Democratic (Party) Direction

Call it 'ad homs' at much as you like, Lee Fang is a lying piece of shit and I don't trust anything he writes.

Frederidundancy

Call it 'ad homs' at much as you like, Lee Fang is a lying piece of shit and I don't trust anything he writes.

― Frederik B, Tuesday, January 23, 2018 9:02 PM (four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

so trust half of this one then

Lol, that's not how it works.

what did lee fang do again, his wiki isn't much help on this

Wrote a bunch of false bullshit. Has no credibility at all. I trust him about as much as I trust Sean Hannity.

Frederik always with the rigorous sourcing

otm

my derision is rooted elsewhere, can't speak to the quality of his reporting, just his bad opinions

Liberals disagree w/Richard Spencer's policy outlook but share his core belief that race alone determines your value in society pic.twitter.com/kTyh7DDQDj

— Lee Fang (@lhfang) August 4, 2017

It's not surprising, but it's still frustrating to see Lee Fang's bullshit pic.twitter.com/TEHrMgCKqk

— Matt Novak (@paleofuture) October 26, 2017

Now the national Democrats are firmly backing Brad Ashford, who's running for Congress in Nebraska, even though Ashford voted for the two same bills in Nebraska that Mello did. One of Ashford's competitors is Kara Easton, a staunchly pro-choice candidate, who backs single-payer and free college, and has the support of local unions and other progressive groups.

It's Eastman, not Eaton, and Brad Ashford is the former representative from that district, who lost by 1% to the current GOP rep in 2016, after knocking off a GOP incumbent in a strong Republican year in 2014. You never know whether somebody can run a big campaign until they try, and I just can't see Democrats as stupid for backing candidates who've already proven they can do it.

so in this case the smart thing for Democrats to do is running an ex-Republican who almost won

I feel like you think you're kidding.

no i looked up his record he was a Republican from the 60's until 2011

his recent voting record is super liberal though, i can see why he went independent. doesn't make it any less true tho

I just can't see Democrats as stupid for backing candidates who've already proven they can do it.

― Guayaquil (eephus!), Tuesday, January 23, 2018 9:29 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i don't know that i'd call it stupid so much as wildly conventional in a remarkably unconventional time

There was a pretty decent piece on This American Life that straightforwardly laid out the rift in the democratic party that has existed since the election. Sort of basic, but also useful to just kind of have it all put together as a narrative.

Why is’ “End Citizen’s United” toothless rhetoric? Also the bullet pointed requirements for candidates: Those are bad things for some reason?

“(“End Citizens United” is one such example of unifying and progressive-sounding but ultimately toothless rhetoric.) The D-trip’s solution, though, amounts to asking the candidates on the Bernie Sanders side of the equation to play nice. Specifically, the DCCC memorandum of understanding, obtained by the Young Turks, asks candidates to make the following pledges:

“1. The Candidate agrees to run a primary campaign that focuses on highlighting our shared values as Democrats and holding Republicans accountable.
2. The Candidate agrees not to engage in tactics that do harm to our chances of winning a General Election. In addition, the Candidate agrees to hold a unity event with their primary opponents following the primary.
3. The DCCC agrees to provide messaging and strategic guidance on holding the Republicans accountable and highlighting our shared values as Democrats.”

Overturn Citizens United is a sensible galvanizing movement demand--as an actual political plank it's vague enough that it's very difficult to build meaningful accountability around.

(I know something about this particular demand if that boosts my cred on this point)

The GOP understands how important labor unions are to the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party, historically, has not. If you want a two-sentence explanation for why the Midwest is turning red (and thus, why Donald Trump is president), you could do worse than that.

With its financial contributions and grassroots organizing, the labor movement helped give Democrats full control of the federal government three times in the last four decades. And all three of those times — under Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama — Democrats failed to pass labor law reforms that would to bolster the union cause. In hindsight, it’s clear that the Democratic Party didn’t merely betray organized labor with these failures, but also, itself.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/democrats-paid-a-huge-price-for-letting-unions-die.html

Nice conversation about figuring which house races are which, and Robert Wheel’s work on redistributing and trying to promote underfunded candidates.

