Democrats have lost the narrative

[gab13by13]

I know what the rules are regarding speaking negatively of Democrats, with that said, if I just go gleefully on praising them I would be doing a disservice to them.

I hear or see no discussion of S1, I guess it's dead and we will just have to wait until the next election to see if we can overcome voter suppression, gerrymandering, and allowing Republicans to choose their own Electoral college delegates regardless of the voters preferences.

I also see time spent on the bipartisan infrastructure bill was wasted time and now I am reading today that the infrastructure bill that is scheduled to be passed through reconciliation is in danger of failing unless it is scaled way back. Will Democrats unite and pass a strong infrastructure bill?

No, I see that the narrative today has moved on to raising the debt ceiling. The reason for this narrative is to paint Democrats as big spenders who must be stopped increasing the national debt. As a matter of fact, Lyndsey Graham has come out and flatly stated that there must be cuts to Social Security and Medicare before Republicans will agree to raise the debt ceiling. So my question about this is, surely Democrats will not capitulate to any negotiations regarding Graham's demand, surely Democrats will ignore this demand for cuts SS and Medicare? Also, why is raising the debt ceiling the narrative now? Republicans are excellent at controlling the narrative because the MSM is complicit with them. We need Democrats to force the narrative back where it belongs, S1, bold infrastructure, getting vaccinated and suppressing Covid mutations, getting to the bottom of who was behind the insurrection and not just holding the people who invaded the Capitol accountable but the funders and members of Congress who were complicit.

I will appreciate anyone who can talk me off the ledge I am on.

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. It all depends on what comes out of Congress this year

Deeds will speak louder than any words if Democrats manage to implement most of Biden's Infrastructure+ agenda. Moods and polls and talking points may swing wildly in the months prior to this session of Congress ending. What will ultimately matter is what Democrats deliver on prior to the Midterms. That will define the messaging that matters, when it matters most, for better or for worse.

[Comfortably_Numb]

2. Unfortunately I cannot talk you back from your ledge but I can assure you that I stand there beside

you. I am back to largely avoiding my preferred news channels/shows, CNN MSNBC, because the narrative has become toxic. They bloviate that “Biden is losing this…. Giving up on this…. Blah blah blah.” They ignore the reality that only one major political party, our DemocratIC party believes in our democratic form of government and is working for the people and it is sickening. I get the ratings whoring that mainstream media is beholden to. I don’t have to support it or like it though.

[Bettie]

38. I'm standing out there too

wish I felt more confident.

Be warned, you will be labelled a "doom and gloomer". That's always the answer to asking any questions whatsoever.

[Comfortably_Numb]

40. I'm enjoying the company on this ledge so far so let the slings and arrows fly!

[treestar]

3. Democrats never have "the narrative"

whatever that is. The M$M sees to that.

[uponit7771]

96. +1, but lets keep blaming the slogans of the oppressed for our losses / sarc. There are two ...

... studies showing dem "narrative", brand or message down ballot was weak while it was strong at top.

[Tadpole Raisin]

4. Don't know if you can be talked back from the ledge

In the past I would pull my hair out at how gullible and ineffectual democrats could be, trying to be so fair that they got run over.

Whereas republicans would develop slogans they’d repeat ad nauseam until people believed it (was that Goebbels?) Democrats would try to explain in detail the logic of their argument and lose the masses before they began the third sentence.

That being said things feel a little bit different this time. If not for the close margins in Congress I think they would be more aggressive and if we are lucky enough to thwart history and gain seats in the midterms I think Ds will push harder.

It’s the news media who has the short attention span and I am hoping Ds will keep their nose to the grindstone and not get pulled off course. They seem to be doing a better job at this chess game (with a little poker thrown in).

But I leave it to wiser and more experience posters to tell us more. Don’t give up!

[CrispyQ]

5. The right knocked the fight out of our side when they assassinated JFK, MLK, & RFK.

We still haven't recovered. I see fight in our younger dems, but the old guard has been slow to recognized the change in the Republican Party & it may cost us our country. Looking forward, not holding the repubs accountable, has emboldened them. Their next strongman won't be a crude, rude, incompetent fool.

