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 (eleven 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 (eleven 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 (eleven years ago) Permalink

maybe your beloved whig party will change something

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

maybe your beloved dick will change something

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

2ndxpost

or hollywood actor

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

2x post back to Josh: OTM

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

Right, but won't they?

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

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

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

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

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

So Brazile apparently also claims in her book that she considered taking the nomination away from Clinton and making Biden and Corey Booker the ticket.

(For those who don't know, this is not actually something the head of the DNC can do.)

grawlix (unperson), Saturday, 4 November 2017 18:45 (two weeks ago) Permalink

hoooo boy

Simon H., Saturday, 4 November 2017 18:56 (two weeks ago) Permalink

A Twitter thread from Joy Reid:

A small note - that’s actually a big one - on the subject of “rigging...”

— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) November 3, 2017

grawlix (unperson), Saturday, 4 November 2017 19:14 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Mastery of trivia in the face of apocalypse is something, for sure

El Tomboto, Saturday, 4 November 2017 19:30 (two weeks ago) Permalink

brazile is producing some...interesting quotes, if legit

This is such grandiloquent nonsense. The idea that Brazile had it in her power to do this but had mercy on Clinton’s followers. My god. pic.twitter.com/mBY8rD7y4i

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) November 4, 2017

k3vin k., Sunday, 5 November 2017 07:35 (two weeks ago) Permalink

this is definitely not a sign of a Party in terminal crisis https://t.co/PychLyplaJ

— LG (@TradWifeWineMom) November 5, 2017

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 5 November 2017 09:25 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Impossible to even follow that thread linked in there

El Tomboto, Sunday, 5 November 2017 13:11 (two weeks ago) Permalink

how's the terminal crisis going

Guayaquil (eephus!), Wednesday, 8 November 2017 05:56 (two weeks ago) Permalink

like this?

Favorable views of the Democratic Party have dropped to their lowest mark in more than a quarter century of polling, according to new numbers from a CNN poll conducted by SSRS.

Only 37% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Democrats, down from 44% in March of this year....

Overall, 36% of registered voters who identify as Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting next year, down from 44% who said so in September. That puts Democratic enthusiasm on par with that of Republicans, which stands at 37%.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politics/cnn-poll-republicans-democrats-taxes/index.html

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 November 2017 19:53 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I read it too. What a difference 24 hours makes. I may wake up and wanna watch Lifeboat again.

morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 November 2017 19:55 (two weeks ago) Permalink

you mean those two lesser-evil assholes that won last night make it all bed-der? Shirley, you can't be serious...

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 November 2017 20:00 (two weeks ago) Permalink

The downballot victories are more significant

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 8 November 2017 20:02 (two weeks ago) Permalink

possibly so. let's see if they can build on it. start by locking Schumer and Emanuel in a closet.

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 November 2017 20:03 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Having a white-hot hatred of the opposition tends to occlude one's vision into the faults of your erstwhile allies. But rationally speaking a lesser evil is better than a greater evil. No one calls a broken toe "good", but almost everyone will choose it over a broken neck as the "better" option.

A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 8 November 2017 20:08 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Schumer is doing much better than i expected as Min Leader imo

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 8 November 2017 20:13 (two weeks ago) Permalink

in the last hour I've learned Donna Brazile is appearing on Tucker Carlson's show and she had a nice chat with Sheriff Clarke. My guess is she'll be replacing Omarosa by week's end.

seriously, every lefty who tried to welcome her to the flock because she put the HRC campaign on blast looks like a straight up clown right now.

evol j, Wednesday, 8 November 2017 20:13 (two weeks ago) Permalink

xpost Yeah, he's kept the party united as an opposition party, especially when literally just one Dem defector could have made a big difference.

