There's a bunch of House Dems all tweeting out the following (word-for-word):
House Democrats stand united for a four-week funding extension that stops harmful cuts, keeps government open, and allows Congress to reach a bipartisan funding agreement.
This is followed by an opportunity to freestyle. "Let's get it done." "I am ready to vote today!" "Period."
Libs want to believe the GOP isn’t worthy of winning, or governing. Unfortunately for them, in reality that’s not the GOP’s problem. That’s the Demos’ problem, as we talked about above.
As messages go, it's great. The biggest problem is that if you have an organization in charge of a city that has failed to run it, getting rid of a handful of people at the top won't change much.
California's high speed rail problem will not be fixed by changing governors nor some key mayors of some key cities. Even if you did a full replacement of the state House, it wouldn't make it possible to end up with HSR in 2035.
So there's a bit of a downside for people who embrace the message.
The Republicans under Mittler might have been a party worthy of winning compared to Obummer but it wasn't until the Orangefarbener Korporal pulled off a win against arguably the weakest Democratic candidate since Mondale (and he only SQUEAKED a W out).
2020 was weird. BLM, Covid, Impeachment Numero Uno...
And now 2024 had him win against the weakest Democratic candidate since Mondale.
It seems silly to go back and relitigate 2016 every time the left loses an election but one thing that strikes me as being a major mistake (with perfect hindsight) that I did not notice at the time was the branding of support for Bernie as being sexist.
The "Berniebros". Remember that? Supporting Bernie not because of Socialized Medicine or because of the millionaires and the billionaires but because they hated women.
And this messaging stuck with a bunch of people. Remember the picture of Bernie sitting outside at the Biden inauguration? Wearing those mittens? That picture was used as evidence that Bernie held Harris in disdain.
Ah, good times.
Anyway, to run with what you've said, I think that movement to the left might be a good play if it is done in such a way that it allows for, for example, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez to remain firmly in the "NOT ME!!! I'M A MODERATE!!!!" camp.
"You cannot be the party of working families when the places you govern are places that working families cannot afford to live."
And so he's arguing for "Abundance". He talks about the high speed rail debacle and how it's evidence that California-style ain't a style that other states will want... because it's incapable of achieving the goals it claims are important.
I like Balko and his three suggestions strike me as fodder for the choir, not the heathen.
I see why the choir would like them... but we're trying to get people back. I'd give Koz a similar speech about how this isn't about people who voted for Trump either.
The one thing I might incorporate from his suggestion might be a little contrition "okay, we got over our skis... we understand why we were a less attractive choice and we've changed. Here's how."
"Look at how awful Donald Trump is!" might not work because I'm not sure that what you see as awful will resonate. Seriously, have Jamie Raskin come out and talk about DEI?!? Are you trying to get Vance elected?!?
But the town halls idea is good. Dems should do that.
Okay, my thought is that the Democrats have a bit of a problem right now with the whole "Omnicause" thing. It's probably not their biggest problem but it's adjacent to their biggest problem and so one of the best ways to tackle that is to deny that it exists.
I like what Corey Booker was kinda trying to do but by giving a full script he screwed up.
What you need is to allow each of your politicians' personalities to shine through.
Have Elizabeth Warren give her response to what Trump said and then get all Warren on it. Classic Warren. Have her talk about the "nickeled and dimed" stuff as only she can. When Schumer gives his response, have him talk about Brooklyn and Queens, like it's the early 80s (when he started as just a Congressman). You've got other senators and congressmen from other parts of the country and get them to do it BUT MAKE IT THEIR OWN. Have Fetterman give a Fetterman response that is pure Pittsburgh. Have Marie Gluesenkamp Perez come out and talk about the need to be more West Coastian in our responses to Trump. Bring in Gavin Newsom. Bring it Pritzker.
One of the points to make in the middle of the speech is "we don't all agree on everything but we do agree on THIS:" and then put in something about America Works Hard and We're Working Hard for You! or something like that. Talk about the importance of fairness and justice and whatnot. But have each individual politician make it their own because each one has a charming personality and let each person be charming while talking about what they care about.
We don't all agree on everything... but we agree on (positive message) and we agree that we all have to stand up against the worst things that Trump wants to do.
And the positive message has to be broad. It's a big tent. You don't have to agree with everybody on everything. You just have to agree that America Can Do Better.
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
There's a bunch of House Dems all tweeting out the following (word-for-word):
This is followed by an opportunity to freestyle. "Let's get it done." "I am ready to vote today!" "Period."
It could be worse, I suppose.
Professional Managerial Class.
You know the people who were able to do their jobs 100% Work-From-Home with just a laptop and a cellphone?
