Democrats have only themselves to blame if they lose to "defund the police"

[wellst0nev0ter]

Last edited Sat Jun 5, 2021, 11:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Democrats who claim they have lost to "defund the police" have only themselves to blame for their loss.

The blame doesn't go to the Black Lives Matter, antifa, or the dirtbag left: It's on them.

This fact was proven in the special election House race in New Mexico, where Melanie Stansbury won by 25 points, the highest margin of victory in the last three election cycles. This is despite the opponent running hard on the spike in crime and attempting to tag Stansbury as a defunder of police.

Stansbury did NOT ignore the smear campaign or try to overcompensate. She merely shot ads saying her opponent was full of shit, AND she stuck to her guns on the need to reform the police forces and for racial justice.

From the article:

This template is nuanced. It doesn’t constitute merely denouncing the excesses of “defund,” as some have called for. Instead, it combines a forthright declaration of the facts about what the candidate actually supports on policing with a refusal to retreat on discussing systemic racism.

Contrast that to Max Rose, the Staten Island Democrat who was so scared of the "defund the police" smear that he called for more police funding, called Bill de Blasio the worst mayor in New York City's history, and called AOC a "limousine liberal."

Stop trying to mimic the goops. Those you think you're trying to win over will only vote for the real goop.

[StarfishSaver]

1. EXCELLENT OP

Thanks for saying this.

I am SO tired of people blaming "wokeness" for Democratic losses (talking to you and your defenders, James Carville) - which is just an excuse to continue ignoring issues that minorities and other marginalized people care about. If these issues are a problem for Democrats, it's because they buy into and overreact to GOP lies and smears and then overcompensate for them by running away and/or attacking their own.

[wellst0nev0ter]

2. Indeed, crime will likely be the topic du jour

In this year's races. All Democrats have to do is connect the dots: Trumpism --> pandemic --> economic collapse --> crime.

It's only difficult to strike back if you're personally invested in making it difficult.

[uponit7771]

15. +1, RIGHT !! They allow GQP to define the issue first and flood an issue zone with their message

... vs getting out with something that works of our own.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

21. All the reasons Democrats say they did poorly down ballot

This article explains why Democrats did poorly in the 2020 elections.

Link to tweet

3. Moderate Democrats got slammed by “defund the police” and “socialist” and “Medicare-for-all” ads. These were the predominant ads that Republicans ran in competitive House and Senate races. Some of it was fearmongering and inaccurate. In retrospect, a number of Democrats, especially moderate ones, don’t think the party took those attacks seriously enough.

Here’s what Rep. Harley Rouda (D-Calif.), who lost, told The Washington Post: “Many [voters], I believe, bought into the message that Democrats are marching in that direction [of socialism], and that was a false narrative. I would tell you, the Democratic Party, in my opinion, is more moderate than it has ever been. We did not combat that message as effectively as we should have.”

“My opponent only talked about three words: Defund the police,” Democrat Cameron Webb said on a private call this week, Politico reported. He lost what Democrats hoped was a winnable race in Virginia.

“I’m not sure that as a party we took that attack head on, and provided our counter narrative,” Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.) told Politico of “socialist” attacks resonating with Hispanic voters in Florida, costing Democrats two House seats. “It’s not enough to say what you’re not, you have to define what you are. And we have to define it in a way that doesn’t scare the American people.”

“[T]he [liberal] rhetoric and the policies and all that stuff — it has gone way too far,” Rep. Conor Lamb (D-Pa.) told the New York Times. “It needs to be dialed back. It needs to be rooted in common sense, in reality, and yes, politics. Because we need districts like mine to stay in the majority and get something done for the people that we care about the most.”

[wellst0nev0ter]

34. This is an outdated analysis

The DCCC released an autopsy last month that pinned 70% of the blame for downballot losses on unanticipated trumpanzee turnout.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democrats-2020-autopsy-midterms/2021/05/18/6114af82-b80d-11eb-a5fe-bb49dc89a248_story.html

Democrats failed to turn out their low-turnout voters because they keep punching left.

[ProfessorGAC]

58. There Was Low Turnout?

I can't read the link. Paywall.
But, low turnout seems an odd conclusion in an election where 160 million showed up.

[wellst0nev0ter]

62. Low-turnout voter person who doesn't usually vote

Last year was an exception since there was high turnout.

Now reread my post with this context in mind

[dansolo]

90. Left-leaning voters who won't constantly vote are a big part of the problem

I'd think that anyone who supported progressive causes would recognize the damage that Republicans do, and would vote against them at every opportunity. But they don't. They sit back and whine if their favored policies aren't promoted, and allow Republicans to take over again and again. That is what happened with Gore and Clinton. Even strong progressives like Russ Feingold lost to a shithead like Ron Johnson because progressives sat out because Clinton didn't inspire them enough.

[betsuni]

91. +1

[Bettie]

95. Around here, it was definitely more MAGAT turnout than anything else

honestly, at least here, I think the bigger issue was that we didn't canvass due to the pandemic and they did, because they don't care about people dying.

Just our little town usually has about 60% turnout give or take a few points. This time, it was over 80%. MAGATs just came out of the woodwork.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

153. Can Democrats avoid the pitfalls of 2020? A new analysis offers striking answers.

Here is a better and more thoughtful analysis that focuses on the content onf the ads. The GOP was more effective in using negative ads and the Democratic candidates focused on the wrong issues https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/27/can-democrats-avoid-pitfalls-2020-new-analysis-offers-striking-answers/

The analysis also finds that Republicans spent a lot more money on casting Democrats as extremists than Democrats did in making the case against Republican extremism.

Democrats, of course, lost a net dozen House seats, underperforming victorious Joe Biden all over the place. The findings suggest Democrats need a rethink of their approach to those conundrums, the analysts conclude.

This is also more pressing now that Republicans are radicalizing in a way that poses a threat to future democratic stability, raising questions about how Democrats can highlight this to the public.

The study by Way to Win — a group distinguished by its big expenditures on turning out the Democratic base — attempts a comprehensive look at all the TV ads that ran in House races in the 2020 cycle. Some findings:

Democrats spent three times more than Republicans on ads that touted bipartisan outreach. Democrats spent $21.8 million on ads about “bipartisanship” or “working across the aisle,” while Republicans spent $6.2 million on them.
Democrats spent six times as much on positive ads than Republicans did. Democrats spent $18.6 million on positive ads that also happened to mention Republicans (say, by touting the ability to work with them), while Republicans spent $2.9 million on positive ads mentioning Democrats.
Republicans spent more than 10 times more on ads with the words “extremist” and “radical” than Democrats did. Republicans spent $51 million on such ads, while Democrats spent $3.4 million.
Overall, Republicans spent more than $87 million on ads with one or more of the following words in it: “AOC,” “Ocasio,” “Pelosi,” “socialism,” “socialist,” “defund,” “radical,” “extremist,” “extreme.”
GOP ads were more likely to use words with “emotional punch,” such as “taxes,” “radical” and “jobs,” while Democratic ads featured words like “insurance,” “voted” and “work.”

Jenifer Fernandez Ancona, the vice president of Way to Win, said that, in sum, Democrats in 2020 sent mixed messages: They touted their willingness to work with Republicans, even as Republicans called them socialists and extremists.

Negative ads such defund the police and socialism work and the GOP focused on these ads instead of more positive ads. Defund the police was a very effective line of attack according to the other polling on this thread

[uponit7771]

179. ***BOOM*** Thx for this !!!

[Kid Berwyn]

3. Albatross of Fox, Newsmax and OANN.

Tied around the necks of those who stand for social and economic justice, including a small fraction of Democratic politicians.

[ChrisF1961]

4. Rose also ran ads saying that he stands with Trump

which just alienated Democrats when he would never get Trump supporters to vote for him because he voted for impeachment.

[uponit7771]

16. Hmmm, so dems have their message for 2022 election set to keep house seats; tie the GQP candidate

... to Putin's Whore and 1/6 terrorist attack or have them do such

[ChrisF1961]

43. Works for me

[tenderfoot]

5. Who came up with the phrase?

Democrats or the media?

[uponit7771]

17. It was some protesters. Democratic party didn't run on it and only a few supported the phrase as is

... without nuance in 2020 but the GQP message in 2020 was ever dem candidate supported dtp and I don't believe dems responded correctly to the labeling.

There are a number of people we respect who say dtp lost dems down ballot races and I disagree with that sentiment seeing this glaring example of where the dem candidate beat Biden's numbers in that district and didn't run away from reforming the police.

[tenderfoot]

23. The other one that kills me is "woke". The only people using that term are right wingers/GOP

eom

[StarfishSaver]

25. "Woke" is like "the Right Stuff"

People with "the Right Stuff" never mentioned it.

People who are "woke" never refer to themselves that way.

[Catherine Vincent]

142. I agree

[jml510]

155. As far as I'm concerned,

the word "woke" is meaningless. RWNJs overused and ruined it.

[uponit7771]

158. Not for black people, we'll keep using the term despite racist attempts at appropriation.

[uponit7771]

157. Black people have been using the term in songs etc since the 1940s and we still use it today ...

... this very second despite the attempt by mostly white supremacist to appropriate the term for negative connotation, fuck them.

[maxsolomon]

208. Tenderfoot, there's a Hulu show called "Woke". Starting season 2.

That's just the start of it. It's common parlance in Af Am communities. I think I heard it, what, 3 decades ago?

The GOP's turned it into a slur to stop debate about Injustice in America.

