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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

maybe your beloved whig party will change something

,,, Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:02 (fourteen years ago) link

maybe your beloved dick will change something

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:07 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

2ndxpost

or hollywood actor

josh w (jbweb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:37 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

2x post back to Josh: OTM

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:39 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

Right, but won't they?

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:47 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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

hahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hohohohoHOHOHOHOHOHOOH
heheheheheHEHEHEHEEEHEHEEEHEEHAHAHAHAHAHASNORTSNORTSNORT!

sorry

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:54 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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

patrick bateman (mickeygraft), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:04 (fourteen years ago) link

"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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:45 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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 (fourteen years ago) link

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

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:06 (fourteen years ago) link

If the CIA could do that well running some small town mayor’s campaign Bernie probably should have tried to steal them away imo.

stylish but illegal (Simon H.), Tuesday, 22 December 2020 17:14 (three weeks ago) link

The “Pete is CIA” thing is a solid example of not learning the lesson of the Chinedu debacle

“Big” Don Abernathy, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 17:17 (three weeks ago) link

That sentence is almost coherent.

Joe Biden Stan Account (milo z), Tuesday, 22 December 2020 17:17 (three weeks ago) link

god i'm so glad big don abernathy is a regular poster now

ffolkes (map), Tuesday, 22 December 2020 17:18 (three weeks ago) link

two things can be true xp

stylish but illegal (Simon H.), Tuesday, 22 December 2020 17:18 (three weeks ago) link

what would we do without your input big don

ffolkes (map), Tuesday, 22 December 2020 17:18 (three weeks ago) link

split other hairs and not your hairs, that's what

ffolkes (map), Tuesday, 22 December 2020 17:19 (three weeks ago) link

Daou is obviously not to be trusted, he turned left after the failure of the fact check thing and then not having his loyalty to Clinton repaid.

But his face turn is hilarious and since he has no power in the world, and no one laughing at the idea of Chairman Daou has any power in the world - who fuckin' cares?

Joe Biden Stan Account (milo z), Tuesday, 22 December 2020 17:19 (three weeks ago) link

yes, he's fundamentally a funny figure. his house music is not bad too.

Babby's Yed Revisited (jim in vancouver), Tuesday, 22 December 2020 17:22 (three weeks ago) link

Yeah that’s true

“Big” Don Abernathy, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 17:23 (three weeks ago) link

"Grifter" seems to mean something like "social media influencer for politics" now. Given how con-artist-like or at least -adjacent other kinds of influencers are, I can mostly forgive how broad the term has become, even though it does imply people are cashing in on twitter or podcasting to a degree that is probably literally impossible.

rob, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 17:31 (three weeks ago) link

imo "grifter" means you are materially benefitting from a genuinely outsized, possibly fraudulent rep and not from doing an actual thing. eric garland for instance I happily call a grifter because he leveraged #resistance paranoia into (possibly?) lucrative paywalled content despite making no sense ever

stylish but illegal (Simon H.), Tuesday, 22 December 2020 17:42 (three weeks ago) link

peter daou's album of "piano elegies for america" currently stands at 275 views so I suspect if he is attempting a grift he is v v bad at it

stylish but illegal (Simon H.), Tuesday, 22 December 2020 17:45 (three weeks ago) link

I guess seeing it applied to (imo) lavishly overpaid consultants that seem to only fail upwards doesn’t really bother me

like maybe Neera doesn’t make much more than a higher ranking associate at a Big Law firm (also overpaid), but those folks have to actually produce, bill ~2k hours etc.

and I wouldn’t even begrudge them these salaries if they were at the least out pushing for genuine improvements in the lives of the people who have to bring them their DoorDash and handle their Amazon packages. during a gd pandemic.

Washington Generals D-League affiliate (will), Tuesday, 22 December 2020 18:09 (three weeks ago) link

The Mothership/Neera/think tank grifter call comes down to whether or not you think their goal is to win elections and make policy, or if their goal is essentially no different from any other marketing/PR firm (ie to skim money off the top) regardless of results.

imo Mothership: grifters, Neera: not grifter, just a person with shitty politics but she does appear to want to govern

Joe Biden Stan Account (milo z), Tuesday, 22 December 2020 18:12 (three weeks ago) link

Sure dude

“Big” Don Abernathy, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 18:13 (three weeks ago) link

Xpost

“Big” Don Abernathy, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 18:13 (three weeks ago) link

fair point

xp

Washington Generals D-League affiliate (will), Tuesday, 22 December 2020 18:13 (three weeks ago) link

you got it dude Don

Washington Generals D-League affiliate (will), Tuesday, 22 December 2020 18:14 (three weeks ago) link

This Mothership?
https://mothershipstrategies.com/

jaymc, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 18:23 (three weeks ago) link

Yes, they're the people behind the constant IF YOU DON'T SEND ME $5 RIGHT NOW MY DOG WILL BE KILLED fundraising e-mails.

Joe Biden Stan Account (milo z), Tuesday, 22 December 2020 18:24 (three weeks ago) link

Can their "scare old people into giving money" tactic work possibly as well it does for Trumpers? I hope not honestly

Nhex, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 18:27 (three weeks ago) link

It's extremely effective at getting people to donate AFAICT.