[former9thward]

19. Only one of those was assassinated by a right winger --- MLK.

JFK was killed by Oswald who had defected to the Soviet Union. His past was as an activist with pro Castro groups. RFK was killed by a Palestinian who was upset by RFK's support for Israel.

[CrispyQ]

20. Thanks for the correction. -nt

[Boomerproud]

55. Those 3 men would be the first to say fight for what's right.

If we don't continue to fight for the right thing they will have died in vain.

[DFW]

6. I wish I could offer an argument

All members of Congress have their tiny pet projects and/or agendas. The difference between Democrats and Republicans seems to be that Democrats are willing to see good projects delayed or dead if they don’t get their way, where Republicans act as if none of their pet projects is worth even mentioning, and their main task is forming a solid block to any and all Democratic initiatives.

They use this as their main “accomplishment” to present as reason to re-elect them, and the media backs them up. Far from being ashamed of the label, “The Party of NO” thrives on the title.

[ChrisF1961]

7. No one said you have to gleefully praise Democrats

It's just that some take a doom and gloom perspective, then blame Democrats for everything wrong. Too many times it's "Democrats are useless unless they do what I want". As far as I'm concerned those who constantly blame Democrats as if they could wave a magic wand to fix everything can go...

[gab13by13]

8. I blame no Democrats for wrongs,

never said that. I want them to fight harder.

[ChrisF1961]

9. So you're in the

"Democrats are useless unless they do what I want" camp?

[Ponietz]

10. Please stop

🙏

[ChrisF1961]

12. Why?

I'm not allowed to ask a question?

[Crunchy Frog]

16. Oh goody. Another new poster to put on ignore.

[ChrisF1961]

17. Buh bye

[Bettie]

39. I think the internet term for this is

"sea lioning"...."well, I'm just asking a question..."

[Caliman73]

22. The question makes assumptions/judgements, therefore it is not in good faith.

That is my opinion, but typically a question that is really asking for an answer, is neutral and one interlocutor invites the other to share information without any assumption.

[ChrisF1961]

24. Maybe it does

But this is a discussion forum and people are allowed to have opinions. Too many post something expecting everyone else to just automatically agree with them and as soon as someone disagrees they get all defensive and try to move the goal posts of what they said.

[Caliman73]

28. Sure, but if you want to promote "discussion" then it is better to approach with curiosity ...

rather than an opinion.

There is nothing wrong with having an opinion. You are also right that some people expect everyone to share their opinion and get defensive.

When we are communicating however, we should look to see whether our own words are fostering an environment of discussion, or if we are helping to push them into a defensive posture.

You can ask your question in a way that puts the person into a defensive posture like, "Are you just one of those people who are into doom and gloom?" OR you can ask, "Can you expand on why you think things are so bad for the Democrats?"

Obviously, that alone doesn't solve the issue that some people just want to shit on whatever they want to, or are panicking, or whatever else may be going on internally, but at least you are doing your part to foster discussion... right?

[ChrisF1961]

29. Sorry that my "approach" doesn't

come up to your high standards. But then of course it doesn’t have to. Or do you make the rules here?

[Caliman73]

30. Nope. I don't make the rules.

Just trying to give some friendly advice.

Good luck.

[ChrisF1961]

34. When I want advice

I’ll ask for it.

[Caliman73]

41. OR...

This being a discussion board and all, when someone with an opinion, sees something they don't agree with, maybe they'll point it out and offer some advice regardless.

You know, this being a discussion board where people have opinions and no one can tell them what to do and all...

You can take it or leave it.

[ChrisF1961]

43. I don't mind someone disagreeing

But I do mind someone giving condescending advice because my “approach” doesn’t meet their personal standard.

[Caliman73]

45. I don't mind disagreement either.

I just don't like when people make assumptions about other people's motivations and put that into bad faith questions.

See how anyone can do that?

I think we should agree to disagree and move on. I am sure we will agree on things in the future and disagree on others.

You do you and I will do me.

[ChrisF1961]

48. I asked a question

You’re making an assumption about my motivation in asking it. So you are guilty of what you are accusing me of doing yourself. So maybe next time you decide to lecture someone on their approach you should start with the person in the mirror and not pretend that you are the arbitrator or what is and isn’t appropriate for others say in their posts.

[Caliman73]

53. I was giving my opinion based on what I read. Like you gave your opinion in your question.

Like I said, we can go around and around on this.