Just like smearing "Defund" aims to stop debate on OVER-funding of Police Departments, and the resulting UNDER-funding of other municipal services, and the effect that has had on Black Americans.

If "Defunders" meant "UNFUND" or "ABOLISH", they'd have said that - and some did.

[BannonsLiver]

76. People who are bad at politics or are so purity crazed they care fuck all about winning elections

[Blue_true]

141. Exactly.

They are the type that insist that democratic candidates “must excite them” while they totally miss the republican that has burned down one house and is running toward the next one with gasoline and a torch. If stopping tyranny doesn’t “excite” a person, I have no idea of what will, short of a live 10,000 volt rod up their ass.

[Elessar Zappa]

6. Agree.

Small correction though, Stansbury won in NM not AZ.

[wellst0nev0ter]

11. Fixed n/t

[David__77]

7. Seems smart to me.

I can understand Democrat not using the slogan “defund the police.” I would also hope that they absolutely do dismantle the ideological, cultural and social infrastructure of the police and remold it to the extent possible.

Going on the defensive will not work. I get that Democrats are not the same thing as BLM- there’s no need for Democrats to attack BLM.

[comradebillyboy]

8. Melanie Stansbury won in New Mexico not in Arizona.

She ran a smart, competent and effective campaign. She defended her position well.

But she never called for defunding the police. "Defund the police" is as stupid a slogan as I have ever seen in politics. Her ads illustrated her successful efforts for funding the police. I saw her ads every day since I live in her congressional district.

[bearsfootball516]

9. I was gonna say, that article is misleading.

Sure, she never ran from her calls to reform police, but she made it clear in her ads that she had done substantial work to bring in funding for the police. She tied herself to them in a positive way.

[uponit7771]

14. NO .. the point many people we respect said was dtp lost us races; it didn't bad campaigning did

... as we see person who supported reforming the police and ran on it hard picks up a voting percentage in a dem area.

dtp didn't lose us down ballot races allowing the GQP to define our candidates early and often without response to dtp did.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

24. The Law and Order Election

Here is an exit poll that showed that we lost a number of seats due to the moronic slogan "defend the police"
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2020/11/09/defund_the_police_backfired_on_democrats_528914.html

Instead of a blue wave for the Democrats, there was a red Republican wave in the 2020 elections. Many analysts are explaining this unexpected outcome in ways that confirm their prior assumptions. Anti-woke centrist liberals: The Democratic Party was too woke. Bernie Sanders-type social democrats: The Democrats blew it by not running on Medicare for All. Professional conservative pundits: Trump and Trumpism are more popular with Americans than we thought.

I beg to differ. I think this was a law and order election.

According to early exit polls, here were the reasons that voters voted for Trump and presumably other Republicans: The economy (82%), crime and safety (71%), health care policy (36%), the coronavirus pandemic (14%) and racial inequality (8%).....

Maybe the slogan “defund the police” backfired.

Democrats might reply: But Biden and Harris rejected the phrase “defund the police.” Indeed, they did. And Donald Trump has repeatedly denounced and rejected white supremacy and white nationalism. Nevertheless, the mainstream media and Democratic propagandists (but I repeat myself again) have told us for four years that by denouncing white supremacy in public, Trump is secretly approving of white supremacy, dog-whistle-style.

Turnabout is fair play. Having tried to persuade voters that all Republicans are closet Nazis whose public statements cannot be taken at face value, Democratic spinmeisters in the media cannot be surprised if it turns out that some swing voters have concluded that apparently mainstream Democrats are closet antifa sympathizers. Possibly many swing voters thought that actions—or, in the case of the summer riots, inaction—spoke louder than words about the Democratic Party’s attitude to law enforcement, particularly when many Democratic urban governments from Minneapolis to Austin proceeded relentlessly to cut police budgets in the name of racial justice, even as the violence was going on.

When you put together two facts—the fact that the Republican Party as a whole picked up voters, and the fact that 71% of voters for the Republican presidential candidate said they were motivated by “crime and safety”—it all adds up. The voter backlash following the urban riots of 1967 helped to produce the Nixon victory of 1968. And the voter backlash following the urban riots of 2020 helped to produce the Republican electoral wave in November 2020.

[Elessar Zappa]

26. How are Democrats responsible for urban riots?

[cinematicdiversions]

69. Well if the city is run by a political party and it has unrest the

blame will naturally fall to that political party.

[Bettie]

96. Exit polling this cycle

would have been really skewed due to the pandemic.

[Humanist_Activist]

104. Where's the analysis that those people would have otherwise voted for Biden?

That's the problem, how many of those 71% would have ever voted Democratic? Not to mention that there is a severe mischaracterization, from the right and moderates, of what was happening over the summer. Especially calling it a series of riots instigated by protestors, rather than calling them police riots, as a large percentage of them were. Hell, just last night, the NYPD attacked a bunch of people hanging out in Washington Square park at 10pm on a Saturday night, they came in force. It wasn't a protest, it was just people hanging out because it was a nice night out. Of course, I'm sure the NYPD will call that a riot.

[Bettie]

111. There isn't any

people just like to use this to flog those who are farther to the left than they are as insufficiently "moderate" to exist.

[uponit7771]

13. Her GQP opponent said she supported DTP as they did in 2020!! It's not the point ...

... that dems didn't run on dtp the GQP falsely said in 2020 dem candidates did run on the slogan and there are a multitude of people I respect out of dems who said dtp slogan lost dems down ballot races.

It didn't,

As you pointed out a candidate that was on their game dtp didn't matter cause they defined their GQP opponent first.

Blaming a slogan on down ballot losses is whistling past the graveyard, dems need a better framing strategy and message push to flood an issue zone.

[Cha]

44. TY for the Reality Check, omradebillyboy..

I agree about the "stupid slogan.. defund the police".

[betsuni]

10. Loved what Richie Torres said about defund the police, quoted Orwell that some ideas are so stupid

Last edited Sat Jun 5, 2021, 11:55 AM - Edit history (1)

only intellectuals can believe them. Stupid slogan. "Defunding police" is still on the official campaign website of one Democrat as part of their platform.

[comradebillyboy]

18. "some ideas are so stupid only intellectuals can believe them"

Great quote and all too true.

[uponit7771]

12. **** THANK YOU !!! **** Blaming a slogan that wasn't part of the party platform is whistling past

... the graveyard.

The people who are still claiming dtp lost us down ballots still don't point to ... EXIT POLLING DATA ... that say people voted against dem candidates because of DTP as a gating reason.

Like mentioned in the OP a lot of dem candidates didn't respond to dtp adds or even try to refit GQP framing of the issue; that's bad campaigning.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

19. Do you tire of being wrong?

This idiotic meme killed a ton of good candidates. We lost a ton of races that we should have won.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[wellst0nev0ter]

33. James Carville hasn't been relevant for years

He can keep the million dollars he got from his mansion he sold and live in the other mansion with his goop wife.

And Obama once said a marriage is between a man and a woman, and that gay marriage is not a civil right.

In other words, he was wrong to punch left then, and he is wrong to punch left now.

[mcar]

47. So having a large house or two is a bad thing?

[wellst0nev0ter]

51. Not at all

He paid $2 million for the mansion, sold it for over $3 million, got a neat $1 million profit off the investment.

Only wish us ordinary folks had a million dollars to throw around. Maybe I should become a professional liberal pundit.

[mcar]

73. He's been a bit more than a "professional liberal pundit"

[StarfishSaver]

78. What else has he done in the past 20 years?

Aside from consulting on Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign, he seems to have made his living almost exclusively from punditry and selling books. He hasn't been a relevant political player in decades.

[betsuni]

75. "If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too."

[wellst0nev0ter]

84. "When your opponents are drowning, throw them an anvil"

"Also marry one of them and become a well-paid beltway power couple"

Okay, where's my million?

[betsuni]

203. If you write a best-selling book you can be a millionaire, too.

Buy houses. Accuse Democrats of being corrupt, "ideologically bankrupt" and the same as Republicans!

[wellst0nev0ter]

205. But I just wrote a best selling book

"Throw your opponents and anvil. Also marry them."

Where's my money?

[stopdiggin]

38. answer is no. they can't (won't) let it go.

By now, virtually everybody has a solid grasp of the difference between 'defund the police' and 'reform the police.' And these clowns keep on insisting that "defund" is still a winning message ...

(and if you dig down a little bit -- you'll find that a lot of the same crowd will flatly state that 'reform' is not possible. so .... )

[betsuni]

72. +1

[Cha]

45. Rts.. K&R TY LMPV!! Hold Police Accountable..

Don't Fucking "Defund" them. That IS Stupid.

We want to WIN in 20222!

[uponit7771]

117. Then what about Wornock, Ossoff and Stansbury?! The first two won in relative close races too ...

... but they responded well to the DTP false attribution and didn't let it go unanswered.

Democrats who didn't respond well to DTP attribution got mud stomped the ones who did won

That's like blaming most US deaths on COVID vs Putin's Whore bad response to it; IINM we still lead the world in deaths !!

[Owl]

94. Exactly!

[uponit7771]

115. Do you!?

Allowing an opponent to define you with a slogan you didn't ascribe to is bad campaigning ... PERIOD


Did Wornock, Ossoff and Stanbury lose when their opponents tried to ascribe dtp to them?

NO, so your information is misleading at best.

There's way too much evidence now to show we didn't respond appropriately to a slogan the party didn't ascribe to.

DTP wasn't the issue that lost dems down ballots it was poor messaging response.

