Red Mosquito

meatwad wrote:I don't think an indictment is necessary. My guess is that between now and election time Trump is so toxic that Republicans will be begging to not be associated with him. 2/3 of the country is already sick of this guy and it's not going to get any better IMO.

But those people will have to actually go vote, which as McP pointed out, doesn't have a solid historical precedent.

Bi_3 wrote:

meatwad wrote:I just watched the interview and holy shit.

Good on him. And to me it just confirms what most Republicans think about him behind closed doors and that they're just a bunch of cowards more willing to keep their party afloat while the country sinks around them. They will pay dearly in 2018.

That's ignoring a decade of democrat election f*ckups at all levels of government. The red team deserves to lose for this, but I'd give 33% at best unless there is an indictment against a Trump or Kushner.

Yeah, the Democrats are at this point a team that excels at pulling defeat from the jaws of victory.

I'm curious to see how successful Bannon's attempt to primary sitting GOP Senators is going to be. I'd be surprised if there were not at least a few political causalities.

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

meatwad wrote:I just watched the interview and holy shit.

Good on him. And to me it just confirms what most Republicans think about him behind closed doors and that they're just a bunch of cowards more willing to keep their party afloat while the country sinks around them. They will pay dearly in 2018.

That's ignoring a decade of democrat election f*ckups at all levels of government. The red team deserves to lose for this, but I'd give 33% at best unless there is an indictment against a Trump or Kushner.

As the election showed, you don't need a popular candidate to win...you just need to demotivate your opposition regarding THEIR candidate. Republicans are champions at this.

The Democrats demotivated thier own voters. I think a lot of people are rejecting the idea that they owe the Democrats thier vote simply because the dems pretend to be liberal.

MissYouAllDay wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

meatwad wrote:I just watched the interview and holy shit.

Good on him. And to me it just confirms what most Republicans think about him behind closed doors and that they're just a bunch of cowards more willing to keep their party afloat while the country sinks around them. They will pay dearly in 2018.

That's ignoring a decade of democrat election f*ckups at all levels of government. The red team deserves to lose for this, but I'd give 33% at best unless there is an indictment against a Trump or Kushner.

As the election showed, you don't need a popular candidate to win...you just need to demotivate your opposition regarding THEIR candidate. Republicans are champions at this.

The Democrats demotivated thier own voters. I think a lot of people are rejecting the idea that they owe the Democrats thier vote simply because the dems pretend to be liberal.

I'm sure this is true, and the 'Bernie Bros' division and infighting created a lot of unnecessary "I refuse to vote for x" talk, but it is a disservice to Republicans and an under estimation of their messaging industrial complex to ignore the scope of their achievements.

Grassley (a major figure in past investigations, including leading the expansion and lengthening of the Benghazi probe) pretty literally acknowledged in an interview in the last 24 hours that he believes the purpose of senate investigation is to demotivate and discourage the other party's voters. By this time a year ago the Trump campaign was openly admitting that its primary strategy was now vote suppression, not voter motivation. Report after report on the use of bots and paid accounts on social media has observed that their primary goal was often too so discord and distrust.

McParadigm wrote:

MissYouAllDay wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

meatwad wrote:I just watched the interview and holy shit.

Good on him. And to me it just confirms what most Republicans think about him behind closed doors and that they're just a bunch of cowards more willing to keep their party afloat while the country sinks around them. They will pay dearly in 2018.

That's ignoring a decade of democrat election f*ckups at all levels of government. The red team deserves to lose for this, but I'd give 33% at best unless there is an indictment against a Trump or Kushner.

As the election showed, you don't need a popular candidate to win...you just need to demotivate your opposition regarding THEIR candidate. Republicans are champions at this.

The Democrats demotivated thier own voters. I think a lot of people are rejecting the idea that they owe the Democrats thier vote simply because the dems pretend to be liberal.

I'm sure this is true, and the 'Bernie Bros' division and infighting created a lot of unnecessary "I refuse to vote for x" talk, but it is a disservice to Republicans and an under estimation of their messaging industrial complex to ignore the scope of their achievements.

Grassley (a major figure in past investigations, including leading the expansion and lengthening of the Benghazi probe) pretty literally acknowledged in an interview in the last 24 hours that he believes the purpose of senate investigation is to demotivate and discourage the other party's voters. By this time a year ago the Trump campaign was openly admitting that its primary strategy was now vote suppression, not voter motivation. Report after report on the use of bots and paid accounts on social media has observed that their primary goal was often too so discord and distrust.

So?

To my mind, Democrats biggest weakness is that they often take easy, clear talking points or wins and just don't say anything at all about them. I can't count the number of times throughout this healthcare fiasco we are watching unfold where the impact of a Republican proposed action was brutally clear, and where medical professionals, economists, industry leaders, etc, all were managing to summarize it in clear, no nonsense, single sentence disgust.

Then cut to a democratic senator: "what do you think of the proposed bill?"

"Well look, Don, let's be clear: this is a violation of trust that the American people have placed in the institutions and members of the US govern..." (McParadigm changes channel)

I mean...that sounds like someone's bs complaint about a lawsuit against them. It's like a cookie-cutter collection of phrases for "you got caught doing something wrong." How do you fuck up such a simple thing that badly? It's like you found the only words possible for everyone to see your opponent to do a terrible thing, but still sort of come out blaming you.

I do honestly wish politicians got an electric shock every time they said "let's be clear."

Paul Ryan would look like Wile E. Coyote right after a particularly dynamite-heavy scheme.

I agree the Dems are doing an abysmal job of delivering clear talking points that relay their overall message. But that's probably because A) they don't HAVE a unified message right now beyond "No more Trump," B) because it's difficult to find a single phrase that will compel people from all backgrounds to understand how healthcare changes will effects them personally, and C) it's not like they can claim that Obamacare was a smashing success.

