Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
8 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Well, this is exactly me and, more to the point, you think crypto is the reason young males turned to dotard?  

Certainly more than enough to make the difference, absolutely. 
 

8 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I believe Bozo vastly overestimates the influence crypto policy has on elections.

I think you are fooling yourself. It’s part of the general phenomenon of Democrats getting way out of sync with the financial and class anxieties of their base. 
 

There are 55 million people who own at least some crypto directly, that is, they have invested their money in an asset and have an interest in it. Those people are more likely to be Asian, black, or hispanic than voters as a whole. Around 2/3 make under $100k/year. 
if support among those groups for Democrats erodes from 2020-2024, either in the form of moving towards the GOP or simply staying home, Democrats lose.
Which is exactly what happened. 
 

7 hours ago, StassneyHorn said:

@Bozo_Casanova is right. Probably belongs in the Joe Rogan, crypto, explain what a woman is, non-routine voters thread though.

Agreed and we should move on. But, there’s a ton of data on this for those who care to look and it’s not even particularly controversial. This forum is a bit of an echo chamber, and as such is representative of the blind spots that have put us where we are.

One of those blind spots is crypto. I’m not advocating for anything here or trying to get y'all to like something you think is problematic. I’m simply stating the self-evident fact that the horse has left the barn. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Certainly more than enough to make the difference, absolutely. 
 

I think you are fooling yourself. It’s part of the general phenomenon of Democrats getting way out of sync with the financial and class anxieties of their base. 
 

There are 55 million people who own at least some crypto directly, that is, they have invested their money in an asset and have an interest in it. Those people are more likely to be Asian, black, or hispanic than voters as a whole. Around 2/3 make under $100k/year. 
if support among those groups for Democrats erodes from 2020-2024, either in the form of moving towards the GOP or simply staying home, Democrats lose.
Which is exactly what happened. 
 

Agreed and we should move on. But, there’s a ton of data on this for those who care to look and it’s not even particularly controversial. This forum is a bit of an echo chamber, and as such is representative of the blind spots that have put us where we are.

One of those blind spots is crypto. I’m not advocating for anything here or trying to get y'all to like something you think is problematic. I’m simply stating the self-evident fact that the horse has left the barn. 

Crypto, no tax on tips, trans in sports, “imma bring back mfg jobs to Merica”, a few others all were pandering for votes. Dems used to do this better than republicans, they probably still do but Dems are worse at it than they’ve been before and Trump is fantastic at it. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 hours ago, Sbbruin said:

I have a lot of issues with Newsom.  But he is meeting the moment when the moment needs to be met.  With clarity, with conviction.  With facts.  With defiance.  Someone HAS to say ENOUGH!  We will not let the pillars of our nation torn asunder by one senile old fuck.we in CA constitute essentially 1 out of every 9 people in the nation.  We contribute $.30 per dollar more than we receive in federal benefits.  While dozens of shithole red states contribute like $.30 for ever dollar they receive.  The feds need ca more than the other way around, other than the military, although most of that is developed here too anyway.  We need a concerted effort by ALL democrats to decry the dissolution of the pillars of our nation being hacked at their bases.  The founding fathers would encourage us to rise up.  I am a ball of rage.  I hope I don’t end up in jail.  Or dead.

Dems need to run a guy who can for sure win and Newsom seems like that guy. In the meantime of now and potentially 2032 they have 7 years to get their shit in line and move the party towards working class again and away from being termed elitist.

18 minutes ago, Underdog said:

Cubs in 1st place is why Chicago is happy. 

New Pope Effect!

Posted
12 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Good. Adopting Elizabeth Warren’s hopelessly out of touch and unrealistic “war on crypto” as the Democratic party default was political malpractice and probably put Donald Trump into the White House. Not bringing stablecoins under some kind of regulatory regime and leaving the whole question in limbo or worse, spending political capital to fight unwinnable battles that have no relevance to the bulk of your coalition is just dumb. 

It's the height of idiocy for a government running a fiat currency to give carte blanche to create an infinite number of vehicles to create currency. Each new shit coin is another mint.

Crypto is going to turbo fuck our economy, it just has a perception of growth and stability. It's all paper mache hollow snake oil salesmen.