That's like the KC Chiefs blaming NE D Ends for losing the super bowl vs their bad blocking on offense

[LetMyPeopleVote]

20. Why 'Defund The Police' Attacks Were So Potent Against Democrats

I personally support reforms to the police. I worked hard and we got a good Democrat elected as District Attorney in my county two years ago and this cycle we got a good man elected as sheriff of my county. Our new DA has made a tremendous amount of difference in my county and I believe that the new Sheriff will also help. However, it is clear that we lost races that we should not have lost Defund the police was used very effectively by the GOP in down ballot races. A good number of races that Democrats should have won were lost due to this issue.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

The GOP ran a ton of ads using this issue

Sure enough, Republicans saw an opportunity. Painting Democrats as supporters of “defunding” the police became the focus of campaign literature, TV and digital ads, and live televised debates. That forced Democratic candidates to divert resources that might otherwise be used discussing COVID-19 relief, health care or education to be used disavowing themselves from the slogan and otherwise defending themselves.

Out of 31 broadcast TV ads that Trump and other allied campaign groups used to attack Biden and other Democrats for being soft on law and order, 11 spots ― that aired a total of 77,647 times ― explicitly mentioned “defund the police,” according to an analysis Kantar Media/CMAG conducted for HuffPost. And out of 216 Republican broadcast TV ads in congressional races blasting Democrats, 157 spots that aired 103,000 times used the phrase.

I was disappointed to seen Susan Collins re-elected. It seems that Collins was able to use the "defund the police" issue very effectively

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and the GOP’s Senate campaign arm hit her Democratic opponent, Sara Gideon, in a TV ad for links to a “defund the police” billionaire. The basis for the ad was Gideon’s attendance at a fundraiser hosted by an environmental coalition that includes NextGen America. NextGen, funded by liberal billionaire Tom Steyer, supports defunding the police

[Elessar Zappa]

22. It's up to Democrats to distance themselves from the slogan.

We have no right to tell protesters what slogans they can use.

[StarfishSaver]

27. Thank you

[LetMyPeopleVote]

28. That is hard to do when we have the Squad and others pushing this slogan

I saw this first hand. We needed 9 seats to flip in the Texas state house to gain control. The GOP ran a ton of ads using socialism and defund the police in local races and these ads worked.

[uponit7771]

124. Then dem candidates need to do better at defining themselves !! Few times has it EVER worked at ...

... an opponent coming ...BEHIND ... a well defined candidate and said candidate losing because of the opponent redefined them.

The swiftboat attacks didn't sink Kerry's campaign it was his no response to them.

Covid 19 didn't kill 500,000 Americans it was Trumps non response to them.

We need to stop whistling past the grave yard on our messaging, right now its not up to par seeing we counter punch as a strategy VS hitting first, hard and often

When it is up to par Wornock, Ossoff and Stansbury win ... that's a fact not in dispute

[LetMyPeopleVote]

132. Once again you make it very clear that you have never worked on a campaign in the real world

I am amused in that you clearly have never worked on a campaign in the real world. A ton of good democratic candidates lost races that should have won in 2020 due to this moronic slogan. The GOP was happy to take quotes or video of members of the squad and other prominent progressive types and use these statements in these ads. That is what is done in the politics. Here are some of the ads used in 2020

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

You accusations that the good democrats who lost in 2020 deserved to lose and that these democrats were bad democrats is really sad and disgusting. Again, I am friends with two state house candidates who lost and the GOP ran ads accusing all Democrats of being socialists and supporting defund the police.

There is great exit polling that shows that these ads were effective https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15391238 and https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15391364

The GOP will be using the same stunt again in 2022 unless we can shut the squad up and stop defending this ignorant slogan.

[uponit7771]

133. Wornock and Ossoff's reality disagrees with your assessment and ad homs via condescension is an

Last edited Sun Jun 6, 2021, 06:53 PM - Edit history (1)

... indicator of a weak argument.

I don't have to be president to know Trump is a horrible one and don't have to work on a campaign to understand a good campaign doesn't allow itself to be defined by its opponent.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

137. New Post-Election Poll Reveals How Democrats' Leftward Movement Cost the Party in the 2020 Election

Again, I remain amused by your lack of experience in working on campaigns in the real world. Thank you for the laughs

It took less than a half of a minute to find another poll that proves your uniformed claims are wrong. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2020/11/17/new-post-election-poll-reveals-how-democrats-leftward-movement-cost-the-party-in-the-2020-election/?sh=403ab6b4675f

An in-depth post-election poll, which was conducted among 1,000 national respondents on November 8th - 9th, 2020 by my firm, Schoen Cooperman Research (SCR), suggests that the Democratic Party is seen as too left-wing and out-of-touch, while the Republican party is seen as striking a more appropriate balance, and as ideologically closer to the electorate.

Ultimately, the election results taken together with our survey findings show that it was the Democratic party’s movement to the left that represents a clear drag on their level of support and a potential problem going forward for the party both in governing and in the 2022 midterm elections. Accordingly, a majority (62%) of SCR’s survey respondents take Joe Biden’s likely victory as a mandate for centrist policies, compromise, and coming together with Republicans; as opposed to a mandate for Biden to pursue progressive policies (28%)......

Not only did Biden’s narrower-than-expected victory not coincide with the blue-wave that Democrats anticipated in down-ballot races, but our findings also suggest that Donald Trump would have been reelected, most likely easily, if not for the coronavirus pandemic and the economic downturn that followed. Trump actually overperformed in most battlegrounds and ran close margins in lean-Democrat states like Wisconsin and Michigan, where Biden held wide polling leads in months prior.

SCR’s survey findings also suggest that most voters did not see a clear Democratic agenda; moreover, Democratic candidates were hurt by their party’s associations with far-left attitudes and movements—in particular, the movement to defund the police.

By a 12-point margin, 35% to 23%, respondents said that the movements across the country to defund the police made them less likely to vote for Democrats. Likewise, by a 12-point margin, 32% to 20%, respondents also said that these movements made them more likely to vote for Republicans.

Again, the polling shows that the GOP use of attack ads featuring Defund the Police were very effective. Your attacks on good Democrats who lost due to these ads are truly sad and disgusting. The polls prove that you are wrong and you need to apologize to the good members of the Democratic Party who lost elections that they should had won but for these attacks

[uponit7771]

143. Irrelevant seeing it doesn't excuse our lack of response to GQP false defining of dem positions ...

... and this point here; "most voters did not see a clear Democratic agenda;..." establishes even more that dems didn't define themselves first and that allowed DTP to anchor.

The candidates that ... DID ... define themselves on policing like Warnock and Ossoff won.

That's a fact not in dispute.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

149. Do you tire of being wrong?

Again, your false claims that any real Democrat who lost their race due to the moronic "defund the police" slogan are really bad democrats and deserved to lose. Such a claim is both ignorant and offensive. I had two friends who ran in state house races in my county who lost after the GOP ran another of ads using socialism and defund the police. These ads quoted or featured members of the squad (who are not popular outside their deep blue districts) and were effective. Both of my friends are actual members of the Democratic party and ran campaigns that should have won but the negative ads used.

These ads were effective. For example these attacks were used in the Maine Senate race which Susan Collins won

Link to tweet

This line of attack was used in South Carolina against Jaime Harrison

Link to tweet

President Obama is clear that this line of attack cost Democrats down ballot races

Link to tweet

Former President Barack Obama drew criticism from progressive Democrats this week for suggesting that “snappy” slogans like “defund the police” are alienating voters and making it harder from a political standpoint to enact “changes you want done.”

In an interview with Peter Hamby, who hosts the Snapchat political show “Good Luck America,” Obama said “you [lose] a big audience the minute” a slogan like “defund the police” is used, making “it a lot less likely that you’re actually going to get the changes you want done.”

“Defund the police” refers to the reallocation or redirection of government funding from police departments to social services for minority communities. As Rashawn Ray of the Brookings Institution noted, defunding does not mean the abolishment of police departments but instead “highlights fiscal responsibility” and “advocates for a market-driven approach to taxpayer money.”....

Obama ― echoing other centrist Democrats who’ve similarly taken issue with “defund the police” and what they’ve decried as radical messaging ― told Hamby that Democrats could benefit from adopting softer rhetoric when talking about police reform.

“If you instead say, ‘Hey, you know what? Let’s reform the police department so that everybody’s being treated fairly. And not just in policing, but in sentencing, how can we divert young people from getting into crime?’” he said.

Joe Biden is clear on this also That is how the real worls works Here is a good explanation https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/huge-catastrophe-democrats-grapple-congressional-state-election-losses-n1248529

The Biden campaign's goal was to make 2020 a referendum on Trump's chaotic term, and it succeeded, but the results were far worse down the ballot.

In leaked recording, Biden says GOP used 'defund the police' to 'beat the living hell' out of Democrats
Republicans barraged swing districts with ads linking moderates to the most far-left voices in the party, which has led to bitter recriminations between the factions.

"When you're Joe Biden and you have 47 years in public life and you have a billion dollars behind you, you can build your own brand," said Matt Bennett, executive vice president of the centrist think tank Third Way. "But when you're down-ballot, it's hard to outrun that brand in red and purple districts."

I saw this in two down ballot races in my county where the GOP ran a ton of defund the police and soclialsim ads

I have forwarded you polling that showed that the defund the police was toxic and the fact that you are unable to understand such polling is another source of amusement to me. The fact that you do not understand the polling does not mean that it does exist. Clearly the GOP understood this polling and used such polling to win some races

Again, I trust the polling posted and I trust Presidents Obama and Biden on this issue. Your claims are false and offensive

[betsuni]

151. The "Democrats can't just be the not-Trump party" or the "We're not as bad as Republicans party,"

they "have to stand for something" thing. That always happens when Democrats use negative ads. When they use positive messages like "Yes, we can" or "Stronger Together" it's brushed off as meaningless platitudes.