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 8 November 2017 20:15 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Can you believe all these libs supporting republicans who criticize trump? Disgusting

Donna Brazile welcome to the DSA

— Quinoa🖕Appropriator (@MattAlwaysWrong) November 5, 2017

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 8 November 2017 20:19 (two weeks ago) Permalink

ah thx, i forgot to post these. xxp

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/dem-pundits-spent-yesterday-lying-about-dnc-primary-rigging-document-d60019c59c3e

https://theintercept.com/2017/11/05/four-viral-claims-spread-by-journalists-on-twitter-in-the-last-week-alone-that-are-false/

(No balanced lefty is going to 'welcome' a lifelong political hack that quickly, regardless of the conents of her book.)

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 November 2017 20:19 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Johnstone is a Seth Rich truther who also wrote a medium piece about how that left should ally with the alt-right.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 8 November 2017 20:23 (two weeks ago) Permalink

sorry, i don't keep up

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 November 2017 20:28 (two weeks ago) Permalink

The Greenwald piece doesn’t really prove falsehoods just kind of claims it repeatedly.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 8 November 2017 20:41 (two weeks ago) Permalink

sorry, i don't keep up

we know

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 8 November 2017 20:50 (two weeks ago) Permalink

i mean like Dem employees like Nerdstrom

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 November 2017 20:51 (two weeks ago) Permalink

lol i'm sposed to know every politics writer on the interwebz OOOH GOTCHA GOTCHA

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 November 2017 20:52 (two weeks ago) Permalink

greenwald can gtfo until he stops being a useful idiot for tucker carlson.

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Wednesday, 8 November 2017 21:12 (two weeks ago) Permalink

In NYC, ran into @donnabrazile and talked about her book. Even though our political views are polar opposite, we had a great conversation. Complimented her on her courage to out the DNC and #CrookedHillary. Say what you want, more Dems should tell the truth. pic.twitter.com/IBzP6Ma9jR

— David A. Clarke, Jr. (@SheriffClarke) November 8, 2017

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Wednesday, 8 November 2017 21:19 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Damn

flappy bird, Thursday, 9 November 2017 02:49 (one week ago) Permalink

clarke's hats are getting worse

Guayaquil (eephus!), Thursday, 9 November 2017 03:22 (one week ago) Permalink

love those photoshops where people make his hat gigantic and seat partway down his face

global tetrahedron, Thursday, 9 November 2017 04:48 (one week ago) Permalink

In the past few weeks, I've visited with three amazing women running as first-time candidates for Congress in largely rural districts. I have things to say about the Democratic Party

— Pinboard (@Pinboard) November 10, 2017

j., Friday, 10 November 2017 05:09 (one week ago) Permalink

I mean it never fails pic.twitter.com/ZUdzgCLuGO

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 11, 2017

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 12 November 2017 15:08 (one week ago) Permalink

The trick is to move further left on issues that are broadly popular and not emphasize the issues that only appeal to a tiny niche. You can deal with the niche issues once you are in office and no one in the broad public will notice or care, while those in the tiny niche will be made happy and remember the favor.

A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 12 November 2017 17:46 (one week ago) Permalink

That is way too sensible

Οὖτις, Sunday, 12 November 2017 17:50 (one week ago) Permalink

outside of finance, there is no profession where people who have never won anything get to scold others on how to win more than dem political "strategist"

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 11, 2017

Google Murray Blockchain (kingfish), Sunday, 12 November 2017 22:15 (one week ago) Permalink

Related to that Molly Ball article I think we linked to upthread about the Third Way group going on safari, she was interviewed about this on Daniel Denvir’s show last week:

https://www.blubrry.com/thedig/28772955/the-hollow-center-with-molly-ball-and-eric-levitz/

Google Murray Blockchain (kingfish), Tuesday, 14 November 2017 01:07 (one week ago) Permalink

Democratic Party's elevator pitch to millennials?

"Capitalism 2.0." - @MarkWarner
"We look like you." - @amyklobuchar#WSJCEOCouncil

— Josh Jamerson (@joshjame) November 14, 2017

mookieproof, Tuesday, 14 November 2017 15:23 (one week ago) Permalink

lmao I came here to post that

Simon H., Tuesday, 14 November 2017 17:36 (one week ago) Permalink

"Means-testing on fleek."
"Endless drone warfare, but gender fluid."
"Airbnb for the prison-industrial complex."
"Swipe right-to-work."