Joe Biden Stan Account (milo z), Tuesday, 22 December 2020 18:28 (three weeks ago) link

Less effective at winning races - they made their name raking in the cash for 2017 Ossoff

Joe Biden Stan Account (milo z), Tuesday, 22 December 2020 18:30 (three weeks ago) link

did they do McGrath bc wowowowow

Washington Generals D-League affiliate (will), Tuesday, 22 December 2020 18:31 (three weeks ago) link

people who thought Daou wasn’t on the level before but he is now

I mean, the job might have been a grift on society but the sentiments seemed genuine in the past? I have no real way of gauging it, and maybe it's all posturing in search of a job or increased clout. But it's the same vague hollering into the void of twitter. I did not mean to imply that he was a reliable source of information or that his tweeting was worse then than now, just that he's pivoted.

and I think sic's link was about the video clip, not that it was Daou tweeting it. even a dude like Daou can spot a banana

mh, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 22:46 (three weeks ago) link

It doesn’t matter what his link was about. Conversation shifted in ways that were beyond my control and it will probably happen again.

“Big” Don Abernathy, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 22:58 (three weeks ago) link

It doesn’t matter what his link was about. Conversation shifted in ways that were beyond my control and it will probably happen again.

“Big” Don Abernathy, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 22:58 (three weeks ago) link

You're the one who shifted it by bringing up grifting!

mh, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 23:00 (three weeks ago) link

I remembered it being more of a fluid collectively driven and gradual conversational shift but maybe your right.

“Big” Don Abernathy, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 23:05 (three weeks ago) link

you’re

“Big” Don Abernathy, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 23:05 (three weeks ago) link

A Mothership email

lol pic.twitter.com/E3xEb8e3Bg

— da jdpon joker (@Hegelbon) December 23, 2020

Joe Biden Stan Account (milo z), Wednesday, 23 December 2020 00:47 (three weeks ago) link

and I think sic's link was about the video clip, not that it was Daou tweeting it. even a dude like Daou can spot a banana

yeah Daou is a clown but it was too late at night to bother looking for another source on the clip

Verrit was his hilarious "a numerical code to prove memes are true" project btw

huge rant (sic), Wednesday, 23 December 2020 01:02 (three weeks ago) link

also tbh I do feel happy for him that he saw through the emptiness of Sorkin centrism, even if he keeps being the same level of teethgrindingly earnest about actually positive pro-human policies. so if the thread drift came from gabbo aiming to clown me, fair enough

huge rant (sic), Wednesday, 23 December 2020 01:10 (three weeks ago) link

small rustled jimmies

mh, Wednesday, 23 December 2020 03:21 (three weeks ago) link

“Sorkin Centrism”

“Big” Don Abernathy, Wednesday, 23 December 2020 04:21 (three weeks ago) link

That should be a thing we don’t say.

“Big” Don Abernathy, Wednesday, 23 December 2020 04:21 (three weeks ago) link

I guess if you don't say it then we won't be

huge rant (sic), Wednesday, 23 December 2020 04:59 (three weeks ago) link

three weeks pass...

Dianne Feinstein has filed with the FEC to seek re-election until 2030, when she will be 96.

shivers me timber (sic), Wednesday, 13 January 2021 11:09 (four days ago) link

Uh

Totino's Fortnite Training Room (DJP), Wednesday, 13 January 2021 13:32 (four days ago) link

Barbara, come get your girl

Totino's Fortnite Training Room (DJP), Wednesday, 13 January 2021 13:33 (four days ago) link

file and forget

Muswell Hillbilly Elegy (President Keyes), Wednesday, 13 January 2021 17:50 (four days ago) link

Don't really know anything beyond this tweet, but FWIW:

Even candidates that literally say I AM NOT RUNNING AGAIN file this paperwork, it has to do with transferring campaign money around https://t.co/gplOW9cF2U

— metal dot txt (@metaltxt) January 13, 2021

jaymc, Wednesday, 13 January 2021 18:33 (four days ago) link

Yeah, the amount of the national Democratic Party infrastructure is just consultancy grift and media buys to their friends isn’t really understood by most people, especially not by those who are paid to comment on them on air

Glower, Disruption & Pies (kingfish), Wednesday, 13 January 2021 18:49 (four days ago) link

thanks, this also sucks!

shivers me timber (sic), Wednesday, 13 January 2021 19:23 (four days ago) link

Say what you will about the Democrats, at least they're all going to vote for a second time to impeach and convict Donald J. Trump. Who else is going to do this public service on our behalf? The Republicans?

Respectfully Yours, (Aimless), Wednesday, 13 January 2021 19:27 (four days ago) link

Reporting today says Biden picks Jaime Harrison as DNC chair, but I don't get it -- I thought DNC chair was a thing there was an election for, not a thing the President picks, am I confused?

Guayaquil (eephus!), Thursday, 14 January 2021 17:15 (three days ago) link

Yeah, I've been confused about that, too.

Here's what the NYT said:

"Incoming presidents traditionally take control of the party committees, installing their own chair and staffers. Former President Barack Obama chose to try to establish his own political operation outside of the committee, a decision that many D.N.C. members say damaged state parties and led to years of dysfunction at the national level. Far more of a party institutionalist, Mr. Biden has promised to rebuild state parties and deepen investments in the committee."

So, I guess there was a DNC election in 2017 because there wasn't a Democratic president in the White House?

jaymc, Thursday, 14 January 2021 17:21 (three days ago) link

Also, Wikipedia says that the 2017 election was the first contested DNC race since 1985.

jaymc, Thursday, 14 January 2021 17:23 (three days ago) link

The general way it works is that the DNC is notionally the president’s operation when a democrat is in office. They set the national direction for the party, etc.

Obama shunned the DNC, which might have been OK for him but was disastrous for all the things the DNC is supposed to do. Debbie Wasserman Schultz arguably tanked the whole thing, and all he had to do to was wave his hand and she’d have been replaced

There would have been both pros and cons to him just installing a portion of his Obama for America staff directly in the DNC office, but in my opinion... it would have been a better idea than pretending he was independent of their operation

mh, Thursday, 14 January 2021 21:43 (three days ago) link


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