Republican voters know what Democrats stand for. Universal health care, government help for those in need, education, environmentalism, higher taxes on the wealthy, regulating businesses, unions, higher minimum wage, equality, civil rights. Why are there so many other people who claim not to know what Democrats stand for? Aren't they paying attention or what?

[uponit7771]

156. So Warnock and Ossoff lost? thx in advance

[LetMyPeopleVote]

201. Again it is very clear that you have never ever worked on a campaign in the real world

Your posts are always wrong and sad due to the fact that you have never worked on a campaign in the real world. The DNC and other brought in a ton of canvassers into Georgia for that election. A PAC that I contribute to paid to send over a dozen college kids to work the Georgia campaign and to have boots on the ground

In the real world, most down ballot races cannot marshal these types of resources.

I would urge you to consider getting out into the real world and working on some campaigns.

[uponit7771]

202. Very clear you're wrong the DCCC post mortem explains DTP was used to get GQP vote out

... and doesn't explain it to be a factor for swing a dem votes.

Your analysis you stuck to for months was wrong on its face and outdated.

Good try though but people were telling you for months DTP didn't hurt dem or swing turn out

[LetMyPeopleVote]

204. Can Democrats avoid the pitfalls of 2020? A new analysis offers striking answers.

Did you really read that analysis? Here is a better and more thoughtful analysis that focuses on the content of the ads used in 2020. The GOP was more effective in using negative ads and the Democratic candidates focused on the wrong issues https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/27/can-democrats-avoid-pitfalls-2020-new-analysis-offers-striking-answers/

The analysis also finds that Republicans spent a lot more money on casting Democrats as extremists than Democrats did in making the case against Republican extremism.

Democrats, of course, lost a net dozen House seats, underperforming victorious Joe Biden all over the place. The findings suggest Democrats need a rethink of their approach to those conundrums, the analysts conclude.

This is also more pressing now that Republicans are radicalizing in a way that poses a threat to future democratic stability, raising questions about how Democrats can highlight this to the public.

The study by Way to Win — a group distinguished by its big expenditures on turning out the Democratic base — attempts a comprehensive look at all the TV ads that ran in House races in the 2020 cycle. Some findings:

Democrats spent three times more than Republicans on ads that touted bipartisan outreach. Democrats spent $21.8 million on ads about “bipartisanship” or “working across the aisle,” while Republicans spent $6.2 million on them.
Democrats spent six times as much on positive ads than Republicans did. Democrats spent $18.6 million on positive ads that also happened to mention Republicans (say, by touting the ability to work with them), while Republicans spent $2.9 million on positive ads mentioning Democrats.
Republicans spent more than 10 times more on ads with the words “extremist” and “radical” than Democrats did. Republicans spent $51 million on such ads, while Democrats spent $3.4 million.
Overall, Republicans spent more than $87 million on ads with one or more of the following words in it: “AOC,” “Ocasio,” “Pelosi,” “socialism,” “socialist,” “defund,” “radical,” “extremist,” “extreme.”
GOP ads were more likely to use words with “emotional punch,” such as “taxes,” “radical” and “jobs,” while Democratic ads featured words like “insurance,” “voted” and “work.”

Jenifer Fernandez Ancona, the vice president of Way to Win, said that, in sum, Democrats in 2020 sent mixed messages: They touted their willingness to work with Republicans, even as Republicans called them socialists and extremists.

Negative ads such defund the police and socialism work and the GOP focused on these ads instead of more positive ads. Defund the police was a very effective line of attack according to the other polling on this thread

Again I urge you to re-read that so-called analysis. It is not clear that "defund the police" ads will not be used and that these ads can still work.

Again, I am sad that you continue to attack good Democratic candidates who lost races in 2020 that they should have won due to this moronic slogan. Why is this moronic slogan so important to you. The GOP will use negative ads next cycle and these ads will be effective so long as there are Democrats defending the idiotic slogan on defunding the police

[uponit7771]

206. Again, they "worked" for GQP turn out not ***AGAINST*** swing and dem turn out its an

... outdated form of campaigning worldwide to depend on cross over votes vs turn out.

Dems didn't turn out in those areas, that's not DTP fault

Stating fact is not attacking anyone, you've been told that multiple times too

[LetMyPeopleVote]

207. Reread the material

You are misreading these materials just like you did on the exit polling on other threads. As noted earlier the exit polling was clear that the atta k ads based on this moronic slogan worked I trust the exit polling

[LetMyPeopleVote]

200. Do you tire of being wrong?

The "defund the police" slogan was a very ignorant and stupid slogan that was only used due to some progressive members of the party who were in very safe blue seats. This slogan was stupid and hurt down ballot candidates who were in swing seats. I live in the real world and I have worked on campaigns and have been active on party issues for a long time. I saw first hand the GOP use this slogan against good Democratic candidates who did not deserve to lose. The polling clear that this was a very stupid slogan to use and that this slogan hurt candidates https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/07/usa-today-ipsos-poll-just-18-support-defund-police-movement/4599232001/

Support to redistribute police department funding has decreased among Americans since August after a summer of protests had erupted across the country against racial injustice and police brutality, a recent Ipsos/USA TODAY poll found.

The call to redistribute police budgets stemmed from Black Lives Matter activists and protesters who called to "defund the police" after the deaths of unarmed Black Americans at the hands of police, such as George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.

While some believe defunding the police is a call to get rid of law enforcement completely, many activists behind the slogan intended to make a more nuanced argument for police budgets to be steered toward community social programs so officers were less often required to take on roles better suited to social workers.

The party can be for more than anti-trump but we cannot be stupid and use slogans that are ignorant

Your continued attacks on good Democratic candidates who lost in 2020 is sad and disgusting. Why are you defending this ignorant slogan. The polling is clear and the exist polls that that this slogan cost Democrats seats they should had won. Why do you insist on attacking and defaming good democratic candidates who lost due to this slogan? Is this stupid slogan so important to you that you feel the need to insult good candidates who lost due to this slogan?

[Humanist_Activist]

148. The only leftward movement was a possible public option on the table to reform the ACA...

everything else was literally Republican bullshit and white/straight grievance and culture war panics.

Democrats suck at messaging, for fuck's sake, this poll is saying that the public thinks the Republican party is the more down to Earth party, the party of Qanon conspiracies and the Big fucking Lie? Not to mention their old standbys of racism, homophobia and transphobia. Maybe, for white people, they are, to be honest about it, but if so, so fucking what. Should the Democratic party be the party of social conservatism to such an extent that they would try to force genital checks on school kids to make sure they are in the proper sex segregated sports in school? Because that is what the Republicans are trying to do, legally mandated sexual assault, its fucking atrocious and a violation of so many constitutional and human rights violations, its fucking insane, but sure, they are the party closer to the American public ideologically.

[George II]

161. You guys keep using Stanbury as an "example" to prove your point. Have you folks looked at...

....the voting history of New Mexico in general and NM-01?

Statewide the Democratic candidate has won in New Mexico every election going back to Bill Clinton's first election, except for bush's second election. That's 7 of the last eight.

As for Senators, New Mexico has had at least one Democratic Senator going back to 1983, and has had two Democratic Senators since 2009. They've only had three republican Senators since 1935.

Likewise NM has had only three republican Governors since 1971.

NM-01 is equally a strong blue District.

Try using a purple or swing District and see what you get.

PS - I can't believe you're now bashing John Kerry for being swift boated!!!

[uponit7771]

164. Cause she bested Bidens numbers by 2% despite DTP attacks? tia

[George II]

169. Biden ran in November, she ran in June - a 2% difference either way is irrelevant....

Biden's was a Presidential election, more than 300,000 voted in the District. Stanbury's was a special House election, only 131,000 voted last week.

Biden got about three times the number of votes than Stanbury did, but go ahead and use that "2% lower margin" for whatever reason.

[uponit7771]

170. The last candidate got 16% stansberry got 25%, how is that irrelevant?

Not only did she increase on biting's margin she increased on the last candidates margin despite DTP

This was an example of where someone defined themself on policing, did not let the Republicans define them and did well or won in their district

My point is Democrats can't sit back let the Republicans define them say little to nothing then expect to win on any issue

[George II]

171. The "last candidate" (you can say Deb Haaland) ran in a regular election about seven months ago....

She got 187,000 votes. Stanbury got only 79,000 votes. One could (incorrectly) use those numbers to say Stanbury was totally outperformed by Haaland, even though that's totally not true.

Again - two completely different types of election and for two completely different offices in two completely different YEARS and under two completely different administrations! You don't think the fact that Biden is now President might have boosted her % of the vote even that insignificantly tiny difference?

It's a huge stretch to claim that the 2% "increase" over Biden's margin 7 months ago can be attributed to one single cherry picked issue.

But go on, criticize Democrats' (that is WINNING Democrats') campaigns for the sake of a tiny shift in % months apart.

[uponit7771]

178. She picked up on Bidens margin with her win despite DTP is the point and in a focused attack DTP

... didn't work because of her response to it is the case I'm making.

Let me check here, are people in this thread who think DTP was the gating loss issue for dems arguing that dems ... SHOULD ... sit back and let an opponent falsely define their positions going forward?

Cause that's ...EXACTLY ... what some dem pols did last year when it came to DTP; NOT get out in front of this world wide issue.