It's not a political fight, it's asserting reality. And you correctly point out, reality is not what voters want. They want sweet, sweet, delicious lies like how crypto is going to make them all rich and free from economic tyranny

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 4
Posted
20 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's the height of idiocy for a government running a fiat currency to give carte blanche to create an infinite number of vehicles to create currency. Each new shit coin is another mint.

Crypto is going to turbo fuck our economy, it just has a perception of growth and stability. It's all paper mache hollow snake oil salesmen.

It's not a political fight, it's asserting reality. And you correctly point out, reality is not what voters want. They want sweet, sweet, delicious lies like how crypto is going to make them all rich and free from economic tyranny

It's a better dream than what the "American Dream" is now. 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

It's a better dream than what the "American Dream" is now. 

Both are being sold by our oligarchs. They're the same thing, with different labels.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted
36 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's the height of idiocy for a government running a fiat currency to give carte blanche to create an infinite number of vehicles to create currency. Each new shit coin is another mint.

Crypto is going to turbo fuck our economy, it just has a perception of growth and stability. It's all paper mache hollow snake oil salesmen.

It's not a political fight, it's asserting reality. And you correctly point out, reality is not what voters want. They want sweet, sweet, delicious lies like how crypto is going to make them all rich and free from economic tyranny

There are 1000 places for you to have this argument as vaguely and with as much hand waving as you like, but, you’re ultimately talking about what you only get to do if you win. 

The part that is relevant to this thread is that Democrats fucked themselves with elements of their coalition that they couldn’t afford to lose. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

There are 1000 places for you to have this argument as vaguely and with as much hand waving as you like, but, you’re ultimately talking about what you only get to do if you win. 

The part that is relevant to this thread is that Democrats fucked themselves with elements of their coalition that they couldn’t afford to lose. 

Maybe, but that didn't swing the election.

Inflation did.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

It's a better dream than what the "American Dream" is now. 

Well, but see our ideologically pure Democratic partisans are living their version of the American dream. They get to drive allies and cobelligerents out of their coalition and lose elections and let the world go to hell, but they keep their hands clean and face no personal consequences. 
And then, ironically, they blame “the oligarchs.”

image.png.b61aa91f557d12b68fcd369eebcb7ccb.png

 

  • Haha 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Well, but see our ideologically pure Democratic partisans are living their version of the American dream. They get to drive allies and cobelligerents out of their coalition and lose elections and let the world go to hell, but they keep their hands clean and face no personal consequences. 
And then, ironically, they blame “the oligarchs.”

image.png.b61aa91f557d12b68fcd369eebcb7ccb.png

 

Democratic party is being portrayed as the party of elitist now days....not a good look.

Posted
6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Maybe, but that didn't swing the election.

Inflation did.

 

It’s all part of the same complex of being out of touch with their voting coalition. Democrats in 2023 were still operating under the old principle that GDP growth+full employment = good economy. But in an environment of steep and accelerating growth income inequality, that’s not a good economy for most people because the benefit isn’t tangible.
And yet, there were literally Democrats saying that people were lying or brainwashed when they said they were hurting, because the economy was supposedly doing so well.

Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It’s all part of the same complex of being out of touch with their voting coalition. Democrats in 2023 were still operating under the old principle that GDP growth+full employment = good economy. But in an environment of steep and accelerating growth income inequality, that’s not a good economy for most people because the benefit isn’t tangible.
And yet, there were literally Democrats saying that people were lying or brainwashed when they said they were hurting, because the economy was supposedly doing so well.

They didn't have an answer for the reality of high prices so they tried to spin the other economic indicators.

It didn't work.

That's politics.

Posted
8 hours ago, Sbbruin said:

I have a lot of issues with Newsom.  But he is meeting the moment when the moment needs to be met.  With clarity, with conviction.  With facts.  With defiance.  Someone HAS to say ENOUGH!  We will not let the pillars of our nation torn asunder by one senile old fuck.we in CA constitute essentially 1 out of every 9 people in the nation.  We contribute $.30 per dollar more than we receive in federal benefits.  While dozens of shithole red states contribute like $.30 for ever dollar they receive.  The feds need ca more than the other way around, other than the military, although most of that is developed here too anyway.  We need a concerted effort by ALL democrats to decry the dissolution of the pillars of our nation being hacked at their bases.  The founding fathers would encourage us to rise up.  I am a ball of rage.  I hope I don’t end up in jail.  Or dead.

