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 (thirteen 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 (thirteen 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 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

maybe your beloved whig party will change something

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

maybe your beloved dick will change something

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

2ndxpost

or hollywood actor

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

2x post back to Josh: OTM

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

Right, but won't they?

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, the situation is complicated, but the fact that she's lying is not.

― Frederik B, Wednesday, February 6, 2019 8:52 PM (twelve minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no, fred, what's simple is you

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 6 February 2019 21:05 (two months ago) Permalink

just a simple Danish arms dealer

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 6 February 2019 22:49 (two months ago) Permalink

fred doesn't know what he's talking about, news at 11

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, 6 February 2019 23:02 (two months ago) Permalink

Fwiw I don’t find khalek’s analysis to be particularly strong but her concerns strike me as very valid and reasonable. And the accusations that she’s a paid propagandist are exceedingly thin.

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Wednesday, 6 February 2019 23:31 (two months ago) Permalink

If someone writes pieces for RT about how the Assad govt somehow wasn’t behind this latest gas attack, that’s the natural conclusion. It always turns out that Assad was responsible for the gas attack.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Thursday, 7 February 2019 00:26 (two months ago) Permalink

Appreciate @SpeakerPelosi‘s strong statement of support. The U.S. stands united in its support of Venezuelan Interim President Juan Guaidó, and of the peaceful, constitutional transition to democracy in Venezuela. https://t.co/slwxPTHwoZ

— John Bolton (@AmbJohnBolton) February 10, 2019

bhad bundy (Simon H.), Sunday, 10 February 2019 06:14 (two months ago) Permalink

I don’t think she’s exactly saying Mr Bolton has my blessing to go regime change crazy over there but w/e

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Sunday, 10 February 2019 06:45 (two months ago) Permalink

I eagerly await her denouncement of Mr. Bolton's endorsement

bhad bundy (Simon H.), Sunday, 10 February 2019 06:54 (two months ago) Permalink

(yeah, yeah, he didn't call for explicit regime change via US force in that particular statement, but we all know what that fucker wants)

bhad bundy (Simon H.), Sunday, 10 February 2019 06:59 (two months ago) Permalink

She’ll tweet whoa hey that’s not what I meant

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Sunday, 10 February 2019 07:23 (two months ago) Permalink

Isn't our normal opinion that you shouldn't wrestle with pigs? Pelosi wrote a good statement, fuck Bolton

Frederik B, Sunday, 10 February 2019 10:24 (two months ago) Permalink

a very American coup

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 10 February 2019 14:07 (two months ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

if Pelosi declines to run for speaker in the next congress I hope she will run

moose; squirrel (silby), Monday, 25 February 2019 20:33 (one month ago) Permalink

The Democrat from Washington state could have joined new liberal icon Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in trying to sink a House rules package some advocates warned would hinder liberal priorities. She didn’t.

And when bipartisan negotiators announced a budget deal in mid-February that ignored Jayapal’s pitch to rein in immigration enforcement policies she has dedicated her adult life to protesting, the second-term lawmaker could have tried to derail the package. She didn’t.

impressive!

Greta Van Show Feets BB (milo z), Monday, 25 February 2019 20:36 (one month ago) Permalink

mm yes because derailing things is popular and everyone loves it

moose; squirrel (silby), Monday, 25 February 2019 20:38 (one month ago) Permalink

anyway Medicare for All Act to be introduced by her Wednesday

moose; squirrel (silby), Monday, 25 February 2019 20:42 (one month ago) Permalink

