Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

It's a video demonstrating how not to appeal to Gen Z men, and it just so happened to also include bad takes on deregulation. No need to watch the full discussion, but I didn't want to be accused of clipping him out of context either.

There already are grassroots personalities who are left-of-center that have charisma and a willingness to hit the class-based policy points that drove the success of the 2016 and 2020 Bernie campaigns, but because the algorithms are massively biased against them and because Democratic leadership is captured by moneyed interests the only podcasts and streamers they boost are neoliberal elites such as Ezra Klein that are totally off-putting to the people the party now claims to want to win back.

But in true DNC fashion they're going to focus group it to death

 

Dems are acting like a failing European General Staff: fighting the last war. Politics is firmly entrenched as a form of entertainment now and a line from Ocean's 13 comes to mind: you don't run the same gag twice, you do the next gag. Astroturfing a wildly sensational podcaster is a ridiculous notion. Astroturf the next thing.

Besides, Dems need a comprehensive new and old media vision. They need to match or exceed Pubs sound bite for sound bite, tweet for tweet, reel for reel and on down the line. John Oliver was among those sounding the alarm about Sinclair poisoning the local news well. Great, the politically attentive know about it. What the fuck did anyone in the Dem orbit DO about it?

Pubs have built a thoroughly modern propaganda behemoth. Dems are little more than a small town social club by comparison. They've relied on earnest hard journalism to do the heavy lifting of informing of and providing the motivation for organizing their base and swing voters. Hard journalism is just about dead. There is no Walter Cronkite making sure we all know about the most important issues and events of the day. Honest brokers are fewer and further between (aside: it really should have been the loudest of warnings that a comedian, Jon Stewart, became the most credible voice the left turned to in the 2000s). Dems need a propaganda machine, not a talking head or two.

Even if there are fair-ish elections, Dems have little chance outside of a catastrophe overwhelming whatever GQP nonsense gets rolled out as a distraction. If not for Covid, we'd be in Dotard's third term already.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
4 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Dems need a propaganda machine, not a talking head or two.

This has been true for at least 40 years now. You're right about this:

4 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Astroturfing a wildly sensational podcaster is a ridiculous notion. Astroturf the next thing.

Do I trust the Dems to know what the next thing will be? No, I do not.

I'm firmly in the "fire them all" camp.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
14 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

This has been true for at least 40 years now. You're right about this:

Do I trust the Dems to know what the next thing will be? No, I do not.

I'm firmly in the "fire them all" camp.

No, of course not. I'm firmly in the "We're Fucked" camp.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

I don't necessarily think he sucks that bad, but he is definitely out of touch and it's hard to understand his full view without watching the goddamn conversation. Not everything can be summarized in bullet points.

Agreed, I'm a daily viewer of TMR and a monthly subscriber so I watched that entire interview when it happened and thought Ezra made some fair points generally but ultimately didn't provide the answers Sam Seder was asking of him and at times he really came off as defensive and elitist. Nothing like hearing a liberal Californian critique the housing crisis while use Houston and Austin as examples of red states doing it better. 

  • Like 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Pubs have built a thoroughly modern propaganda behemoth. Dems are little more than a small town social club by comparison.

Counterpoint-you ascribe what I consider co-option as deliberately undertaken by the GOP.  I think they got dragged there by Trump and don’t really control anything.  
 

I don’t know that the Dems need a propaganda machine (you could argue there’s one already that’s mostly refugees from the mainstream media that have moved to podcasting and sub newsletters).  The problem (or challenge) is that it doesn’t have appeal beyond the educated.  Jon Stewart has a podcast-if his appeal was broader he’d be doing Joe Rogan numbers.  
 

Ultimately, I think the whole “we have a problem with the medium” isn’t as complicated as the Dems message is oppositional to Trump and that plays poorly in any area on which he’s perceived to offer a better solution.  In other words, swing voters aren’t listening to Dems defending civil rights because they are more concerned about their job, their house payment, what to do with their kids after school, etc.  Trump continues to control that message there because he played one on TV.  
 

25 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Do I trust the Dems to know what the next thing will be? No, I do not.

Maybe this is overly hopeful on my part, but I would think the answer is to just try a lot of things and see which starts gaining appeal.  
 

I also don’t want to oversimplify it, but a lot of hemming and hawing could just boil down to “run younger candidates than what the GOP has to offer” if you want to go after the younger swing voters.  
 