I despise Gavin Newsom and think he's basically Patrick Bateman in politician form, but he's the only one saying what needs to be fucking said right now. What's baffling is how quickly he sensed the political opportunity here after thinking his way forward was befriending Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon. 

  • Hook 'Em 8
Posted
45 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I despise Gavin Newsom and think he's basically Patrick Bateman in politician form, but he's the only one saying what needs to be fucking said right now. What's baffling is how quickly he sensed the political opportunity here after thinking his way forward was befriending Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon. 

Newsom and Pritzker are the two politicians showing that they have the juice for this fight.

Not saying I think either would be a good president, but they are the two that seem to understand what is currently at stake.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Sbbruin said:

I have a lot of issues with Newsom.  But he is meeting the moment when the moment needs to be met.  With clarity, with conviction.  With facts.  With defiance.  Someone HAS to say ENOUGH!  We will not let the pillars of our nation torn asunder by one senile old fuck.we in CA constitute essentially 1 out of every 9 people in the nation.  We contribute $.30 per dollar more than we receive in federal benefits.  While dozens of shithole red states contribute like $.30 for ever dollar they receive.  The feds need ca more than the other way around, other than the military, although most of that is developed here too anyway.  We need a concerted effort by ALL democrats to decry the dissolution of the pillars of our nation being hacked at their bases.  The founding fathers would encourage us to rise up.  I am a ball of rage.  I hope I don’t end up in jail.  Or dead.

I agree, I've been impressed with his work thus far. But in this thread, he sucks, Obama sucks, everyone sucks, and it's getting really annoying. I really didn't like his trans athlete stuff on the podcast but I'm quite confident that as president he would, if nothing else, not go out of his way to fuck around with trans people, so it's a minor concern at this point, unless he goes back to it hard on a campaign trail. I still prefer Mayor Pete, but Newsom can win a lot of people over depending on how this situation ultimately plays out.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Newsom and Pritzker are the two politicians showing that they have the juice for this fight.

Not saying I think either would be a good president, but they are the two that seem to understand what is currently at stake.

To me it’s JB, Pete and Newsom, but I wonder if JB is more our Chris Christie than he is a leader who can galvanize a national majority. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
41 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I agree, I've been impressed with his work thus far. But in this thread, he sucks, Obama sucks, everyone sucks, and it's getting really annoying. I really didn't like his trans athlete stuff on the podcast but I'm quite confident that as president he would, if nothing else, not go out of his way to fuck around with trans people, so it's a minor concern at this point, unless he goes back to it hard on a campaign trail. I still prefer Mayor Pete, but Newsom can win a lot of people over depending on how this situation ultimately plays out.

Mayor Pete is a non-starter.  Frankly Newsom probably is too.  California is painted with too liberal of a brush to overcome.  Dems need a moderate white midwestern white male.  Gotta play a hand that can win.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Mayor Pete is a non-starter.  Frankly Newsom probably is too.  California is painted with too liberal of a brush to overcome.  Dems need a moderate white midwestern white male.  Gotta play a hand that can win.  

I'm not saying you're wrong (although I think you probably are), but it's just so fucking enraging that Team R can nominate just whoever the fuck they want, and it doesn't matter if he's a criminal, a conman, a rapist, twice impeached, etc. But the dems are like "No no, he's too liberal, no no she's too female, no no she's also too black, no no he likes dick so no, no no he's too fat", etc. etc. Fucking Goldilocks candidate. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Dems need a moderate white midwestern white male.  Gotta play a hand that can win.  

I beg people to stop believing this talking point. It relies on some sense of "normalcy" within the electorate and government, which doesn't exist anymore. 

 

Edited by Hank Kingsley
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Newsom and Pritzker are the two politicians showing that they have the juice for this fight.

Not saying I think either would be a good president, but they are the two that seem to understand what is currently at stake.

wildcat is the typical head in the sand democrat

Posted
32 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I'm not saying you're wrong (although I think you probably are), but it's just so fucking enraging that Team R can nominate just whoever the fuck they want, and it doesn't matter if he's a criminal, a conman, a rapist, twice impeached, etc. But the dems are like "No no, he's too liberal, no no she's too female, no no she's also too black, no no he likes dick so no, no no he's too fat", etc. etc. Fucking Goldilocks candidate. 