This Week In Atrocity - 041 - 50 States of Anxiety

<p>ROBERT WHEEL joins us for a rundown of winnable seats for Democrats in 18, including: The prescience of the Unabomber ... Social media dunking for the powerless ... Roy Moore's descendants as pretenders to the throne ... Why compile this voting data? ... Conspiracy Twitter accounts ... Needed Democratic numbers ... Florida House races ... The handsiest state legislatures ...  7 seats in California ... Campaign Ca$h with Bobby Digital ... Laura Moser ... Dan Kohl ... Lebowski memories ... DIY ex-punker candidates ... "Nevada, Arizona and an act of God" ... Jacky Rosen and Kyrsten Sinema ... Other places on the offensive ... A ton of defense ... Missouri and Florida ... Homer Simpson: Candidate ... Stopping more Trump justices ... Check out Bobby's Stuff at 50 States of Blue here. </p> <p> </p>

The GOP understands how important labor unions are to the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party, historically, has not. If you want a two-sentence explanation for why the Midwest is turning red (and thus, why Donald Trump is president), you could do worse than that.

With its financial contributions and grassroots organizing, the labor movement helped give Democrats full control of the federal government three times in the last four decades. And all three of those times — under Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama — Democrats failed to pass labor law reforms that would to bolster the union cause. In hindsight, it’s clear that the Democratic Party didn’t merely betray organized labor with these failures, but also, itself.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/democrats-paid-a-huge-price-for-letting-unions-die.html

― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Friday, January 26, 2018 12:48 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't want to succumb to "they're better than us at everything" thinking, but one thing that makes the GOP's "big tent" successful is the fact that its funding sources, while disparate, are not necessarily in opposition to one another. Corporate interests like the fossil fuel industry are at worst indifferent to the christian right. Whereas by seeking out funding from Wall Street, Tech, etc., the Democratic Party wound up in conflict with two other big funding sources -- unions and plaintiffs' lawyers. And hence it has tended to slowly cannibalize its union base. This is also why the split between the left and "moderate" wings of the party seems so irreconcilable.

All the post-war anti-communist purges by American unions really didn’t help things, huh

In hindsight, it’s clear that the Democratic Party didn’t merely betray organized labor with these failures, but also, itself.

The watershed here is, once again, Reagan's presidency. Labor union leaders could not deliver their bloc of votes for Carter in 1980 or Mondale in 1984. The Mondale bloodbath in '84 badly undercut their clout within the Democratic party and powered the rise of Clintonian 'triangulation' and neoliberalism. So, there was considerable failure on both sides that we have not yet recovered from.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/370186-poll-majority-have-favorable-view-of-george-w-bush

That kinda shit in particular encourages me to write off the future

it's the least important part of this story but yes of course the Democrats' well-compensated go-to Faith Adviser is a white Southern Baptist and not a representative of the many religious communities that actually support Democrats

— slackbot (@pareene) January 28, 2018

it's just another grift. years of service to the party (not just Clinton) on the self-evidently absurd premise that he'll deliver even a fraction of that vote. actual "faith outreach" looks like William Barber, but Burns Strider is the guy Dems want to hire

— slackbot (@pareene) January 28, 2018

I'd joke about Trump hiring a "Muslim outreach" guy but he and Romney actually shared a mostly unofficial one: Walid Phares, a Lebanese Christian who hates Muslims

— slackbot (@pareene) January 28, 2018

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/29/democratic-national-committee-ceo-leaving-post-376814

She only took that post in May -- three months after Perez signed on.

conservatives beat liberals because they've done an unbelievable job of convincing half the country that the Democratic party is synonymous with killing babies, the Muslim Brotherhood, MS-13,

Democrats really should stop tiptoeing around and go full-on media assault (non-stop tv commercials, billboards up and down every interstate, wallpaper social media - the whole gamut) just absolutely hammering into the the lizard brains of everyone with eyes or ears that the GOP = Alex Jones = NRA = Dylann Roof = "Rape Melania" guy = literal nazis. I mean really push right up against defamation laws.

nah they already do that, party of Trump, racists, deplorables, gun nuts, religious crazies, want to control women's bodies, anti-science dunces, etc. You have to tell people what you're for at some point.

what they should really do is dehumanize the opposition until their supporters feel confident that they are truly subhuman and then they can begin the culling

"Republicans are cockroaches," that kind of thing.

Yes, Republicans are definitely in a similarly precarious position to the Jews of Europe circa 1936, thanks for the trenchant insight Mordy.