The dem pols who did ... NOT ... allow GQP to define their policing positions in red or purple states ... WON !!

That's a fact not in dispute ...

What say you?

tia

[George II]

180. Two completely different elections - different offices, different type of election, different YEARS!

Biden was in a national Presidential election and running state-wide in New Mexico. Stansbury was running essentially in a "local" election - one third of the state - in a special election.

I can't believe people are comparing winning margins of a Member of Congress in a June 2021 special election and a November 2020 Presidential election. "Defund the police" wasn't even a presidential issue. In New Mexico "defund the police" is far from being a major issue in NM-01.

[uponit7771]

181. What about Warnock and Ossoff ? tia

[George II]

183. Again, state-wide elections not local. Five million votes vs. 130,000 votes.

[uponit7771]

185. Warnock and Ossoff are both down ballot no one qualified the level of elections for DTP to affect

.. it sounds like people wanted both ways when it comes to the facts that aren't in dispute.

Either way I just read up thread the DCCC evaluation post 20/20 election said it was not DTP that hurt down ballots but bad turn out in those areas for Democrats

I doubt Republican rhetoric about DTP was the reason we had bad turnout in those areas

[George II]

187. Warnock and Ossoff were NOT "down ballot" in January 2021 when they were both elected....

They were smack dab right at the very top of the ballot.

[betsuni]

163. "The swiftboat attacks didn't sink Kerry's campaign it was his no response to them."

Blame the victim! As if anybody listens to explanations. They don't.

[uponit7771]

165. A person who is rhetorically attacked in politics is a victim? On what planet? This notion is what..

... some people talk about when they say counter punching in politics is losing.

We can go high, tell the truth and define the GQP and our positions before they define us.

[Cha]

46. The "Slogan" is Stupid! It's UP to All

Hands on Deck to Shut it Down.

[Humanist_Activist]

59. Wait so it's the responsibility of BLM to elect democrats,

Even when operating at cross purposes on the local level?

[George II]

177. Totally irrelevant to the post to which you responded.

[Humanist_Activist]

193. The post said "all hands on deck", who are they talking to? n/t

[George II]

195. Simple - ALL hands. What's your point?

[Humanist_Activist]

196. That "Defund the Police" had little to do with the lack of gains and losses downballot...

Most of those districts were marginal in Democratic favored mid-term years like 2018, is it any surprise that those seats were won back by Republicans during a presidential election year, even one where the incumbent lost?

The Democratic Party underestimated that anti-Trump Republicans aren't anti-Republican, nor that his mismanagement of the Covid crisis damaged his relationship with the Republican party. Both he and Biden broke records with the turnout this past election. It also appears that this may not be sustainable for Trump, fingers crossed.

I just don't see the utility of blaming activists, who came up and propagated the slogan, for losses of politicians who denounced and/or distanced themselves from said slogan.

Is the slogan limited? Yes, but that's what slogans are, they aren't explanations.

[uponit7771]

122. +1, blaming DTP is like blaming COVID for most US deaths vs Trumps inaction

[wellst0nev0ter]

30. "Defund the Police" attacks are only potent to Dems who respond by punching left

Dems who respond by punching right win their races.

The DCCC produced an autopsy last month that basically concluded that unanticipated trumpanzee turnout was 70% responsible for the wipeout in downballot races.

In one competitive Iowa race, garbage pre-election polls predicted that low-turnout trumpanzees would account for a lesser percentage of the electorate than low-turnout Democrats. But in the end, low-turnout trumpanzees outperformed low-turnout Democrats.

You do NOT turn out Democrats by punching left. You turn out Democrats by punching right and giving them something to vote for.

That was proven in the runoffs in Georgia and now in the special election in New Mexico.

These analyses you presented are outdated and shortsighted.

[Humanist_Activist]

100. They also run ads calling Democrats Communists and Socialists, are we going to say that those are...

effective too?

The issue is that, from what I can tell, this is a non-issue, or at least, way blown out of proportion. Democrats lost seats in districts that voted Trump that they only gained in a year Trump wasn't on the ballot, holy shit, that so....not surprising.

[uponit7771]

144. right ?! Dems blaming dtp is like blaming covid for killing 500k Americans not Trumps poor response.

[uponit7771]

105. Allowing an opponent to define you is bad campaigning no matter ... ***PERIOD***

[Bettie]

112. Our side needs to hit hard

The other side uses negative advertising all the time and a lot of it is false.

We need to point out all of the shitty, horrific things they do and hit them harder.

They do it because they know we won't hit them back. Show them that we can fight back.

John Kerry tried to stay above the fray with the swiftboating thing. We all saw how that turned out.

[uponit7771]

114. +1, we need to define them first and flood an issue with facts before they can negatively campaign

... about anything.

They do it because they know we won't hit them back.

This is the .. MAIN... reason so many down ballots lost; not hitting back and letting a slogan the party didn't ascribe to be attributed to them.

I respect our democratic leaders but blaming a slogan for those losses isn't progressive

[Bettie]

116. And I do understand the whole "take the high road" message

but the high road is not working.

But, if we get down into the gutter with them and fight it out, they will take damage too and ultimately, if they aren't just kicking us when we're down, but we're fighting back, they will think a little bit about what they are saying.

Until it damages them and not just us, they have no reason to raise the level of discourse.

[uponit7771]

119. I think its working its just some people have defined the high road as counter punch & that doesn't

... work with humans as a matter of human behavior patterns; people tend to believe what came to them first.

For instance, slavery is still legal in the united states but people will wrongly 1argue one up and down its not despite it being legalized in the last two sentences of the 13th amendment.

We can take the high road but do it smartly with a issue flood that makes it hard for GQP to get out of.

There's nothing wrong with dems saying [generica GQP] supports the reasoning behind the 1/6 attack with (show scenes of 1/6 violence) by not speaking out against the big lie that Putin's Whore won.

Flood all major and SM channels with that in a voting market and make the GQPr run against Trump in essence or at least explain their position.

... BOOM

That's a 5% nick on GQP voting base minimum !!

We can win going high but too many in the party have defined "going high" as not hitting first, hard and often

[ShazamIam]

29. Yes, the, never has been liberal, MSM is pushing the idea that Democratic want police defunded,

while only a few have actually mentioned it. Mostly the talk is from a bunch of talking heads, some on the left but mostly claims from the right that crime is exploding and it is all the fault of the anti-police Democratic.

[brooklynite]

31. So you're saying a D+9 district in NM is the same as a district Trump won in NY?

[wellst0nev0ter]

32. It's a good barometer

If Stansbury underperformed previous elections, then the "defund the police" line is indeed radioactive. If Stansbury outperformed previous elections, then centrists need not be afraid of that slogan, and can incorporate her strategy for their own playbooks.

Guess which way Stansbury victory went.

[brooklynite]

35. Corrections...

"If Stansbury underperformed previous elections IN A RELATIVELY SAFE DEMOCRATIC DISTRICT, then the "defund the police" line is indeed radioactive. If Stansbury outperformed previous elections IN A RELATIVELY SAFE DEMOCRATIC DISTRICT, then centrists need not be afraid of that slogan, and can incorporate her strategy for their own playbooks. "

Neither speaks to campaign messaging in a Toss-up/Lean R district.

FWIW - in heavily Democratic NYC, the two "Defund the Police" candidates for Mayor (Wiley and Morales) are far behind the mainstream "address the crime problem" moderates (Yang, Adams and Garcia)

[wellst0nev0ter]

36. The issue is whether the dirtbag left screaming "defund" hurts other Democrats

If it did, then it would have hurt Stansbury, even in a relatively (your words) safe district.

The trumpanzees and the establishment media tried to paint this special election as a referendum on rising crime and defund the police.

It. Did. Not. Work.

As for NYC, I'll say Yang wins the race because he gets so much media exposure, earned and unearned.

[brooklynite]

40. Yang has been dropping in the polls for weeks...

[wellst0nev0ter]

50. Yet he's still a favorite to win

And polls are basically garbage nowadays, unless they show a huge margin either way.

[brooklynite]

61. On what basis is he a "favorite"?

[wellst0nev0ter]

63. You have access to the polls

And I said "a favorite" not "the favorite"

[brooklynite]

65. And polls show he's been dropping consistently...

...add to which, there's no indication that voters whose candidates are removed early on will shift to him.

[Dorian Gray]

67. Yang has fans

and they'll vote for him and then other candidates second.

Most fans of other candidates do not intend to vote for him as their second or third choice.

Ranked voting is going to hurt him, I believe.

[BGBD]

37. D+9 undersells that district

It's a very safe blue district. It should be a 20 or 25 point race. If it's single digits then Republicans are running the table in the competitive districts.


Deduct the Police is terrible politics. It's like progressives goal is to find ways to irritate people as much as possible and then wonder why they lose to nazis.

[stopdiggin]

39. here's the overview

On a national level, the party nominated Joe Biden -- largely because he was perceived as the 'moderate' candidate -- by a fairly large margin. That fall that moderate (and widely admired) candidate went on to win in a 'squeaker' -- to fairly toxic opponent in the general election. And what we are to take away from this -- is that the party would be so much more successful on a national level -- if they would hew more closely to the Bernie/AOC wing -- and thus 'energize' their base.

I'll hold.

[BGBD]

42. Trump and republicans

Spent the entire election trying to convince people that Joe Biden was Bernie Sanders.

Let's me put this forward. The Bernie or bust folks are not the base.