Because Team R is better at messaging than democrats, have better party alignment than democrats, and overall have better leadership than democrats. Democrats need to do WHATEVER it takes to win mid terms in 2 years and the presidency in 4 years while also working on how to fucking change the direction of the party and get EVERYONE aligned. But the problem with getting everyone aligned is democrats have gone so far into special interest groups it's going to be tough for that. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
16 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Good. Hogg should run for something or be an activist. Otherwise he’s just a noisemaker and has negative value in a party management role. 

I really dislike the all the robotexts, but this one from Hogg is pretty solid: 

"I am no longer a DNC Vice Chair.

"This DNC vote to have a new election comes after weeks of contention about our work here at Leaders We Deserve, especially our plan to challenge ineffective Democrats in the primaries.

"I came into this role to play a positive role in creating the change our party needs.  It is clear that there is a fundamental disagreement about the role of a Vice Chair - and it's okay to have disagreements.  What isn't okay is allowing this to remain our focus when there is so much more we need to be focused on. 

"That's why I've decided not to run in this upcoming election.  I need to do this work with Leaders We Deserve, and it is going to remain my number one mission to build the strongest party possible."

"I'm thankful to everyone who supported me in this role, and now, I need your support.  If you're with us in the fights ahead, considering donating..." blah, blah, blah.  

It actually sounds personal, it's gives information and his reasoning, it's not sensationalist.  Just a straight shooter with upper management written all over him. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, 'stache said:

But in this thread, he sucks, Obama sucks, everyone sucks, and it's getting really annoying.

I'm not really into calling out individual posters out on it, but @Bozo_Casanova is right in that a number of contributors to this thread (and across CR) want to make this an echo chamber demanding a progressive purity that is a doomed electoral strategy.  It's also tone-deaf, as they sit in judgment of politicians that try to reach out to Trump voters and then wonder why those same voters think Democrats are a bunch of snobs.  

There is no Obama coalition anymore.  If you don't want President Vance in '28 we're going to need to make inroads into any groups that share some (but not all) of the party's priorities.  

1 hour ago, Sbbruin said:

Dems need a moderate white midwestern white male.

Nah, that's a bad process and what led to Harris (although I'm not second guessing the decision given the lack of time for a proper primary). 

Dems need whoever is able to win a fully contested primary, that's it.  I don't think that's a permanent solution to governing an electorate that wants every election to be a change election, but that's a separate discussion.  

32 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Because Team R is better at messaging than democrats, have better party alignment than democrats, and overall have better leadership than democrats.

I actually disagree with each of these.  Let's not confuse Trump's almost singular ability to pull in unlikely voters for durable Republican support.  They've built a coalition that can unite around a tax cut but that's a) hanging by a thread and b) they are almost totally incapable of aligning around any other single issue.  It's partially why Trump has discovered the Presidency is a grift machine--there's no other leadership to counter him.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
17 hours ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

On one of these threads the other day (yesterday?) there was a discussion about whether or not Obama still held much sway in the party. Scott Galloway and Kara Swisher touched on that some on their podcast today. They seem to think he is the ONLY person that could lead an anti-Trump insurgency, and they don't think he's doing enough. 

 

Yeah that was me and I said we need him.  I maintain that.  I don't think people understand the power he still holds in deep blue areas.  He's a fucking force.  

Posted
1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Tim Walz is like the most normal human being in the world. And he was basically labeled as a freak and a traitor and pedophile. 

He has very strong rhetorical skills which is why it was so fucking insane of the Harris campaign to put a muzzle on him.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Sbbruin said:

Mayor Pete is a non-starter.  Frankly Newsom probably is too.  California is painted with too liberal of a brush to overcome.  Dems need a moderate white midwestern white male.  Gotta play a hand that can win.  

Oh my God. You want me!

Posted
22 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

Dems need whoever is able to win a fully contested primary, that's it.  I don't think that's a permanent solution to governing an electorate that wants every election to be a change election, but that's a separate discussion.  