— Andrew Moreturkey (@andrewmochulsky) November 14, 2017

Google Murray Blockchain (kingfish), Tuesday, 14 November 2017 19:05 (one week ago) Permalink

The idea of a an "elevator pitch" containing anything of genuine political value is absurd to begin with. It's just "I like Ike" brought into the 21st century.

otoh, that goddamn "Contract with America" that Newt cooked up in 1996 probably did reach a lot of people who liked what it said and voted republican as a result. I sometimes wonder why that concept got booted to the curb in later elections. It had promise as a way to define the party political agenda and its identity, all in ten or so simple bullet points. Probably its because Newt bullied the entire House republican caucus to sign the thing and that feat has been impossible to replicate.

A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, 14 November 2017 19:07 (one week ago) Permalink

that joke sucks kingfish

ToddBonzalez (BradNelson), Tuesday, 14 November 2017 19:11 (one week ago) Permalink

The idea of a an "elevator pitch" containing anything of genuine political value is absurd to begin with. It's just "I like Ike" brought into the 21st century.

Oh I dunno, I think elevator pitches(or slogans in this case) containing inherent, inspirational values are useful.

“Change you can believe in” and “For the many, not the few” both work.

Google Murray Blockchain (kingfish), Tuesday, 14 November 2017 19:36 (one week ago) Permalink

that joke sucks kingfish

Possibly, but I liked “Swipe right-to-work”

Google Murray Blockchain (kingfish), Tuesday, 14 November 2017 19:37 (one week ago) Permalink

"Hope & Change" and "Make America Great Again" worked pretty well

flappy bird, Tuesday, 14 November 2017 19:40 (one week ago) Permalink

If by working pretty well, you mean they created an emotional attraction on the art of some voters toward the candidate, I guess that could be seen as having 'political value'. But the sort of value I had in mind was more in terms of indicating the policies the candidate or party would pursue.

As far as setting policy direction, Hope & Change could just as easily apply to Trump starting a war with North Korea. It's a change. And we'd all be hoping like mad once it started. Making America Great Again could as easily promote returning to the income tax rates of 1960.

A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, 14 November 2017 19:53 (one week ago) Permalink

The manifesto thingy worked pretty well for Labour across the pond, but I guess over here nobody gives a shit about party platforms

bodak horseman (voodoo chili), Tuesday, 14 November 2017 20:00 (one week ago) Permalink

How Education Reform Ate the Democratic Party

"So now, as America ponders the mounting economic disequlibriums that gave rise to the Trump insurgency, concerned plutocrats can all agree on one key article of faith: what is holding back the poor and minority children who figure so prominently in the glossy brochures of charter school advocates is not the legacy of racist housing policy or mass incarceration or a tax system that hoovers up an ever growing share of income into the pockets of the wealthy, but schoolteachers and their unions....

"The Clintons were early adopters; tough talk against Arkansas’ teachers, then among the poorest paid in the country, was a centerpiece of Bill’s second stint as Governor of Arkansas. As Hillary biographer Carl Bernstein recounts, the Arkansas State Teachers Association became the villain that cemented the couple’s hold on the Governor’s mansion—the center of their Dick Morris-inspired “permanent campaign.” The civil rights language in which the Democratic anti-union brigade cloaks itself today was then nowhere to be heard, however. And little wonder: Civil rights groups fiercely opposed the most controversial feature of the Clintons’ reform agenda—competency tests for teachers—on the grounds that Black teachers, many of whom had attended financially starved Black colleges, would disproportionately bear their brunt."

https://thebaffler.com/latest/ed-reform-ate-the-democrats-berkshire

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Friday, 17 November 2017 19:25 (five days ago) Permalink

thanks, Ted!

morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 17 November 2017 19:32 (five days ago) Permalink

The manifesto thingy worked pretty well for Labour across the pond, but I guess over here nobody gives a shit about party platforms

Democrats in Congress aren't expected to live up to the party platform so potential Democratic voters don't give a shit about it.

louise ck (milo z), Friday, 17 November 2017 19:54 (five days ago) Permalink


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