The old guard Dems need to step back and begin supporting younger candidates. A smart approach would be to seek out candidates who exemplify the identify politics in their very being (Kamala Harris, Frederica Wilson) but who deliver a core message that has nothing to do with identity politics. They screwed the pooch royally here in MT, when they opted to run Rob Quit, a 69 year-old cowboy/musician, over Amanda Curtis, an intelligent and poised 38-year old state rep and career educator who grew up surrounded by mental illness and poverty. The intention seemed to be that in a traditionally red state, they felt Ms. Curtis was just too divisive compared to the cowboy-hat wearing Quist. But Ms. Curtis's history of posting intelligent, informative legislative reports online spoke volumes about her knowledge and dedication, while Quist's background was basically touring the world as a banjo player. WTF?!

tragabigzanda wrote:I agree the Dems are doing an abysmal job of delivering clear talking points that relay their overall message. But that's probably because A) they don't HAVE a unified message right now beyond "No more Trump," B) because it's difficult to find a single phrase that will compel people from all backgrounds to understand how healthcare changes will effects them personally, and C) it's not like they can claim that Obamacare was a smashing success.

The old guard Dems need to step back and begin supporting younger candidates. A smart approach would be to seek out candidates who exemplify the identify politics in their very being (Kamala Harris, Frederica Wilson) but who deliver a core message that has nothing to do with identity politics. They screwed the pooch royally here in MT, when they opted to run Rob Quit, a 69 year-old cowboy/musician, over Amanda Curtis, an intelligent and poised 38-year old state rep and career educator who grew up surrounded by mental illness and poverty. The intention seemed to be that in a traditionally red state, they felt Ms. Curtis was just too divisive compared to the cowboy-hat wearing Quist. But Ms. Curtis's history of posting intelligent, informative legislative reports online spoke volumes about her knowledge and dedication, while Quist's background was basically touring the world as a banjo player. WTF?!

Holy fuck you are turning into BI_4.

tragabigzanda wrote:I agree the Dems are doing an abysmal job of delivering clear talking points that relay their overall message. But that's probably because A) they don't HAVE a unified message right now beyond "No more Trump," B) because it's difficult to find a single phrase that will compel people from all backgrounds to understand how healthcare changes will effects them personally, and C) it's not like they can claim that Obamacare was a smashing success.

The old guard Dems need to step back and begin supporting younger candidates. A smart approach would be to seek out candidates who exemplify the identify politics in their very being (Kamala Harris, Frederica Wilson) but who deliver a core message that has nothing to do with identity politics. They screwed the pooch royally here in MT, when they opted to run Rob Quit, a 69 year-old cowboy/musician, over Amanda Curtis, an intelligent and poised 38-year old state rep and career educator who grew up surrounded by mental illness and poverty. The intention seemed to be that in a traditionally red state, they felt Ms. Curtis was just too divisive compared to the cowboy-hat wearing Quist. But Ms. Curtis's history of posting intelligent, informative legislative reports online spoke volumes about her knowledge and dedication, while Quist's background was basically touring the world as a banjo player. WTF?!

Its a weak approach and I totally get what you are saying, but ever since George Bush, a majority of the voting population has kind of approached their candidates with the "who would i rather have a beer with". People don't want intelligent and well thought out talking points. They want the sound bites. They want the caricatures because its more of a game now. I get, int he age of trump, why they would put a ridiculous banjo playing cowboy up over a young woman who is quite more qualified. Its unfortunate but this is where we are. The democrats need to figure out how to walk both of those lines to be successful.

and yes, i wish all old white men would ride off into the sunset and let the younger generation make their statement.

Or ya know, we could just let the person with the most votes be President.

cutuphalfdead wrote:Or ya know, we could just let the person with the most votes be President.

No that is crazy.

I love that while we're discussing this, the senate announced two more Hillary Clinton probes.

2018 messaging at work gents.

Strat wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Or ya know, we could just let the person with the most votes be President.

No that is crazy.

McParadigm wrote:I love that while we're discussing this, the senate announced two more Hillary Clinton probes.

2018 messaging at work gents.

Ugh. I don't give a fuck about Hillary Clinton in any capacity any more. She's a career politician who's effectiveness from within DC is over. She needs to get on the lecture circuit and stay there, and help drum up campaign dollars for new talent.

tragabigzanda wrote:

McParadigm wrote:I love that while we're discussing this, the senate announced two more Hillary Clinton probes.

2018 messaging at work gents.

Ugh. I don't give a fuck about Hillary Clinton in any capacity any more. She's a career politician who's effectiveness from within DC is over. She needs to get on the lecture circuit and stay there, and help drum up campaign dollars for new talent.

I uhh don't think you understand what's happening here.

tragabigzanda wrote:

McParadigm wrote:I love that while we're discussing this, the senate announced two more Hillary Clinton probes.

2018 messaging at work gents.

Ugh. I don't give a fuck about Hillary Clinton in any capacity any more. She's a career politician who's effectiveness from within DC is over. She needs to get on the lecture circuit and stay there, and help drum up campaign dollars for new talent.

Yes. She needs to get on the lecture circuit and stop opening these investigations.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

McParadigm wrote:I love that while we're discussing this, the senate announced two more Hillary Clinton probes.

2018 messaging at work gents.

Ugh. I don't give a fuck about Hillary Clinton in any capacity any more. She's a career politician who's effectiveness from within DC is over. She needs to get on the lecture circuit and stay there, and help drum up campaign dollars for new talent.

I uhh don't think you understand what's happening here.

he's just tragging us down, eh?