Itâs all about money and bribing politicians. Our system of government is corrupt.
The DNC is still recovering from a longterm fracture driven by years of neglect, information exposed by the Russian hacks, and distrust between the Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton wings of the party. That could be a big problem heading forward.
Of course, it doesnât have to be a big problem, I mean itâs just our democracy at stake.
For those with strong stomachs, check out the Collected Wisdumberer of Roy Moore:
Weâll see. Put some real money into the CA-21 race this cycle.
OT-Got any opinions about Trumpâs deliberations regarding the Fed chair? I think if John Taylor got in the markets would freakâheâd potentially ratchet the Fed Rate targets way up.
Unfortunately, all this means is Dems have more money; itâs what they do with it that matters. They usually have no idea how to win an election.
Money does not tell the whole story. Hillary Clinton had twice the money but was crushed by Donald Trump, losing 30 states and not winning even one of the major swing states (PA, OH, or FL).
It all about strategy and getting out the vote. So far, it seems the only strategy that the Democrats have is to say that they arenât Trump. This is not a winning strategy. They need to offer the voters something positive to vote for.
Anybody know what that is?
Hint: âA Better Dealâ isnât it.
In related news, Democrats now have a 51/42 favorable view of George W. Bush.
This is another indication of the political incompetence of Democrats under President Obama. Instead of painting every single Republican with the disaster of the George W. Bush presidency, they simply ignored it.
Why?
Because they were afraid of Republicans complaining about them for blaming Bush for the war in Iraq and the Great Recession. Furthermore, the decision by Obama and Holder not to prosecute the war crimes and financial crimes of the Bush era essentially cleaned the record in the publicâs eye.
I wish the Democrats knew how to win.
Both of which cost money, a factor that you continue to seem to ignore.
More argle bargle. The reality is, there hasnât been a single election this year where a Democrat has run on just saying they arenât Trump. Indeed, we have had several, including Ossoffâs campaign, where they have gone out of their way NOT to mention Trump. And IMO, based on the experiences I have had, that was a big mistake. Because the number one thing independents and republicans that were crossing over wanted to talk about wasâŚgetting rid of Trump. I agree, that presenting a platform of positive reason to vote for a candidate is necessary, but ignoring the elephant in the room that is Trump is foolish.
Which just goes to show how superficial your analysis is. Tell me which Democratic candidate, at either the Federal level or the state level, that has included that phrase in their messaging. Itâs going to take you a long while to research that becauseâŚnobody has.
But thatâs only part of the problem with your analysis. You continue to espouse that you want Democrats to run on âpositiveâ policy based issuesâŚand then you start whining about wanting a bumper sticker.
More superficial complaints. The reality is we live in a hyper partisan environment. Elections are going to continue to require a lot of hard work, not some magical plan that guarantees a win. This is true more so than at anytime in your life.
Republican senators warn that they better get tax reform done to please their donors
Occasionally, despite their best efforts, the truth leaks out.
The only crushing that matters is crushing the GOP in the vote.
"A Better Deal" is the DNCâs marketing message. I didnât make it up. And then the DNC wonders why they are way behind the RNC in fund-raising.
Speaking of âargle bargle,â you can criticize me all you want, but you did not answer my question: What positive offer are the Democrats making to voters?
Sure being anti-Trump (and anti-GWB!) is essential. But it isnât enough to build and sustain a majority.
Without a plan and a strategy, hard work and money wonât win. Just look at the last 8 years.
Donât we get (1st estimate) 3rd qtr GDP numbers tomorrow?
If Democrats develop a clear, simple, consistent message - and stick with it - they canât lose. Unfortunately, messaging is the area where Democrats have the most trouble. Anybody remember the âbetter dealâ?
The Taylor Rule or Rules is excellent for central banks on automatic pilot or central banks that are not otherwise independent (e.g. Fiji), but the reason you hire a bunch of economists is to do better than that. Taylor, despite his credentials, would be a vote of non-confidence in the Fed. My preference would be to keep Yellen in place, but there has to be a more realistic inflation targeting. Carola Binder said this better regarding the notion that âvoters hate inflationâ:
One issue that came up frequently at the Rethinking Macroeconomic Policy IV conference was the notion that inflationary bias, and the implications for central banking that come with it, might be a thing of the past. There is certainly something to that story in the recent low inflation environment. But I can still hardly imagine circumstances in which expansionary policy in a downturn would be the unpopular choice among voters themselves. It may be unpopular among members of Congress for other reasons-- because it is unpopular among select powerful constituents, for example-- but that is another issue. And the members of Congress who are most in favor of imposing a monetary policy rule for the Fed are also, I suspect, the most inflation averse, so I find it hard to see how the potentially inflationary nature of rules is what would (a) make them politically unpopular and (b) lead Congress to thus restrict the Fedâs independence.
Weâll know more about Taylorâs fate soon, after we hear from Draghi about the beginning of QT.
update:
Boom! There you have it.
UmmâŚDid you not even bother to read the freaking article?? Republicans are WAAAYY down in fundraising this cycle, at all levels. We get that you hate all things Democratic, but pouring forth your bile in wishing bad things on them, doesnât make it true.
Ok, try really hard to keep up. We are not running national elections this year, or next. Its a midterm, where basically every race will turn on how well candidates are able to reach the voters in their specific districts/states. So the messaging will vary for each.
Want some examples?
https://twitter.com/IronStache Read through his twitter feed some time. Or review his web
Flippable: Georgiaâs Sixth Senate District. We have a great candidate, @JenAuerJordan. Two weeks until Election Day! https://t.co/jV81EtJS6b pic.twitter.com/nud8UTehgk
â Jon Ossoff (@ossoff) October 25, 2017
Or listen to this piece for Jen Jordan. Never mentions Trump once, but it does list a number of very positive reason to vote for Jordan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPHaW2775Bg This sounds pretty freaking positive to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqa21-4FsBM Or perhaps one a bit more confrontational?
Every damn one of these ads is making a positive offer to voters.
The last 8 years when we held the WH? FFS, you really arenât even trying at this.
It all about strategy and getting out the vote.
The âmessageâ should be the strategy. And the right message will generate more votes. We know the Republican Party message. So whatâs the Democratic Party message to be, a Populist message or a blended, all things to all people focus group driven message?
The system isnât corrupt, the people are.