 

Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

Counterpoint-you ascribe what I consider co-option as deliberately undertaken by the GOP.  I think they got dragged there by Trump and don’t really control anything.  
 

I don’t know that the Dems need a propaganda machine (you could argue there’s one already that’s mostly refugees from the mainstream media that have moved to podcasting and sub newsletters).  The problem (or challenge) is that it doesn’t have appeal beyond the educated.  Jon Stewart has a podcast-if his appeal was broader he’d be doing Joe Rogan numbers.  
 

Ultimately, I think the whole “we have a problem with the medium” isn’t as complicated as the Dems message is oppositional to Trump and that plays poorly in any area on which he’s perceived to offer a better solution.  In other words, swing voters aren’t listening to Dems defending civil rights because they are more concerned about their job, their house payment, what to do with their kids after school, etc.  Trump continues to control that message there because he played one on TV.  
 

Maybe this is overly hopeful on my part, but I would think the answer is to just try a lot of things and see which starts gaining appeal.  
 

I also don’t want to oversimplify it, but a lot of hemming and hawing could just boil down to “run younger candidates than what the GOP has to offer” if you want to go after the younger swing voters.  
 

 

need more outrage, need more one liners, need more shock and awe.  need better communicators, need strong men really. the subject matter is there. even the social / culture issues like LGBTQ rights can be super easy with the right one liners, shock and awe, and strongmen who communicate well.

Edited by troph
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, troph said:

need more outrage, need more one liners, need more shock and awe.  need better communicators, need strong men really. the subject matter is there. even the social / culture issues like LGBTQ rights can be super easy with the right one liners, shock and awe, and strongmen who communicate well.

Who are the strong young males of the democratic party? I can't think of a current male senate member that is worth a fuck and Booker is the best. What about the house? Can't think of a single prominent male rep from the house

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I wonder if it’s worthwhile to frame the discussion about how the Democratic Party should communicate with the public around something like Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. At first glance, that might seem a bit esoteric, but its fundamental building blocks really are rather intuitive when it comes to policy priorities.

One way of looking at policies could be that the government does its best to shore up the bottom two through direct assistance or regulation, while, the top three could be supported through providing public education and non-discrimination laws. 

I guess it doesn't really affect what we, who actually believe in good governance, expect the various layers of government to do, per se, but I can see how it could help shape public discussion around specific policies and their priorities.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, based on his original 1943 Paper "A Theory of Human Motivation" and later clarifications. It depicts the five levels as: Level 1: Physiological. Air, Water, Food, Shelter (e.g. Housing, protection from exposure), Clothing, Sleep, Reproduction; Level 2: Safety Needs. Personal Security, Financial Security, Health and Wellbeing, Safety Nets (laws, insurance, emergency services), Stable Environment; Level 3: Love and Belonging. Family, Friendship, Romantic Relationships, Community, Group Membership, Affection and Intimacy; Level 4: Esteem. Self Respect, Respect from Others, Confidence, Recognition of Achievement, Reputation; Level 5: Self Actualisation. Creativity, Personal Growth, Moral Development, Pursuit of Meaning, Purpose Driven Action, Peak Experiences (intense moments of joy, insight, or transcendence)

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I wonder if it’s worthwhile to frame the discussion about how the Democratic Party should communicate with the public around something like Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. At first glance, that might seem a bit esoteric, but its fundamental building blocks really are rather intuitive when it comes to policy priorities.

One way of looking at policies could be that the government does its best to shore up the bottom two through direct assistance or regulation, while, the top three could be supported through providing public education and non-discrimination laws. 

I guess it doesn't really affect what we, who actually believe in good governance, expect the various layers of government to do, per se, but I can see how it could help shape public discussion around specific policies and their priorities.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, based on his original 1943 Paper "A Theory of Human Motivation" and later clarifications. It depicts the five levels as: Level 1: Physiological. Air, Water, Food, Shelter (e.g. Housing, protection from exposure), Clothing, Sleep, Reproduction; Level 2: Safety Needs. Personal Security, Financial Security, Health and Wellbeing, Safety Nets (laws, insurance, emergency services), Stable Environment; Level 3: Love and Belonging. Family, Friendship, Romantic Relationships, Community, Group Membership, Affection and Intimacy; Level 4: Esteem. Self Respect, Respect from Others, Confidence, Recognition of Achievement, Reputation; Level 5: Self Actualisation. Creativity, Personal Growth, Moral Development, Pursuit of Meaning, Purpose Driven Action, Peak Experiences (intense moments of joy, insight, or transcendence)

who let the fucking academic in ? tl;dr  jk love ya bruh.