59 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Great post, well put

Posted
37 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Because Team R is better at messaging than democrats, have better party alignment than democrats, and overall have better leadership than democrats. Democrats need to do WHATEVER it takes to win mid terms in 2 years and the presidency in 4 years while also working on how to fucking change the direction of the party and get EVERYONE aligned. But the problem with getting everyone aligned is democrats have gone so far into special interest groups it's going to be tough for that. 

 

By my reading, what's happened is that during the 1990s and following the Reagan Revolution, the mainstream of both parties more or less reached a consensus on neoliberal economic issues, e.g., free trade. There were, of course, differences on taxation, with the GOP firm believers in supply-side shit but moderate Dems not being too far off. Both were wrong on this, of course, as the benefits didn't "trickle down" to the working class, which now felt abandoned by the Party of Labor.

To separate themselves from the Democrats, the GOP began to fully embrace all the "culture war" shit, demonizing immigrants, gays, minority groups, the "coastal elite," and Murphy Brown wanting a kid, with Pat Buchanan and Rush Limbaugh leading the charge, slowly winning over Labor who felt threatened by all three. This, in turn, led to the Democratic Party basically becoming a loose coalition of the downtrodden trying to keep their shit together by watching each others' backs.

So, yeah, you've been correct in your thesis all this time about Dems needing to win back labor. And since Obama, the progressive branch has been proposing all sorts of economic reforms, but keep getting accused of being Marxists, a message that Republicans and moderate Dems have both used to gain/retain power in primary and general elections alike. Meanwhile, progressives keep getting pulled into the sexy culture wars by trying to protect all these out-groups from personal attacks.

What's the solution, then, in your opinion?

  1. Abandon the disfavored in the culture wars and just be neoliberal moderates, hoping to win back Labor (a bloc that now consistently votes against their economic interests in elections?
  2. Go full-force Far-Left, waging a war on both billionaires and the culture war-supporting evangelicals?
  3. Just be the Party of Labor with progressive economic/fiscal policies only, while ignoring human rights and civil liberties altogether?

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Great post, well put

 

I think moving forward every election will be a "change" type election because that's just the nature of politics and why republicans are better suited for that style right now than democrats. Due to their messaging and how well they can push a narrative as one where as the democrats struggle with being aligned. 

Posted

I disagree with "moderate." There is no middle anymore. Pick a side and be strong. Look to Pritzker. Look to Walz. If you believe in nothing, sit the fuck down. If you aren't willing to fight for what's right, sit the fuck down.

Don't overthink this. Keep running the plays that net you the most yardage and keep doing it until and ONLY UNTIL the other side finds a way to stop it.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
37 minutes ago, bolverk said:

What's the solution, then, in your opinion?

  1. Abandon the disfavored in the culture wars and just be neoliberal moderates, hoping to win back Labor (a bloc that now consistently votes against their economic interests in elections?
  2. Go full-force Far-Left, waging a war on both billionaires and the culture war-supporting evangelicals?
  3. Just be the Party of Labor with progressive economic/fiscal policies only, while ignoring human rights and civil liberties altogether?

 

This entire framework is wrong and the reason why Trump won. Politics in 2025 is about who, not what.

Posted
2 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Tim Walz is like the most normal human being in the world. And he was basically labeled as a freak and a traitor and pedophile. 

Anyone who steps up to try to unseat MAGA will be labeled that. There is no perfect candidate. Can't be a woman, can't be a minority female, can't be gay, can't have a military record unless you pass a purity test and never say anything that could be STOLEN VALOR (that Congressman being a little bitch about it and using his wife's service to hammer Walz was the height of irony), can't be from a blue state, can't be too white for some in the party, can't work across the aisle, can't be for LGBTQ+ rights, can't be rich. It's a no win scenario so I'll take anyone willing to step up to be destroyed by our stupid fucking electorate. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This entire framework is wrong and the reason why Trump won. Politics in 2025 is about who, not what.

Sure, you've been saying that a personality who can break through the noise and garner attention is what wins, but the who in question still needs to have a message, and scapegoating someone(s) is the best means of making noise.

If that is true, then Trump has to be the short-term scapegoat, so right now the Dems need the best shit-talker out there to channel our anger and simply attack, attack, attack.