They're not - that's clearly the problem.

He's being sarcastic I think.

But moving on--summary of various responses to SOTU speech

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democrats-to-trump-not-good-enough/2018/01/30/a38d02ca-0612-11e8-8777-2a059f168dd2_story.html?utm_term=.6d76b0f69481

On Facebook, former Maryland congresswoman Donna F. Edwards delivered a speech on behalf of the left-wing Working Families Party. She offered the night’s lengthiest policy agenda, calling on Democrats to “make elections at every level publicly financed” and “cut the cord with developers, banks, Big Pharma, oil and gas companies, and all the interests that control public policy in states, cities, counties and Congress.”

I like it. Obviously not "possible" but you have to talk big to move the needle back in your direction.

donna edwards otm

You have to tell people what you're for at some point.

100% agree, but I think you can do both.

party of Trump, racists, deplorables, gun nuts, religious crazies, want to control women's bodies, anti-science dunces, etc.

Not specific enough imo. Sure, Trump is. But stuff like “deplorable” was so vague that it encouraged solidarity among anyone who disliked Hillary. Alex Jones, the leaders of online and irl tiki torch brigade, pizzagate boys, Sandy Hook truthers et al would surely be so thoroughly egregious and unattractive to even a (slight?) majority of Republicans, but the “normal” ones like my parents and sister and aunts and uncles don’t really even know those guys exist. Or certainly aren’t aware of how sympatico they are with the policies and philosophies of the GOP in 2018. There’s too much room for plausible deniability.

Instead of Democrats having to defend the fucking FBI or swear they don’t hate veterans every time a football player kneels or weakly profess their respect for responsible sportsmen after every mass murder, Republicans should constantly be put in a position where they’re effectively having to explain away date rapist Mike Cernovich. Ideally, in the general public’s mind, there should be very little light between the actual policies of Paul Ryan and the wishlist of a Richard Spencer.

I feel like the conservative media, right wing PACs, and GOP politicians who like to get on tv have done a pretty thorough job of merging “Democrat” with a whole slew of Bad Scary Things (not only among the active base but with heretofore unengaged, occasional voter) with an amazing degree of specificity.

that's because it is easy to fill a vacuum

it is a winning strategy but it obviously just doesn't come easily to democrats, they're not craven or committed enough. you need a roger ailes to play the long game with a fox news to get to where we are today. it would take decades of unrelenting assault on msnbc to make any kind of a dent in perception. i doubt many want to do that, bc of "principles" ---> barf

I said this somewhere else but I'm increasingly coming around to the idea that on a subconscious level they don't really want to win

“cut the cord with developers, banks, Big Pharma, oil and gas companies, and all the interests that control public policy in states, cities, counties and Congress.”

Dems are not gonna do this until the new public-financing system is magically put in place.

Lol this NYT piece misfires every few sentences. Kennedy scion = “fresh face.” Ok, got it. pic.twitter.com/IU2dLuAh9r

— Daniel Denvir (@DanielDenvir) January 31, 2018

so depressing

ppl sure love the word "scion," think i've seen that about 20 times over the past 12 hours

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fvOg13V5mI

medicare / social security for all

Not specific enough imo. Sure, Trump is. But stuff like “deplorable” was so vague that it encouraged solidarity among anyone who disliked Hillary. Alex Jones, the leaders of online and irl tiki torch brigade, pizzagate boys, Sandy Hook truthers et al would surely be so thoroughly egregious and unattractive to even a (slight?) majority of Republicans,

exactly. Hillary touched on this stuff before but her messaging was pretty terrible. like, they could probably call more attention to stuff like this

Democrat dump truck derails Trump train?

This is perfect to divert the news cycle away from Trump unifying the nation with his powerful speech. #TrainCrash

— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) January 31, 2018

I said this somewhere else but I'm increasingly coming around to the idea that on a subconscious level they don't really want to win

― Simon H., Wednesday, January 31,

And the GOP on a subconscious level doesn't want to govern. #bothsides

my grudging awe of what Ailes' has accomplished increases by the day

I said this somewhere else but I'm increasingly coming around to the idea that on a subconscious level they don't really want to win

it certainly feels that way. or certainly winning is incidental to fundraising and throwing money around an insular group of consultants and media buyers.

and of course any "wave" they experience in 2018 will only harden their stupid theories on what the electorate actually wants.