Edited by troph
  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Who are the strong young males of the democratic party? I can't think of a current male senate member that is worth a fuck and Booker is the best. What about the house? Can't think of a single prominent male rep from the house

The lefts years long war on men and masculinity has come home to roost in a bad way. Appealing to women by shoving a bunch of female candidates into the ballot was always a very, very stupid long term strategy. For the most part women will vote for who their husband wants them to vote for, daughters will vote for who their dad likes. It’s also pretty evident women trust male political figures more than they trust female ones. And obviously most men won’t vote for a woman on top of all of that. It’s no coincidence trump’s only political loss ever was to another man. It’s just the reality.

Edited by Helobious
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 5
Posted
15 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Who are the strong young males of the democratic party? I can't think of a current male senate member that is worth a fuck and Booker is the best. What about the house? Can't think of a single prominent male rep from the house

Ironically the only answer is Pete and he's not even currently in government. Dems can't allow younger talent in because they would be broadly sympathetic to Palestine and I wish I was joking about that.

It's great how everything circles back around to us ejecting our god damn democracy largely at the behest of a foreign country.

1 minute ago, Helobious said:

The lefts years long war on men and masculinity has come home to roost in a bad way. Appealing to women by shoving a bunch of female candidates into the ballot was always a very, very stupid long term strategy. For the most part women will vote for who their husband wants them to vote for, daughters will vote for who their dad likes. It’s also pretty evident women trust male political figures more than they trust female ones. And obviously most men won’t vote for a woman on top of all of that. It’s no coincidence trump’s only political loss ever was to another man. It’s just the reality.

Go back to your sandbox you stupid fucking child.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

I’m not saying it’s right, it’s just how things are. The dems need a strong male candidate to regain power and popularity, I’m not sure how that’s even debatable. It’s sad but clearly most people just don’t want a woman in charge. 

Posted
19 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Who are the strong young males of the democratic party? I can't think of a current male senate member that is worth a fuck and Booker is the best. What about the house? Can't think of a single prominent male rep from the house

booker is probably the best. and he can rile you up in a speech. can he have a coffee table convo with dudes? dunno.

but I can see it clearly in a convo (here's just two rando topics that come to mind - trump is a rapist and the Texas lege is stealing from kids) - 

hey man (whatever conservative podcaster he's talking to), I get you like trump, he's got a lot to say, doesn't apologize for being a man, acts tough. those are cool things, right? But dude, the man has been found liable for rape... MULTIPLE TIMES! I mean seriously, we're going to celebrate a man who rapes women? really? and while we're celebrating, you see the Texas legislature run victory laps over lying to the public about vouchers and funding kids education?  Those dudes had the freaking audacity to strangle funding for 6 years until they got their way. kids suffered man, budgets are jacked. districts may even have to cut sports programming, I'm not kidding. What did they do? They took $10K away for each kid and then only agreed to pay $55 for those who stay in public education.  it's like less than a 1% increase. I know some of this is complex, but let's just break it down. It's stealing. AND THOSE PRICKS CELEBRATE IT.  we gotta do better man.

 

Posted
Just now, troph said:

booker is probably the best. and he can rile you up in a speech. can he have a coffee table convo with dudes? dunno.

Booker is an unmitigated disaster and his 25 hour stunt has only earned him mockery from the demographics you think he might have appealed to. He's cooked. He's has no credibility and his voting record is absolute trash. He's ruined whatever chance he had.

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Booker is an unmitigated disaster and his 25 hour stunt has only earned him mockery from the demographics you think he might have appealed to. He's cooked. He's has no credibility and his voting record is absolute trash. He's ruined whatever chance he had.

disagree, we live in the trump era. he can rape women and appeal to this demo.  we have to trash the double standard. right now we have pete, bernie, if you take booker out, then who else? turn hogg loose I guess. who else?

Edited by troph
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Booker is an unmitigated disaster and his 25 hour stunt has only earned him mockery from the demographics you think he might have appealed to. He's cooked. He's has no credibility and his voting record is absolute trash. He's ruined whatever chance he had.