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Sure, you've been saying that a personality who can break through the noise and garner attention is what wins, but the who in question still needs to have a message, and scapegoating someone(s) is the best means of making noise.

I don’t think that final part is true. Disruption is the best means of making noise, but scapegoating isn’t required. See also Obama. I’d argue he didn’t do nearly enough scapegoating. 

Donald Trump wasn’t disruptive because he’s the biggest hater, but because he’s a rizz king with a huge brand,  bottomless energy and incredible comic timing who also happened to be the biggest hater, and he was competing against interchangable mediocrities.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, LCHorn said:

I'm not really into calling out individual posters out on it, but @Bozo_Casanova is right in that a number of contributors to this thread (and across CR) want to make this an echo chamber demanding a progressive purity that is a doomed electoral strategy.  It's also tone-deaf, as they sit in judgment of politicians that try to reach out to Trump voters and then wonder why those same voters think Democrats are a bunch of snobs.  

 

Yup, which is why that David Hogg dude pissed me off. His opening message as vp of the democratic party (at least from the headlines I saw) was that his goal was to "take down" traditional old school democrats, i.e., a person in leadership wanting to attack and ruin the careers of lifelong dems. Ironically, I'd probably agree with him on most policies, including that the party needs to move further left on economic and other issues. But you don't do that by attacking and "taking out" the old school dems. The approach is to say we are going to do all we can to push the party to more progressive policies by encouraging more progressives, young ones in particular, into primaries and treating them equally to everyone else. The overriding complaint has been that the party elites favored Hilary over Bernie, etc., which is probably true, but there were still votes, and she won. The same elites favored Hilary over Obama but he messaged better and got the votes. The dems need to fight it out in primaries, vigorously, but then coalesce around whoever wins, because the worst democrat furthest from your views is still monumentally better than the average republican these days. Fucking Joe Manchin is an example, I probably disagree with his approach to most things, but he's never been maga, and that's probably good enough (also from WV nobody should ever expect a progressive dem, a dem/independent at all is a win).

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Yup, which is why that David Hogg dude pissed me off. His opening message as vp of the democratic party (at least from the headlines I saw) was that his goal was to "take down" traditional old school democrats, i.e., a person in leadership wanting to attack and ruin the careers of lifelong dems.

That is what needs to happen for the party to move forward. It literally has to happen. How do you think the fucking republican party became so unified? They attacked the weak members or members who didn't do shit. Democrats have a ton of that and a ton of old fucks who think this is the 90s still.

Posted
30 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This entire framework is wrong and the reason why Trump won. Politics in 2025 for the next 10 generations is about who, not what.

FIF accuracy.  Ideas don't matter.  Facts don't matter.  The truth doesn't matter.

Who has the better performer who is able to get more idiots to fall in line?  That's the only question.  I am not kidding, not even a little bit, when I say that all Dem effort should be focused on getting someone like the Rock, or McConaughey, to run.  I'm sure there are 100 other good options, but they all need to be celebrities who can say cool shit that makes people feel good.  It doesn't have to make sense or be true, not even a little bit. 

13 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Sure, you've been saying that a personality who can break through the noise and garner attention is what wins, but the who in question still needs to have a message, and scapegoating someone(s) is the best means of making noise.

If that is true, then Trump has to be the short-term scapegoat, so right now the Dems need the best shit-talker out there to channel our anger and simply attack, attack, attack.

Oh, it's more than scapegoating.  The alternative message to the GQP's message of "hate, hate, and more hate" isn't "maybe be decent."  Nope.  The winning message is "twice as much hate as those fuckers can muster."

Hate, and stupidity, are the only commodities of any political value today.  If you want to trade in politics, you best get some...and not just some, but more than the other guy.

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

That is what needs to happen for the party to move forward. It literally has to happen. How do you think the fucking republican party became so unified? They attacked the weak members or members who didn't do shit. Democrats have a ton of that and a ton of old fucks who think this is the 90s still.

Completely disagree. The GOP is so weak it was taken over by a lifelong Democrat who now rules by fiat. “They” didn’t unify.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Completely disagree. The GOP is so weak it was taken over by a lifelong Democrat who now rules by fiat. “They” didn’t unify.