Those guys.
Libs want to believe the GOP isn’t worthy of winning, or governing. Unfortunately for them, in reality that’s not the GOP’s problem. That’s the Demos’ problem, as we talked about above.
It is the year 2021. Change the nouns.
That's where we are.
As messages go, it's great. The biggest problem is that if you have an organization in charge of a city that has failed to run it, getting rid of a handful of people at the top won't change much.
California's high speed rail problem will not be fixed by changing governors nor some key mayors of some key cities. Even if you did a full replacement of the state House, it wouldn't make it possible to end up with HSR in 2035.
So there's a bit of a downside for people who embrace the message.
But, in the short term, it's a good message.
Off the top of my head, I'd have to say "People who would vote for Trump no matter what".
Though I admit some mild interest as to what discovery is going to dig up.
The Republicans under Mittler might have been a party worthy of winning compared to Obummer but it wasn't until the Orangefarbener Korporal pulled off a win against arguably the weakest Democratic candidate since Mondale (and he only SQUEAKED a W out).
2020 was weird. BLM, Covid, Impeachment Numero Uno...
And now 2024 had him win against the weakest Democratic candidate since Mondale.
I'm not seeing "worthy of winning" anywhere.
Well, one of my fundamental assumptions is that there are three groups of voters.
It seems silly to go back and relitigate 2016 every time the left loses an election but one thing that strikes me as being a major mistake (with perfect hindsight) that I did not notice at the time was the branding of support for Bernie as being sexist.
The "Berniebros". Remember that? Supporting Bernie not because of Socialized Medicine or because of the millionaires and the billionaires but because they hated women.
And this messaging stuck with a bunch of people. Remember the picture of Bernie sitting outside at the Biden inauguration? Wearing those mittens? That picture was used as evidence that Bernie held Harris in disdain.
Ah, good times.
Anyway, to run with what you've said, I think that movement to the left might be a good play if it is done in such a way that it allows for, for example, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez to remain firmly in the "NOT ME!!! I'M A MODERATE!!!!" camp.
Ezra Klein, of all people, has a campaign you should check out.
"You cannot be the party of working families when the places you govern are places that working families cannot afford to live."
And so he's arguing for "Abundance". He talks about the high speed rail debacle and how it's evidence that California-style ain't a style that other states will want... because it's incapable of achieving the goals it claims are important.
So maybe he has one.
He's a hair aged at this point. Does he have an inheritor?
I like Balko and his three suggestions strike me as fodder for the choir, not the heathen.
I see why the choir would like them... but we're trying to get people back. I'd give Koz a similar speech about how this isn't about people who voted for Trump either.
The one thing I might incorporate from his suggestion might be a little contrition "okay, we got over our skis... we understand why we were a less attractive choice and we've changed. Here's how."
"Look at how awful Donald Trump is!" might not work because I'm not sure that what you see as awful will resonate. Seriously, have Jamie Raskin come out and talk about DEI?!? Are you trying to get Vance elected?!?
But the town halls idea is good. Dems should do that.
"I chose the impossible... I chose RAPTURE."
Okay, my thought is that the Democrats have a bit of a problem right now with the whole "Omnicause" thing. It's probably not their biggest problem but it's adjacent to their biggest problem and so one of the best ways to tackle that is to deny that it exists.
I like what Corey Booker was kinda trying to do but by giving a full script he screwed up.
What you need is to allow each of your politicians' personalities to shine through.
Have Elizabeth Warren give her response to what Trump said and then get all Warren on it. Classic Warren. Have her talk about the "nickeled and dimed" stuff as only she can. When Schumer gives his response, have him talk about Brooklyn and Queens, like it's the early 80s (when he started as just a Congressman). You've got other senators and congressmen from other parts of the country and get them to do it BUT MAKE IT THEIR OWN. Have Fetterman give a Fetterman response that is pure Pittsburgh. Have Marie Gluesenkamp Perez come out and talk about the need to be more West Coastian in our responses to Trump. Bring in Gavin Newsom. Bring it Pritzker.
One of the points to make in the middle of the speech is "we don't all agree on everything but we do agree on THIS:" and then put in something about America Works Hard and We're Working Hard for You! or something like that. Talk about the importance of fairness and justice and whatnot. But have each individual politician make it their own because each one has a charming personality and let each person be charming while talking about what they care about.
We don't all agree on everything... but we agree on (positive message) and we agree that we all have to stand up against the worst things that Trump wants to do.
And the positive message has to be broad. It's a big tent. You don't have to agree with everybody on everything. You just have to agree that America Can Do Better.