So who is the best house and senate youngish male rep democrats have? If not him, then they have literally no one. As pointed out above, in the current climate no one is really above reclamation except for Gaetz at this point because kiddie diddling type stuff. 

2 minutes ago, troph said:

disagree, we live in the trump era. he can rape women and appeal to this demo.  we have to trash the double standard. right now we have pete, bernie, if you take booker out, then who else? turn hogg loose I guess. who else?

I've been begging my wife to let me turn my hogg loose these last couple of days but the dreaded headache got me! 

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Posted
8 minutes ago, troph said:

disagree, we live in the trump era. he can rape women and appeal to this demo.  we have to trash the double standard. right now we have pete, bernie, if you take booker out, then who else? turn hogg loose I guess. who else?

Chris Murphy is solid

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, troph said:

disagree, we live in the trump era. he can rape women and appeal to this demo.  we have to trash the double standard. right now we have pete, bernie, if you take booker out, then who else? turn hogg loose I guess. who else?

 

8 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

So who is the best house and senate youngish male rep democrats have? If not him, then they have literally no one. As pointed out above, in the current climate no one is really above reclamation except for Gaetz at this point because kiddie diddling type stuff. 

I've been begging my wife to let me turn my hogg loose these last couple of days but the dreaded headache got me! 

I'm telling you that Booker is cut and print status quo, you're just mesmerized by the fact that he's young. He is Chuck Schumer, just not old and white. If this is your hero we are fucked. 

And considering the party will not allow younger talent that does not fall in line, we're just fucked either way.

There are plenty of young Democrat politicians around the country that could be stars given the chance, but they will mostly (if not entirely) continue to be marginalized by the D establishment.

Edited by Brian Fantana
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

Booker followed up his impressive (sort of) filibuster, in which he acknowledged that he'd been inadequate in opposing the rise of Trumpism, by returning to behaving just like he's always behaved. If anything, that revealed the hollowness that's at the core of so many of our current Democratic officials. They think the one-time stunt is all that's needed and can't even begin to understand how just doing the stunt one time and then going back to business as usual just makes them look worse.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I'm telling you that Booker is cut and print status quo, you're just mesmerized by the fact that he's young. He is Chuck Schumer, just not old and white. If this is your hero we are fucked. 

And considering the party will not allow younger talent that does not fall in line, we're just fucked either way.

There are plenty of young Democrat politicians around the country that could be stars given the chance, but they will mostly (if not entirely) continue to be marginalized by the D establishment.

Nobody is calling him a hero but he's literally the only option you have. So yeah, you're fucked.

As far as your second line, that is why democrats are being tabbed as elitist.

Let the Hogg do his thing is their only option of combating republican machine at the moment. Establish the new base, establish what the new democratic party will be. Without doing that then you're just running in molasses. 

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Posted

The first 40-something straight, white male who can talk like AOC while also being able to shoot the shit with guy podcasters will be the next Democratic political star.

Kind of alarming that there isn’t one that comes to mind.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

The first 40-something straight, white male who can talk like AOC while also being able to shoot the shit with guy podcasters will be the next Democratic political star.

Kind of alarming that there isn’t one that comes to mind.

I guess if you bring governors into it Shapiro, Newsom(probably not), or Beshear?

Posted
4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

From what I've seen, Ossoff is pretty good. Way better than Booker. 

 

 

Ossoff is good, which makes him joining the Dems crypto-friendly group such a fucking disappointment.

There are some issues it's fine to break from the party line on. But the crypto bill he just voted for isn't one of them. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Ossoff is good, which makes him joining the Dems crypto-friendly group such a fucking disappointment.

There are some issues it's fine to break from the party line on. But the crypto bill he just voted for isn't one of them. 

I think that's another issue dems need to reign in....

 

I haven't really done the detailed research but it feels like this happens more than republicans breaking away from party line. Yes we all know the consistent 2-4 republics that do often but as a whole they generally hold party line.

Posted
22 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

The first 40-something straight, white male who can talk like AOC while also being able to shoot the shit with guy podcasters will be the next Democratic political star.

Kind of alarming that there isn’t one that comes to mind.

fine, I'll do it

Posted
1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

fine, I'll do it

dog, I said I was first, don't give a fuck if I'm not a dude, I'll mix and mingle.

Posted
24 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I always see this oen guy come up on my TikTok and I think his name is Josh Gottheimer? 