They were doing their plan before him with the invention of the tea party and going after republicans and bringing in more of the party people they wanted. IMO he's more a hindrance of their plans because he's not smart enough to carry it out properly while cosplaying a dictator but he was the personality needed to win so they went with him. 

Edited by BurntOrange&White
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

They were doing their plan before him with the invention of the tea party and going after republicans and bringing in more of the party people they wanted.

They aren’t even unified now. They simply get along well enough to cooperate fully when it involves defeating their tribal/cultural enemies.

Posted
3 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

They were doing their plan before him with the invention of the tea party and going after republicans and bringing in more of the party people they wanted.

They unify over hatred of browns and gays. What do you propose the democrats unify around? Telling a huge chunk of your party voters to go fuck themselves is how you lose national elections especially with a party whose base is far and away more intellectual and critical thinking than the opposition. Stupid talking points like "socialism" and "they want yur guns" doesn't work for the democratic party.

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

They unify over hatred of browns and gays. What do you propose the democrats unify around? Telling a huge chunk of your party voters to go fuck themselves is how you lose national elections especially with a party whose base is far and away more intellectual and critical thinking than the opposition. Stupid talking points like "socialism" and "they want yur guns" doesn't work for the democratic party.

The hate of nazis? The hate of fascism? Like i've said democrats aren't nearly unified and their messaging is all over the place and shit. Get your points and drive them home as a whole, who gives a fuck if they're not true or not. 

 

The real message they need to be sending is that republicans aren't for you they are for corporations and cite in simplistic terms for simple minded people the medicade/medicare cuts, SS cuts, everything. Stop fucking talking about the economy in terms of stock market. Tons of unified shit they could message with as a whole but they're too fucking broken up trying to appease all the special interest groups. 

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Posted
24 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Yup, which is why that David Hogg dude pissed me off. His opening message as vp of the democratic party (at least from the headlines I saw) was that his goal was to "take down" traditional old school democrats, i.e., a person in leadership wanting to attack and ruin the careers of lifelong dems. Ironically, I'd probably agree with him on most policies, including that the party needs to move further left on economic and other issues. But you don't do that by attacking and "taking out" the old school dems. The approach is to say we are going to do all we can to push the party to more progressive policies by encouraging more progressives, young ones in particular, into primaries and treating them equally to everyone else. The overriding complaint has been that the party elites favored Hilary over Bernie, etc., which is probably true, but there were still votes, and she won. The same elites favored Hilary over Obama but he messaged better and got the votes. The dems need to fight it out in primaries, vigorously, but then coalesce around whoever wins, because the worst democrat furthest from your views is still monumentally better than the average republican these days. Fucking Joe Manchin is an example, I probably disagree with his approach to most things, but he's never been maga, and that's probably good enough (also from WV nobody should ever expect a progressive dem, a dem/independent at all is a win).

Yes, it's annoying but the R's really do have a big tent.  Such a hodgepodge group of clowns.  Nazis living with far right Jewish folks etc.  Can't make this shit up...

Posted
6 hours ago, troph said:

Crypto, no tax on tips, trans in sports, “imma bring back mfg jobs to Merica”, a few others all were pandering for votes. Dems used to do this better than republicans, they probably still do but Dems are worse at it than they’ve been before and Trump is fantastic at it. 

I remember the term "Bernie Bro" as a pejorative.  I wonder if that affected any young male voters? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

To me it’s JB, Pete and Newsom, but I wonder if JB is more our Chris Christie than he is a leader who can galvanize a national majority. 

It’s funny cause he’s fat.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted

Related to the Hogg thing: right now a small group of traditional Austin Democrats are very quietly feeling around for a “moderate” to primary Greg Casar. Somehow my name came up as a possible supporter or even challenger.
What I told them was that even though Greg Casar‘s ideology is not the model for what Democrats need nationally,  purging well liked incumbents who represent their district well in a misguided attempt to enforce some kind of hypothetical majoritarian ideological baseline is exactly what we don’t need to do.

If someone thinks they can do the job better than Casar, they should run. But I’m not going to participate as a donor or opponent in an attempt to take him down because he wins, and winning is job #1.

 

  • Hook 'Em 5


×
×
  • Create New...