[wellst0nev0ter]

52. Max Rose spent more time and money bashing Deblasio and AOC

than he did going after his actual goop opponent. He even spent money donated to him by Democrats on an ad attacking his opponent for donating to Deblasio

https://forward.com/culture/457700/max-rose-and-nicole-malliotakis-campaign-ads-tell-an-ugly-love-story/

Punching left never wins you races. Ignoring potentially excitable voters in your rank almost never wins you races. You'll never outtrumpanzee a trumpanzee, because trumpanzee voters will always choose one of their own.

[ChrisF1961]

56. Very true

I have family and friends in that district. The republicans would never vote for Rose because he voted for impeachment. He turned off a lot of democrats by constantly attacking other Dems and trying to embrace Trump.

[BGBD]

60. Rose lost by 6 in a Trump +11 district

How would AOC have done in that race?

He managed to win it in 18 because there was a huge +D shift nationally in house races.

Things like defund the police hurt democrats in competitive districts, it's undeniable. Republicans do a better job of messaging and we hand that advantage to them by being terrible at it.

[wellst0nev0ter]

64. Rose wasted donation money on DeBlasio attack ads

On what planet is that a good idea?

[ChrisF1961]

83. Rose still voted for impeachment

so he was never going to get republican votes there. No one I know in that district even mentioned defund the police.

[stopdiggin]

70. and the 'base' is not particularly energized by Sanders

and they are certainly not energized by 'defund the police!'

[betsuni]

79. The myth that most Americans are democratic socialists waiting for true progressive leaders.

They just don't know it yet because they're suffering from economic anxiety caused by Democrats who have ignored the working class and only care about money. Once the true progressive leaders explain their economic and justice policies to the people, the people will rise up in solidarity, vote for them, and they will transform the Democratic Party and everything will be nice. Justice Democrats and their candidates believe this. Defunding the police is on their website and that of at least one of their candidates.

[Dorian Gray]

68. It isn't

Max Rose made mistakes. But he was running in a district full of cops and firemen, and they weren't going to vote for a democrat this time around.

[stopdiggin]

41. in other words -- if they are not succesful in 'deflecting'

from a toxic and completely brain dead slogan -- deemed a guaranteed 'loser' from the very get-go -- then it's really their fault for not being energetic enough in the old shuffle and slide.

How 'bout blaming the people that came up with the asinine 'slogan' in the first place? Instead of blaming candidates for not 'finessing' the albatross hung 'round their neck?

[Cha]

48. Excellent point..

[wellst0nev0ter]

53. The Democrats spent too much time running away from a "slogan"

Than putting up an aggressive fight against the real enemies, the trumpanzees. Those Democrats spent more time attacking members of their own party than they do the trumpanzees.

The trumpanzees voted against a 1/6 committee. Will certain democrats condemn the apes by calling them "unAmerican" and "traitors"? All signs point to no.

[uponit7771]

128. Blaming protesters is the right idea?!?! WTF ?! How is this not brain dead on its face?!

Dems allowing GQP to define us is bad campaigning ***PERIOD*** !!!!

There's no way around that, you don't have to "deflect" if you define yourself on that position first, hard and often !!

The GQP shouldn't been able to come in with an ascription of a slogan that wasn't part of the party platform when we've flooded the issue zone with our position.

Covid 19 didn't kill 500k Americans Trumps bad response did

Swiftboating didn't kill Kerry's 04 campaign his bad response did

DTP Didn't bag down ballot candidates their bad responses to the false GQP attribution did ... OR ... they didn't get in front of the top level national issue of policing first and ran away from it.

The candidate who didn't run from DTP and defined their issue on policing won or picked up voting%s

That's a fact not in dispute

[stopdiggin]

131. "Defund" was a loser plain and simple

(along with being pretty darned stupid to start out with)
And, because it was so incredibly unpopular, it forced the party, and candidates, to run around it -- and deflect. The reason it was so stupid and unpopular? - Is because a vast majority of American voters see a cut in funding to their local police department -- as about the most asinine, brain dead proposition they've heard in a long time!

And, as much as many of those same Americans found sympathy and support for BLM -- they also thought the 'defund' business was some seriously stupid sh*t. So, yeah -- I don't really have any problem laying the blame for "some seriously stupid sh*t" where it belongs -- no matter what the origin. Don't like the criticism? Come up with some smarter sh*t.

(Oh -- and relitigating this tired "loser" idea over and over ad nauseam -- like spoiled children going to another parent for different answer -- is never going to turn it into a winner.)

[uponit7771]

134. What you described is textbook bad campaigning to run from something they never ascribe to

... I don't know why in the world this board with the number of relatively intelligent politically people on it can't get the fact that if you didn't define yourself and the opponent comes and does it for you then your campaign message was horrible.

There should have been a position taken on defund the police since it was nearly a worldwide issue at that time and people should have known what that position was so someone just can't come in and define that position for them

Again what is described in your responses textbook bad campaigning; to allow the opponent to define a position you never ascribed to

That's not the slogan's fault that is the bad campaigner's fault

[stopdiggin]

135. The problem is there were plenty of people

in the party that did subscribe to, and vocally endorse, the stupid assed slogan. "No -- that's exactly what we mean!"

And apparently still today -- there are people here in the DU community, as enlightened and intelligent as it is, that keep on insisting on bringing it back around -- in some sad benighted effort of -- resurrection and rehabilitation? Like it's going to smell somewhat better after the dog dug it back out of the bin.

"See -- it wasn't really the problem everybody said it was!"

You want to help Democratic candidates get elected? Then stop saying really stupid sh*t. And then stop doubling down on it, when somebody calls you on your stupid sh*t.

[uponit7771]

139. That's false, there wasn't "plenty" of dems who ascribed to DTP out of thousands of us ...

4 people ascribing to DTP isn't "plenty" of people in the party of 1000s. Dems ALLOWING the GQP to define them as ascribing to an edge case they didn't even agree with is TEXTBOOK bad campaigning.

Warnock and Ossoff were in close state races and defined their position on policing early and won.

Dems that didn't define themselves early and often on policing lost even though a good portion of the oppressed on the the planet spent the summer protesting bad policing !!!

That's not the fault of a slogan, that's bad campaigning ... we can't change anything if we're blaming slogans.

We don't blame covid for 500k dead Americans we blame Trump's lack of reaction to it.

There's no way around it; We define ourselves, our positions and our opponents first and often or we get our asses kicked in politics in the age of instant feedback on political linguistics from social media.

That's human behavior science.

You want to help Democratic candidates get elected? Then stop saying really stupid sh*t. And then stop doubling down on it, when somebody calls you on your stupid sh*t.

If 4 people who aren't leaders of a political party can define the whole party platform anywhere on earth that political party doesn't need to exist; they have a leadership structure issue.

We know that's not the case with the DNC so

[oasis]

49. Dems can't win with "defund". It doesn't make sense for some to

keep pushing a losing message.

[wellst0nev0ter]

54. Cori Bush, et al won with "defund"

Because they didn't run away from it. Others deftly avoided the word while speaking forcefully on police reform and racial justice.

Punching left never works.

[LanternWaste]

55. I hope to see that applied consistently....

"Punching left never works."

I hope to begin seeing that applied consistently rather than only when convenient to a narrative.

[wellst0nev0ter]

57. When have I ever punched left?

I'll wait.

[oasis]

71. Psssst..her district makeup may have played a role.

[wellst0nev0ter]

85. How come she prevailed in the primary?

And won more votes than her predecessor in the general?

[oasis]

102. DEFUND is a loser for Dems in nationwide contests. Bottom line.

[Humanist_Activist]

107. You do realize that those who protested didn't do it so that Democrats can win...

nationwide offices, right?

Hell, in most cases they were protesting against city government and city policies, most cities in question being largely run by elected Democratic officials.

[oasis]

108. You do realize that "protests" against police misconduct is widely

supported by the American public, while dismantling police departments, is not.

"Defund the police" is a losing message, although I agree with the underlying sentiment.

[Humanist_Activist]

109. Most of the public are largely ignorant of the purpose and origins of modern police...

and are also ignorant of how toxic and unreformable police culture is.

I remember looking up NYPD challenge medals, they view themselves as an occupying military force to enforce order, not to protect the public at large.

ON EDIT: In addition, the public at large, the mostly white public at least, take police at their word, regardless as to whether that is warranted or not. There's a narrative out there that a lot of the protests were actually riots instigated by BLM or antifa, when in reality, a large percentage of them were instigated by the Police, as was caught on video. Sometimes so egregiously even the MSM reported on it honestly, but also sometimes not.

And if a window is broken, that's apparently a blank check to use force, up to deadly force, against everyone within a few blocks radius of that broken window.

[oasis]

110. The ignorance of the American public is why "Defund" is a losing

message. They don't get it, and aren't willing to make an effort to get it.

It's up to Democrats to use messages that are uncomplicated.

[Humanist_Activist]

118. Republicans are the master of sloganeering, because that's all they got...

their policy positions, what positions they still hold to, are about as deep as the shallow end of a kiddie pool. Its easy to come up with slogans for that that are catchy, because for one, accuracy isn't important, and two, simple ideas can be communicated simply.

How are we supposed to sloganeer police reform in a way that doesn't water it down into useless gestures when actual policies are put in place? Not to mention the scaremongering, which is done on "both sides", based on ignorance of what police actually do, which is to protect property, not people.

[oasis]

123. Dems do positive slogans well: "Yes We Can" "Build Back Better"

"Stronger Together" etc.

With inspirational/positive messaging, it will be easier for the "left" to persuade the general public to get on board with progressive policies.