Probably FL rep Jared Moskowotz. Kinda centrist but really good with the socials and always putting on a good show on the House floor.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, berlinerbaer said:

Probably FL rep Jared Moskowotz. Kinda centrist but really good with the socials and always putting on a good show on the House floor.

It’s probably a steep hill for someone with that last name to win statewide in Florida and start garnering more attention.  

I’m not sure why ya’ll are looking for house reps and, to a lesser extent, senators, to be standard bearers of party evolution (although Ruben Gallego would likely take issue with this claim).  

It seems more likely that they’ll need to come from the states. 

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

It’s probably a steep hill for someone with that last name to win statewide in Florida and start garnering more attention.  

I’m not sure why ya’ll are looking for house reps and, to a lesser extent, senators, to be standard bearers of party evolution (although Ruben Gallego would likely take issue with this claim).  

It seems more likely that they’ll need to come from the states. 

You need them at every level and they need to be youngish men. Republicans have them at every level. 

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Posted
1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

The first 40-something straight, white male who can talk like AOC while also being able to shoot the shit with guy podcasters will be the next Democratic political star.

Kind of alarming that there isn’t one that comes to mind.

Sometimes I wonder what could have been...

_98785667_c09391f4-3fdd-42bf-b100-7727e9

Posted
1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

The first 40-something straight, white male who can talk like AOC while also being able to shoot the shit with guy podcasters will be the next Democratic political star.

Kind of alarming that there isn’t one that comes to mind.

Yeah, but there are some skeletons in his closet. 

signal-2024-09-14-20-25-14-342.jpg.03b6c48d29a0bb21ca234217e301d00a(1).thumb.jpg.a76e8b6c74f2b82abe5225d8b501828e.jpg

  • Haha 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Sometimes I wonder

There was Jimmy and Tommy and me, Anthony Stabile, Frankie Carbone. And then there was Mo Black’s brother Fat Andy and his guys Frankie the Wop and Freddy No-Nose. And then there was Pete the Killer, who was Sally Balls brother. Then you had Nicky Eyes and Mikey Franzese and Jimmy Two-Times, who got that nickname because said everything twice, like “I’m gonna go get the papers, get the papers.”

For us to live any other way was nuts. Uh, to us, those goody-good people who worked shitty jobs for bum paychecks and took the subway to work every day, and worried about their bills, were dead. I mean they were suckers. They had no balls. If we wanted something we just took it. If anyone complained twice they got hit so bad, believe me, they never complained again.

  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
44 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Sometimes I wonder what could have been...

_98785667_c09391f4-3fdd-42bf-b100-7727e9

Was incredibly stupid at the time, but he'd be nearly 75 now and likely parroting the same shit Schumer is.

Posted
35 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

likely parroting the same shit Schumer is.

FWIW, Franken recently had Peter Beinart on his podcast, who is way better than "my job is to keep the Democrats pro-Israel" Chuck Schumer.

It has become crystal clear to me that the issues some of the liberals here deride as "purity tests" are more like "litmus tests" that can be used to weed out the Sinemas, Fettermans, Machins, Cuellars, and Gallegoses of the world. Nobody in this coveted "Gen Z male who spends 12 hours a day listening to podcasts" demographic supports Israel's genocide and they certainly don't want their crypto wallets being taxed to provide universal healthcare in Israel while their elected officials are poised to kick millions off Medicare.

Electing a black man president was enough of a provocation that inmates took over the asylum which paved the way for the Tea Party and Birther movements, totally redefining the internal power dynamics of the GOP. You'd think that re-electing someone whose incompetence in the position led to millions of preventable deaths would have provided the same provocation among the Dems to burn down their internal power dynamics, but no. They still have the ingrained "it's her turn" seniority mechanism, and they still have the same fealty to AIPAC and other big money donors, which all but ensures that nobody who's able to meet the moment will ever have a realistic chance of getting elected.

They have been outmaneuvered for our entire adult lives. Does anyone remember Lindsay Graham's flip-flop from Merrick Garland to Amy Coney Barrett? That's the kind of top-down incompetency I'm talking about. Only a fossil and a fool like Chuck Schumer wouldn't have seen such hypocrisy coming a mile away.