Joint profile of freshman Dem reps Ilhan Omar and Dean Phillips, who represent adjacent districts but opposite governing philosophies:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/08/ilhan-omar-dean-phillips-minnesota-democratic-party-225696

jaymc, Friday, 8 March 2019 13:51 (one month ago) Permalink

What I learned is that, despite the cautionary tale offered by years of vicious Republican infighting,
Oh? And what lesson was that exactly? The Tea Party schism skewed electoral politics in favor of Republicans for the last decade.
In Michigan, while Tlaib’s flamboyant liberalism suits the Detroit-anchored 13th District—“We’re going to impeach the motherfucker!” she declared hours after being sworn in—it makes life considerably harder for Haley Stevens and Elissa Slotkin, a pair of moderate freshmen who won difficult races in the suburban-heavy 11th and 8th Districts, respectively.
And how are these statements making "life considerably harder"? Such and such purple district moderate has to stand up and say "uh, no, I don't agree with these things"? It wasn't hard at all for Democrats to reflexively get the knives out for Omar.

Nhex, Friday, 8 March 2019 16:06 (one month ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

lots of chatter about this today

NEW: @DCCC makes moves to block primary challenges against Dem incumbents.

Per new hiring standards DCCC won't contract with or recommend to House campaign any political firm that works against a sitting member. That's a stark financial deterrent

More: https://t.co/NPmXyQyef8

— Ally Mutnick (@allymutnick) March 22, 2019

Simon H., Friday, 22 March 2019 16:25 (four weeks ago) Permalink

This is perfect: A political party, which calls itself the Democratic Party (in the 19th C. it was even referred to as "the Democracy") leverages the power of markets and firms to stop citizens from running against sitting members of Congress. Who call themselves "Democrats." https://t.co/XZrVub9z66

— corey robin (@CoreyRobin) March 22, 2019

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 23 March 2019 16:57 (four weeks ago) Permalink

Democratic (Party) Direction doesn't seem to be driven by the DCCC much these days

I predict that trend will continue after this

El Tomboto, Saturday, 23 March 2019 17:09 (four weeks ago) Permalink

It's certainly one way of concentrating expertise in running primary campaigns against incumbents in a few firms.

Some incumbents need to go. Due to gerrymandering, they're mostly (all?) in safe districts, where the winner of the primary wins the general. Honestly, I can see shunning firms that work against incumbents in 2018 pickups. These new reps in suburbia have little of the advantages of incumbancy, and need to save powder for the general. But urban districts? Often that's were some of the worst Dem reps have clung on.

with Chew Guard™ technology (Sanpaku), Saturday, 23 March 2019 17:24 (four weeks ago) Permalink

three weeks pass...

have Pelosi and/or Schumer spoken up to defend Omar from this latest round of attacks yet?

Simon H., Saturday, 13 April 2019 01:28 (one week ago) Permalink

doesn't seem like it. they definitely should

Dan S, Saturday, 13 April 2019 01:33 (one week ago) Permalink

Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "I haven't had the opportunity to speak with [Rep. Ilhan Omar] to see the nature of her comment and, as is my custom with my colleagues, I call them in before I call them out so I'll look forward to hearing from her." pic.twitter.com/ZJcgtXzMUG

— The Hill (@thehill) April 12, 2019

Simon H., Saturday, 13 April 2019 02:11 (one week ago) Permalink

That’s pathetic but that clip isn’t post-trump’s tweet, is it? Everything else I’m seeing on Twitter is giving the impression Pelosi hasn’t made a response to the latest retweeted video

Evans on Hammond (evol j), Saturday, 13 April 2019 02:16 (one week ago) Permalink

I'm guessing it's pre tweet, post Post cover.

Simon H., Saturday, 13 April 2019 02:18 (one week ago) Permalink

Ilhan Omar is a leader with strength and courage. She won't back down to Trump's racism and hate, and neither will we. The disgusting and dangerous attacks against her must end.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) April 13, 2019

DJI, Saturday, 13 April 2019 02:28 (one week ago) Permalink

good for him

k3vin k., Saturday, 13 April 2019 02:46 (one week ago) Permalink

Warren has spoken out as well.