[Humanist_Activist]

147. Those are generic platitudes, not policy positions, hell the Republicans do the same...

and its just as meaningless. MAGA is a classic example of this.

[stopdiggin]

136. YES! Huge majorities would like to see 'better policing'

But same crowd immediately starts shaking their heads when you say "less policing."

"Not in my neighborhood! .. or "in my town!"

[oasis]

138. "Defund" is complicated, but like the guy said,

"When you're explaining, you're losing".

[stopdiggin]

140. and that's the story here in a nutshell -(nt)-

[uponit7771]

125. RIGHT !!! They didn't allow the GQP to define them !!! We need to define ourselves & issues better

... and stop blaming slogans and opponents words.

[George II]

176. Winning the primary in her district is almost an automatic general election victory....

She lost to Lacy Clay 57-37 in the 2018 primary, and Clay won 80-17 in the general election.

Then Justice Democrats poured in hundreds of thousands if not millions into the primary campaign last year, and they waged a very negative (that's putting it lightly) campaign against Clay, and there were a number of, let me say, exaggerations made by her during the campaign about her AND Clay.

She won the primary by less than 4,000 votes. She won the general election 78-19. Using the context being used here today one could say she "underperformed" Clay in 2018.

So one could say, again as has been used around here, "defund the police" hurt her in the general election. But being a bright deep blue district whoever the democrat was would have won.

Once again, why don't people look at close, purple, swing districts and consider whether "defund the police" hurt or helped a Democratic candidate?

You guys are picking districts where any Democratic candidate regardless of what issues exist would win.

[wellst0nev0ter]

182. Cori Bush won more 13% votes than Clay did in 2018

Yet she "underperformed" by being on par with Clay's vote percentage in the general.

I'll ask again, if defund the police is such a loser, why did she win in the primary?

[George II]

186. You do understand that turnout for Presidential elections is higher than midterms, right?

Yes, she got more votes in 2020 than Clay got in 2018, but he won by a higher percentage.

Clay won by 3.6% more in 2018 than she did in 2020, that's not being on par, that's 3.6% lower.

Defund the police was NOT an issue of contention in the 2020 primary - Lacy Clay had already called for reforming the police and was one of the co-sponsors of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020, the precursor to this year's bill. So there goes that argument.

I already explained some of the factors contributing to why she won in 2020 vs. lost in 2018. Some of the same factors that resulted in Jamaal Bowman defeating Eliot Engel. You can look up the "campaign strategy" they used along with that of Justice Democrats. No sense airing it all here.

But as noted above, defund the police was NOT one of them - on that issue they agreed.

[Silent3]

66. Half true

Yes, a good candidate can possibly overcome harm caused by a largely unpopular and sometimes misinterpreted slogan such as "defund the police". Perhaps a candidate can even turned fighting against that harm into a strength in some races.

But it's still a headwind to be fighting against. That's going to mean, on the whole, more Democratic losses. Not every candidate can or will rise to the challenge.

Think of it like climate change. You can't be certain any particular storm or flood or forest fire would have happened with or without climate change, but you sure as hell will more total disasters with climate change.

[wellst0nev0ter]

86. The smart thing would be

Is to tailor your message in a way that doesn't demean and alienate the left, but that makes it clear you don't support defunding the police.

Stansbury was smart. Max Rose and his ilk were not.

[jcgoldie]

74. "The dirtbag left"...

What?

[wellst0nev0ter]

87. "Dirty Fucking Hippies" is also a good moniker n/t

[betsuni]

88. The dirtbag left is what they called themselves. Chapo Trap House. They coined the phrase to

describe their style of populist discourse. It's not derogatory.

The dirtbag left are the opposite of hippies, who were laid back, all about peace, flower power, bed-ins and not angrily insulting everyone for no real reason.

[wellst0nev0ter]

130. "Woke" wasn't derogatory either

Not until the trumpanzees and their enablers started making it derogatory.

And now look at this message, putting hippies above the dirtbag left.

Typical.

[betsuni]

89. What podcast Chapo Trap House called themselves and their audience. Not derogatory.

[jcgoldie]

92. Thanks

[BannonsLiver]

77. Zzzzzzzzz

That you think New Mexico is representative of the rest of the US tells me you have no idea what you’re talking about. Zero.

[Iggo]

80. Any other Trump talking points people want to bring up here?

I mean he talked for an hour and a half, right?

[Azathoth]

81. This is the dumbest post ever

A Democrat winning a district that has been blue for 12 years is somehow proof that defund the police is a winner for Dems, while a Democrat losing a seat that he rather incredibly took after being red for a million years is proof that backing police is bad for Dems.

This is so mind-numbingly stupid it defies words.

[betsuni]

82. You are correct.

[JI7]

97. Yup , pretty much similar to Republicans with the red/blue state map which shows large red areas

as proof they have a lot more support when most of the red areas are empty spaces. And actually counting people would give democrats more support.

[Humanist_Activist]

98. Actually, doesn't that strengthen the point? Democrats who won marginal seats around the country....

during a blue wave when, structurally and historically, such things happen in mid-terms and then ended up losing those seats during presidential election years, again, as happens historically. So basically, there isn't that much of a change? So "defund the police" did nothing, positive or negative, to gain or lose seats.

[uponit7771]

126. Wornock and Ossoff winning is dumb too?! tia

[betsuni]

93. Another "Why didn't Democrats stop _____ ?" Blame Democrats!

Stop trying to make "punching to the Left" happen. Or bringing up hippies. It's not going to happen.

Justice Democrats and their candidates punch the Democratic Party every day ("corporate Democrats," corrupt, neoliberals, bribed by lobbyists, billionaires, big business, PACs, donors, will do anything to stop progressive legislation, hate the working class, etc.) in their fundraising emails. They're the ones punching to the Left. Republicans are the enemy, not liberals.

[Humanist_Activist]

99. Tell people like Carville to stop it, I really don't understand the analysis operatives...

like him came up with. I never thought the "Blue Wave" would stick, it was a mid-term, with a historically unpopular president, at least with independents and Democrats, so yes, a lot of marginally red districts voted Democratic that year. The problem is that Democrats underestimated how popular and motivating Trump is within the Republican party, and also how many Republicans in some districts hate Trump but like his and the Republicans policies. Knock on effect is many people voted Biden and down ticket Republican, and others voted Trump and down ticket Republican. Why are some people surprised at this?

I doubt any messaging from the left had any significant influence, despite the need for simple answers.

[betsuni]

101. I disagree. I don't think Democrats underestimated anything because they know Trump's voters

weren't voting for him because of real reasons like economic insecurity but because of usual Republican things like racism and culture wars and conspiracy theories. Voters don't like Republican policies at all, they're not ideologues. Research confirms this. When asked if they want clean air and water, fair wages, a social safety net, the rich to be taxed, affordable health care, etc., of course they say yes. They don't vote because of policies. Otherwise, they wouldn't vote against their own interests.

[Humanist_Activist]

103. From the operatives and pundits perspective, they underestimated things badly...

Otherwise why the overwrought blame on BLM and "Defund the Police"?

Look at Missouri, where voters voted for Medicaid expansion, but the Republicans in Jeff City are refusing to fund it. They are not going to face any consequences at the ballot box, even though their own constituents disagree with them on this issue. These people are identifying as Republican in the same way they support sports teams, its identity politics in the most basic of ways, and as a result, they are reliable Republican voters. They value the cultural war, and white grievance politics more than economic security. And they are, in general, much more motivated to vote for Republicans than Democrats are for Democrats because most Democrats vote for policies over people.

There's also the fact that Republicans just straight up lie, we had billboards put up in St. Louis that called President Biden and Harris communists for fuck's sake. Who do you think their audience is? Not Democrats, and not Independents, but trying to whip up the base.

[uponit7771]

113. We need to be able to run good campaigns were we define the republicans FIRST and flood an

... issue with a message to the point they can't define us with something the party didn't ascribe to.

[notpolltested]

127. Because we must improve our messaging to have any shot in 2022 with even more onerous

voting restrictions in key swing states. We must treat campaigns like the gun fights they are. Making the same mistakes campaign cycle to campaign cycle the last 20 years, and not learning any lessons from our defeats, is how we got in this mess to begin with.

[uponit7771]

129. THIS !!!! ☝🏾☝🏾☝🏾 We must hit first, hard and often in defining the GQP as anti democracy and make

... sure everyone knows their lives under the GQP again is going to be poverty, death and apartheid

[betsuni]

145. For example?

Gun fight means negative campaigning?

[notpolltested]

146. Sometimes, but more broadly it means nimbleness and being prepared to counter

bad narratives as soon as they arise. For example, if they accuse us of wanting to defund the police, then we counter with Ads that Republicans tried to defund the police by voting against the American Rescue Plan which had billions in funding for local police departments. And that when American demanded justice against those who harmed our Capitol Police officers, the House and Senate Republicans were complicit in the attack on our capitol police when they blocked a non-partisan investigation.

[uponit7771]

159. +1

[uponit7771]

106. K&R, DTP didn't sink candidates their bad response to DTP did !!!

Last edited Sun Jun 6, 2021, 12:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Dems allowing GQP to define us is bad campaigning ***PERIOD*** !!!

So in the districts where GQP was using DTP and the candidates didn't run away for it or they defined their position on policing first and often they won.

FACT NOT IN DISPUTE: Wornock and Ossoff defined their position on DTP, didn't allow their GQP opponent beat them with it and won their races.