Israel/Palestine from a domestic politics standpoint is really just a variation on the "call a spade a spade" exercise that the Iraq War was for politicians back in the George W Bush administration. You had mass media manufacturing consent based on a lie and you had 9/11 supplying an enhanced permission structure for appealing to Islamophobia, which meant only a handful of politicians, even the ones who were nominally anti-war, who felt like they could publicly oppose the invasion. And it was Obama's track record of having opposed the invasion that set him apart from the others in the 2008 primary. History was on his side.

That's how the Gaza genocide will be looked at. While I'm glad to see more democrats abandoning the "unwavering support" mantra, make no mistake that the people within the party who have any kind of power are on the wrong side of this important issue. (We all remember the Georgia legislator being denied a chance to give a pre-screened speech at the DNC so that some executive from Uber could blather on about god knows what). Young voters in the 00s were overwhelmingly anti-war which is what propelled Obama to the success he saw. Young voters today are overwhelmingly pro-Palestine, and even the ones who remain neutral are still self-interested enough to say hell no to all the tax dollars being diverted toward a foreign government.

Beyond being the morally righteous position, the alternative (being like John Fetterman or Chuck Schumer) requires the politician to say things that are simply untrue. They're failing the "call a spade a spade" test, so they lose credibility among voters who consider themselves to be "independent thinkers" (of which there are many in Gen Alpha and Gen Z). That's bad politics, any way you slice it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Deej said:

Yeah, but there are some skeletons in his closet. 

signal-2024-09-14-20-25-14-342.jpg.03b6c48d29a0bb21ca234217e301d00a(1).thumb.jpg.a76e8b6c74f2b82abe5225d8b501828e.jpg

I don't think that there's anything preventing me from running for office outside of the disdain for public officials in almost every regard. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

 

I'm telling you that Booker is cut and print status quo, you're just mesmerized by the fact that he's young. He is Chuck Schumer, just not old and white. If this is your hero we are fucked. 

And considering the party will not allow younger talent that does not fall in line, we're just fucked either way.

There are plenty of young Democrat politicians around the country that could be stars given the chance, but they will mostly (if not entirely) continue to be marginalized by the D establishment.

Yep. Obama came out of nowhere.

Posted
5 hours ago, Helobious said:

The lefts years long war on men and masculinity has come home to roost in a bad way. Appealing to women by shoving a bunch of female candidates into the ballot was always a very, very stupid long term strategy. For the most part women will vote for who their husband wants them to vote for, daughters will vote for who their dad likes. It’s also pretty evident women trust male political figures more than they trust female ones. And obviously most men won’t vote for a woman on top of all of that. It’s no coincidence trump’s only political loss ever was to another man. It’s just the reality.

I disagree. The right female candidate can win. We haven't had the right one yet. Sadly, the first female and/or Hispanic president may be a Republican.  

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

Ironically the only answer is Pete and he's not even currently in government. Dems can't allow younger talent in because they would be broadly sympathetic to Palestine and I wish I was joking about that.

It's great how everything circles back around to us ejecting our god damn democracy largely at the behest of a foreign country.

Go back to your sandbox you stupid fucking child.

To be fair he’s not wrong about some of it. Dems need to quit running women for now. Two elections with two women and men didn’t vote for them as a whole. 

2 minutes ago, TreatyOak said:

I disagree. The right female candidate can win. We haven't had the right one yet. Sadly, the first female and/or Hispanic president may be a Republican.  

Hard disagree at least right now. Maybe in the future but a woman candidate has lost to the worst president ever twice. 
 

@Chuckie Finsteris correct. Youngish white straight male. 

Edited by BurntOrange&White
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Gourmand said:

Agreed, I'm a daily viewer of TMR and a monthly subscriber so I watched that entire interview when it happened and thought Ezra made some fair points generally but ultimately didn't provide the answers Sam Seder was asking of him and at times he really came off as defensive and elitist. Nothing like hearing a liberal Californian critique the housing crisis while use Houston and Austin as examples of red states doing it better. 

I just watched and thought it was a good summation of the intra-left debate. It’s funny how reactions seem to be so polarized - I thought Seder was unable to answer any of Klein’s questions. They fundamentally disagreed over the importance of consensus in the Democratic coalition. Klein’s basic argument is “if the process is everyone has to have their say and as a result nothing gets done then we should rethink the process” and Seder’s actual response was “No I mean unless it’s an emergency I’m cool with that”. I would say that Klein’s view has been the driving force of Blue state millenials over the past decade and is worth listening to despite the fundamental disagreements among the left. 

  • Hook 'Em 2


×
×
  • Create New...