fuckin suck. maybe the way to do it is to have the primaries.. like.. 2-3 years before the election. with the option somehow to have another primary closer to the election if there's support for that. this way you have a real government in waiting. and presidential elections wouldn't have to take like 18 months because the primaries would have already happened, and everyone would be pretty familiar with the candidates already.

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 17 February 2018 23:08 (six days ago) Permalink

Okay.....

Our Revolution is backing Dennis Kucinich over the Elizabeth Warren-backed former director of the CFPB Richard Cordray. https://t.co/SYff0LW0GN

— Zachary #FBPE (@zatchry) February 20, 2018

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 18:25 (three days ago) Permalink

not that surprising considering the commitments DK made recently on ending oil and gas drilling in OH

Simon H., Tuesday, 20 February 2018 18:39 (three days ago) Permalink

I'd love to know whether globetrotting Elizabeth Kucinich is a foreign agent

Moo Vaughn, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 18:50 (three days ago) Permalink

earnestly can't tell if that's satire

Simon H., Tuesday, 20 February 2018 18:53 (three days ago) Permalink

Yeah I don’t know either. But I thought this was interesting in light of his more recent weird Trump supporting/Fox regular phase.

https://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/the-king-of-spin/Content?oid=1503534

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 18:59 (three days ago) Permalink

political opportunists can be useful

Simon H., Tuesday, 20 February 2018 19:10 (three days ago) Permalink

a piano dropped from a great height at the right moment can be useful

El Tomboto, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 19:18 (three days ago) Permalink

I don't know that it's a good or correct call, I just assume the statements he released recently (incl pushing for a statewide ban on AR-15s) are a direct result of his going after this endorsement. as to whether or not he's really markedly worse than Warren's guy, other folks can attest

Simon H., Tuesday, 20 February 2018 19:28 (three days ago) Permalink

he is demonstrably bad at getting people to vote for him

T'Chadwick (voodoo chili), Tuesday, 20 February 2018 19:36 (three days ago) Permalink

Yeah, ol' Dennis didn't even make it through January in the 2008 primaries, then didn't endorse Obama until 2 months after he won the nomination.

Millennial Whoop, wanna fight about it? (Phil D.), Tuesday, 20 February 2018 19:38 (three days ago) Permalink

lmao fuck

Simon H., Tuesday, 20 February 2018 19:40 (three days ago) Permalink

even though his positions seem to be pretty good most of the time afaict i've always felt like he was kind of a nitwit.

constitutional crises they fly at u face (will), Tuesday, 20 February 2018 19:41 (three days ago) Permalink

I mean I'll always have much love for Dennis for standing up to the utilities and banks as mayor despite the resulting default, but he is well past his sell-by date as a politician.

Millennial Whoop, wanna fight about it? (Phil D.), Tuesday, 20 February 2018 19:54 (three days ago) Permalink

a frequent FOX News guest and a praiser of Trump's "American carnage" speech

morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 20 February 2018 19:58 (three days ago) Permalink

yeah i had a kucinich '04 sticker on my guitar case in high school but denny pack it in brother wyd

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 20:50 (three days ago) Permalink

Republican well-financed and wingnut media supported spin on tax plan now gaining ground....

The tax overhaul that President Trump signed into law now has more supporters than opponents, buoying Republican hopes for this year’s congressional elections.

The growing public support for the law coincides with an eroding Democratic lead when voters are asked which party they would like to see control Congress. And it follows an aggressive effort by Republicans, backed by millions of dollars of advertising from conservative groups, to persuade voters of the law’s benefits

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/business/economy/tax-overhaul-survey.html

Dems and Dem groups quoted in right-wing site/newspaper article. Priorities USA, a top Democratic super PAC, released a memo calling on Democrats to message more consistently against the tax law.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democrats-struggle-with-rising-popularity-of-gop-tax-law/article/2649354

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 20:58 (three days ago) Permalink

fwiw i am getting an extra $38 per paycheck, which adds up to around an extra $832 a year.

contrast that to last year when i was penalized more than that by the mandate for NOT having insurance.

messaging problems indeed.