[notpolltested]

120. Yes, "Defund" was this year's version of 2016's "Emails", 2014's "Obamacare and ebola"

2010s "Obamacare", and 2004's "Swiftboat", etc. Democrats have not learned how to respond early enough to Republican framing of issues, and only respond once it is too late to change the narrative. We need to hit first and have the debate on our terms and not there's. Look at the meek 2018 campaign of former Senator Bill Nelson, who languished off the airways for months getting bombarded with negative Ads by Rick Scott and didn't go up on the air until too late. Imagine, if Bill had fought back earlier in a race that was closely decided.

[uponit7771]

121. Blaming DTP for dem losses is like blaming CV19 for most US deaths instead of Trumps inaction...

... we need to take responsibility for bad messaging response and not whistle past the graveyard.

Bad messaging response is not defining yourself, the opponent or your issues ... FIRST, HARD and OFTEN

Emails - bad messaging response
Obama care - bad messaging response
Swiftboat - TEXT BOOK bad messaging response.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

150. Attacking good Democratic candidates who lost due to this slogan is offensive and wrong

Again, your false claims that any real Democrat who lost their race due to the moronic "defund the police" slogan are really bad democrats and deserved to lose. Such a claim is both ignorant and offensive. I had two friends who ran in state house races in my county who lost after the GOP ran another of ads using socialism and defund the police. These ads quoted or featured members of the squad (who are not popular outside their deep blue districts) and were effective. Both of my friends are actual members of the Democratic party and ran campaigns that should have won but the negative ads used.

These ads were effective. For example these attacks were used in the Maine Senate race which Susan Collins won

Link to tweet

This line of attack was used in South Carolina against Jaime Harrison

Link to tweet

President Obama is clear that this line of attack cost Democrats down ballot races

Link to tweet

Former President Barack Obama drew criticism from progressive Democrats this week for suggesting that “snappy” slogans like “defund the police” are alienating voters and making it harder from a political standpoint to enact “changes you want done.”

In an interview with Peter Hamby, who hosts the Snapchat political show “Good Luck America,” Obama said “you [lose] a big audience the minute” a slogan like “defund the police” is used, making “it a lot less likely that you’re actually going to get the changes you want done.”

“Defund the police” refers to the reallocation or redirection of government funding from police departments to social services for minority communities. As Rashawn Ray of the Brookings Institution noted, defunding does not mean the abolishment of police departments but instead “highlights fiscal responsibility” and “advocates for a market-driven approach to taxpayer money.”....

Obama ― echoing other centrist Democrats who’ve similarly taken issue with “defund the police” and what they’ve decried as radical messaging ― told Hamby that Democrats could benefit from adopting softer rhetoric when talking about police reform.

“If you instead say, ‘Hey, you know what? Let’s reform the police department so that everybody’s being treated fairly. And not just in policing, but in sentencing, how can we divert young people from getting into crime?’” he said.

Joe Biden is clear on this also That is how the real worls works Here is a good explanation https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/huge-catastrophe-democrats-grapple-congressional-state-election-losses-n1248529

The Biden campaign's goal was to make 2020 a referendum on Trump's chaotic term, and it succeeded, but the results were far worse down the ballot.

In leaked recording, Biden says GOP used 'defund the police' to 'beat the living hell' out of Democrats
Republicans barraged swing districts with ads linking moderates to the most far-left voices in the party, which has led to bitter recriminations between the factions.

"When you're Joe Biden and you have 47 years in public life and you have a billion dollars behind you, you can build your own brand," said Matt Bennett, executive vice president of the centrist think tank Third Way. "But when you're down-ballot, it's hard to outrun that brand in red and purple districts."

I saw this in two down ballot races in my county where the GOP ran a ton of defund the police and soclialsim ads

I have forwarded you polling that showed that the defund the police was toxic and the fact that you are unable to understand such polling is another source of amusement to me. The fact that you do not understand the polling does not mean that it does exist. Clearly the GOP understood this polling and used such polling to win some races

Again, I trust the polling posted and I trust Presidents Obama and Biden on this issue. Your claims are false and offensive

[uponit7771]

154. We agree and that's why those who understand campagning are stating fact not in dispute: Dems ...

... who defined their position on policing and DTP early and didn't let their opponent do such or run away from the subject ... won.

Warnock and Ossoff prime examples, I know those who want to hang onto the notion that a slogan beat dems vs inaction but reality on that issue isn't favoring that thought.

[George II]

162. So here and your other post in this thread, you're saying any Democrat who loses deserves to lose?

[uponit7771]

166. No, any pol who allows an opponent to define them falsely in this day and age is running a ...

... bad campaign.

We define ourselves first, hard hitting and non relenting ...

I don't see how that could've been done with only 4 dems who even take a positive look at DTP

[George II]

160. Max Rose is in a deep red District that has gone to the republicans almost every election....

....going back decades (including the "old" NY-13 Staten Island District, NY-11 was redistricted in 2012).

trump won in Rose's District by 10% in both 2016 and 2020.

Rose was a long shot in 2018, and regardless of "defund the police" or not, he probably would have lost in 2020 anyway.

Nor did "defund the police" have anything to do with Stansbury's victory - NM-01 has been a deep blue District for a long time - it's been won by the Democratic candidate in the last seven elections plus the special election and going back to 2000 here are the Presidential results, the last four Democratic blowouts.

2000 President Gore 48 - 47%
2004 President Kerry 51 - 48%
2008 President Obama 60 - 40%
2012 President Obama 55 - 40%
2016 President Clinton 52 - 35%
2020 President Biden 60 - 37%

You've taken two extreme Districts to prove your point. You can't take two districts like these and use just one issue to prove that the issue was what won or lost the most recent election. There are a lot of other issues involved in these two districts.

It would be better to look at closer, purple or swing districts. I think your conclusion might be much different.

[uponit7771]

167. What about Warnock and Ossoff they defined themselves on policing and didn't let their ...

... GQP opponents do such even though they tried and won.

Bottom line evidence shows dem candidates that got out in front of the issue the world protested on in 2020 won their races

[notpolltested]

168. But that's exactly what some people looking for a scape-goat for their bad campaigns

are doing. Its easy to find some shiny object, like "Defund", rather than taking a long look in the mirror about why we continually get outplayed election cycle after cycle when the Republicans run with a narrative and Democrats are haplessly trying to play catch up.

[George II]

172. So let's see - Democrats hold the House, the Senate, and the Presidency and in two years....

....have gained back most of the "1,000" (really only less than 900, but whatever) state legislature seats that they lost in the previous TEN years, and people here are claiming "we continually get outplayed election cycle after cycle" and "Democrats are haplessly trying to play catch up".

Guess what? With the advances we've made in the last two years, I'm giddy that we were "outplayed" and "hapless"!!

[uponit7771]

175. If the evidence shows such we should change then blaming a slogan when there's blaring proof that

... dem pols who got in front of the policing (the number one issue that year WORLDWIDE) won their races.

We can ... NOT ... depend on brute forcing election after election to win, that's unreasonable we have to change the bottom line tactic of messaging especially when MOST voters in 2020 said they didn't know what the dem platform was !!

[wellst0nev0ter]

184. Dems losing 13 House seats is a victory in your world

Hokay then.

[George II]

188. Did I say that? I said Democrats are in control of the House. They might not have lost 13 seats....

....were it not for the pervasive negative campaigning and connotations of "defund the police".

I knew someone would validate my contention that defund the police hurt us in House elections. Thanks sir!

[wellst0nev0ter]

189. You totally ignored the fact that Dems lost 13 house seats

During a trump recession and pandemic no less. As I already said, the goops were better at turning out their voters than the Dems, who spent six times more on positive ads, especially those touting the goops as good faith bipartisan partners

Only a Grade-A moron would go positive when you have negative talking points served to you on a silver platter.

[George II]

190. No I didn't - it wasn't germane in the context of that part of the discussion, there was no....

...point in mentioning it then.

It was 90 degrees this afternoon. Inasmuch as I didn't mention it there did I "totally ignore" it? No.

Some of those 13 seats were lost due to the "defund the police" slogan/issue. When some who are called "the leaders" of our party are tossing around the slogan "defund the police" and running around saying we should defund the police, that's bound to have an adverse effect on some elections, especially those that were decided by as little as 6 votes and a couple that were decided by a few hundred votes.

[wellst0nev0ter]

192. "Pelosi" was used just as much as "Defund" in attack ads

Are you going to blame her for the losses?

Oh right, I forgot. Those House losses weren't "germane" or relevant to your victory lap.

You can either punch left and continue to lose, or you can go after the real enemy, the goops, and stop spending X times more money on kumbaya ads.

[George II]

194. Ah, so now you're changing the subject. We're talking about "DEFUND THE POLICE" and its negative....

....effect on several House campaigns, costing us some.

[wellst0nev0ter]

197. No, you're just deflecting again

Like you usually do when you're backed into a rhetorical corner.

[George II]

198. 192 posts in this thread and you decide to bring Pelosi into the discussion. I'm "deflecting"?

Sorry, that's too funny.

I'm getting off this carousel, I'm getting dizzy. Have a great evening.

[wellst0nev0ter]

199. Take care, dude

[George II]

173. Duplicate post

[uponit7771]

174. THIS !!!! ☝🏾☝🏾☝🏾 Thank you, I'm think I'm going nuts when there's evidence after evidence of ...

... dems who defined themselves and the issues first, hard and often won.

Being defined by a political opponent is punching republican fist with our faces ... its that simple.

[RegularJam]

191. Defund the Police nt

[LetMyPeopleVote]

209. From Joe Biden

Link to tweet