Simon H., Saturday, 13 April 2019 02:48 (one week ago) Permalink

Warrens tweet was even better because she called out anyone in dem leadership unwilling to publicly stand behind Omar

Evans on Hammond (evol j), Saturday, 13 April 2019 02:48 (one week ago) Permalink

for posterity

The President is inciting violence against a sitting Congresswoman—and an entire group of Americans based on their religion. It's disgusting. It's shameful. And any elected leader who refuses to condemn it shares responsibility for it.

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) April 13, 2019

Simon H., Saturday, 13 April 2019 02:51 (one week ago) Permalink

Its unrealistic for Schumer or Biden to defend Ilhan, come on now

Pelosi. well, she got her magazine cover - though it was kind of surprising she did that I thought!

anvil, Saturday, 13 April 2019 06:40 (one week ago) Permalink

"realism" sucks

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 13 April 2019 07:19 (one week ago) Permalink

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-pete

Don't know this site, so I don't know if ILX is suspicious of Current Affairs (educate me) but this definitely makes me more skeptical about Pete Buttigieg

Nhex, Saturday, 13 April 2019 18:28 (one week ago) Permalink

this article was discussed at some length in the 2020 Dem primary thread

d'ILM for Murder (Hadrian VIII), Saturday, 13 April 2019 18:42 (one week ago) Permalink

For all the talk we hear from Pelosi, Hoyer, Schumer and the rest of Democratic leadership about the importance of party “unity,” they never seem to think it’s important to unify behind members who are progressive and/or not DCCC frontliners.

— Every Billionaire Is A Policy Failure (@DanRiffle) April 13, 2019

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 14 April 2019 00:26 (one week ago) Permalink

Tlaib has had enough

They put us in photos when they want to show our party is diverse. However, when we ask to be at the table, or speak up about issues that impact who we are, what we fight for & why we ran in the first place, we are ignored. To truly honor our diversity is to never silence us. https://t.co/7T1OlwS1YG

— Rashida Tlaib (@RashidaTlaib) April 13, 2019

Johnny Fever, Sunday, 14 April 2019 00:46 (one week ago) Permalink

"They put us in photos when they want to show our party is diverse. However, when we ask to be at the table, or speak up about issues that impact who we are, what we fight for & why we ran in the first place, we are ignored"

Dan S, Sunday, 14 April 2019 00:50 (one week ago) Permalink

the genius of Nanc

Nancy Pelosi: "By and large whatever orientation they came to Congress with, they know we have to hold the center. We have to go down the mainstream."

60 Minutes: "You have these wings. @AOC and her group on one side..."

Pelosi: "That's like five people." pic.twitter.com/yxVQDiUxgu

— Waleed Shahid (@_waleedshahid) April 14, 2019

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Monday, 15 April 2019 15:45 (six days ago) Permalink

awful

d'ILM for Murder (Hadrian VIII), Monday, 15 April 2019 15:48 (six days ago) Permalink

surfin' the mainstream straight into the apocalypse

arli$$ and bible black (bizarro gazzara), Monday, 15 April 2019 15:49 (six days ago) Permalink

gurl, damn that's some epic shade more tea plz beyonce.gif

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Monday, 15 April 2019 15:56 (six days ago) Permalink

Jayapal for speaker ASAP por favor

don't mock my smock or i'll clean your clock (silby), Monday, 15 April 2019 16:08 (six days ago) Permalink

democratic (party) grim resignation thread

to halve and half not (voodoo chili), Monday, 15 April 2019 16:34 (six days ago) Permalink

Rise of the Hickenloopers

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Monday, 15 April 2019 16:48 (six days ago) Permalink

it is literally never necessary to look at who posts the tweets on any of these threads

El Tomboto, Monday, 15 April 2019 16:52 (six days ago) Permalink

that's nice

(and you know what that means in the South)

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Monday, 15 April 2019 16:59 (six days ago) Permalink

hey it's in a tweet i guess she didnt really say it

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Monday, 15 April 2019 17:02 (six days ago) Permalink


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