Hazy Maze Cave (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 20 February 2018 21:05 (three days ago) Permalink

"oh hey this is a (x) trillion dollar wealth transfer to the top .(x)% and this is a bad thing" (insert correct/exact figures) would have been a fine line to trot out early, often, and consistently, one would think, but it's not clear to me that this was done widely enough

Simon H., Tuesday, 20 February 2018 21:09 (three days ago) Permalink

A liberal or left group or Schumer or Pelosi or someone needs to create a nice twitter hashtag phrase spelling it out too, plus maybe Tom Steyer and DCCC and others should buy some ads saying that (rather than focusing on impeachment and Russians)

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 21:49 (three days ago) Permalink

gonna leave this here

Last night conservatives were accusing the Parkland students of being Democratic plants, which is hilarious. The students are formulating policy demands, forcefully stating the moral basis of their cause and communicating on social media. The Democrats don't know how to do that https://t.co/KS9BdVgZNK

— mcc (@mcclure111) February 19, 2018

persona non gratin (Ye Mad Puffin), Tuesday, 20 February 2018 21:49 (three days ago) Permalink

brrapbrrap

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 23:07 (three days ago) Permalink

Why do I click through to read the threads. Why do I do it.

El Tomboto, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 23:51 (three days ago) Permalink

might be lols

j., Wednesday, 21 February 2018 00:04 (two days ago) Permalink

If you listen closely to the lyrics of the politically charged music of the early 2000s, it's eerily more applicable to the current situation than it ever was to the Bush administration it was written to protest. System of a Down and GreenDay are great examples.

— Alex (@excitable_one) February 18, 2018

morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 21 February 2018 00:09 (two days ago) Permalink

No

El Tomboto, Wednesday, 21 February 2018 00:23 (two days ago) Permalink

https://goo.gl/images/59vFzZ

morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 21 February 2018 00:31 (two days ago) Permalink

"Look closer" was American Beauty's tag line.

morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 21 February 2018 00:32 (two days ago) Permalink

I know I personally base my political views off of System of a Down lyrics.

Moodles, Wednesday, 21 February 2018 00:36 (two days ago) Permalink

Angels may still deserve to die, but we're even less happy about it now?

how's life, Wednesday, 21 February 2018 00:49 (two days ago) Permalink

Sieg Heil to the President Gasbag

10 print "eatme" 20 goto 10 (Ye Mad Puffin), Wednesday, 21 February 2018 00:51 (two days ago) Permalink

No

― El Tomboto, Tuesday, February 20, 2018 7:23 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

irl lol

flappy bird, Wednesday, 21 February 2018 06:19 (two days ago) Permalink

heh

We are not afraid. pic.twitter.com/946Vpjccbn

— Kaniela Ing (@KanielaIng) February 20, 2018

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Wednesday, 21 February 2018 17:19 (two days ago) Permalink

I linked an interview w/ Ing a while back. I like him.

Simon H., Wednesday, 21 February 2018 17:39 (two days ago) Permalink

yeah he seems cool. that's a dumb twitter interaction, but it's a great example of not being afraid to unapologetically pursue almost unbelievably popular policies.

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Wednesday, 21 February 2018 18:07 (two days ago) Permalink

it's one thing to say you support an unbelievably popular policy and another to force a reckoning on it, though--these last couple shutdowns seem instructive on that front

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 22 February 2018 15:40 (yesterday) Permalink

DCCC steps into TX-7 primary:

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/02/22/rare-move-national-democrats-come-out-against-laura-moser-primary-cand/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

I've been following Jason Westin, who I like a lot, don't know much about Moser, but I don't relish the party taking sides in primary fights (unless there's really something wrong with Moser I don't know about.)

Guayaquil (eephus!), Friday, 23 February 2018 05:34 (ten hours ago) Permalink

Then, referring to a 2014 Washingtonian magazine piece in which Moser wrote that she would rather have a tooth pulled without anesthesia than move to Paris, Texas, Kelly added:"Unfortunately, Laura Moser’s outright disgust for life in Texas disqualifies her as a general election candidate, and would rob voters of their opportunity to flip Texas’ 7th in November.”

I'm sure urban south Texas Democrats would be horrified that someone wouldn't want to live in a rural town on the Oklahoma border.

louise ck (milo z), Friday, 23 February 2018 06:24 (nine hours ago) Permalink


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