As I said, I don't make the rules and I am not the arbitrator. I am just responding to a post on a discussion forum where no one can tell us what to do, where we are free to ask questions, but we should also expect to get questions and opinions in return, which maybe do agree with us.

[ChrisF1961]

54. Yes and you made an assumption

about my motivation, which is what you accused me of doing, and proceeded to lecture me on my “approach” as if you were the arbitrator of what is appropriate to post. So please don’t try to walk back now that you were called out on it.

[Caliman73]

56. I am playing rhetorical games, like you are.

Go back and read your initial question to the poster and honestly tell me that you were asking that question solely to elicit a response without making any kind of judgement.

I will fully admit that I made the assumption that you asked the question in bad faith. I am not in your head. I can only infer from the wording of the question. That is the assumption I made and based on that assumption I gave the advice I gave.

This thread has been going on for multiple posts and 2 days now because you appear to be upset that you got called out, not only by me mind you.

I am only willing to continue the conversation where others just admonished you and moved on. So, here we are.

I can keep going. Just understand that I am able to see my flaws. I am a high self monitor. I am pedantic and verbose. I do make assumptions. My writing may appear condescending and sometimes it is, on purpose.

Are you willing to look at yourself and your own motivations too?

[ChrisF1961]

57. I agree

You are playing games and have been from the beginning. Maybe you should take your own advice instead of forcing it on people who don’t want it.

[Caliman73]

58. OR, and just hear me out, OR...

You can just not respond and step away.

You seem to have no insight into your own behaviors.

This is interesting to me. I can keep going.

[ChrisF1961]

59. As I said before

If I want advice, I’ll ask for it. And again maybe you should start taking your own advice and step away.

[Caliman73]

60. Why step away?

As I said, this is interesting to me. Learning a lot.

[ChrisF1961]

63. Learning a lot?

Here’s something to learn, attacking someone else for behavior that you yourself are guilty of is called hypocrisy.

[tonedevil]

73. LOL /nt

[Caliman73]

75. Sure. Okay

Something you might want to consider.

When one person calls you out, it might be them. When more than one person calls you out, it's probably you.

How many people have called you out?

How many have called me out?

Another thing you might want to think about.

Why is it that you have not directly answered any of the questions I have asked through out the whole thread.

Yes, learning a lot.

[ChrisF1961]

77. Something you may want to consider

For centuries most people thought the earth was flat. Didn’t make right.
For centuries most people thought slavery was ok. Didn’t make them right.
Millions believe that Biden stole the election and Trump really won. Just because others agree with your opinion doesn’t make you right.

And I’m under no obligation to answer any questions.

[Caliman73]

109. Fascinating

Keep going.

You absolutely do not have to answer any questions, but then aren't we on a discussion board?

Or maybe you just want to ask questions maybe not in good faith and then spend a whole thread being defensive and responding to every comment or question as if you and only you matter.

Learning...

[ChrisF1961]

110. I'm not allowed to respond to comments?

Again I didn’t realize that you made the rules here.

[Caliman73]

115. I thought we established that I don't make the rules.

You can do whatever you please as long as it doesn't violate the TOS.

At no time did I say explicitly or implicitly that you can or cannot do anything. Even if I did, you have already stated, and I stipulated, maybe twice now, that you don't have to listen to me.

Since we are starting to repeat ourselves here, the shine is wearing off here.

I will leave you to battle it out with the others.

[ChrisF1961]

116. Glad that you admit it

And you don’t have to listen to me either.

[tonedevil]

44. Defensive much?

[ChrisF1961]

46. Oh I'm not allowed to

defend myself?

[tonedevil]

47. Where did anyone say not allowed?

[ChrisF1961]

50. Then why did you respond

Seems you have an issue. Or was just a personal attack?

[tonedevil]

61. That is all it takes to attack you?

You really are defensive.

[ChrisF1961]

62. Then what was the point

of your post?

[tonedevil]

65. I noticed you are very defensive.

Need there be more?

[ChrisF1961]

67. So?

Why did you feel it necessary to point out other than to engage in an attack?

[tonedevil]

71. I have told you why I made my comment...

you don't seem willing to accept my answer. Which is one of the ways I see you expressing your defensiveness.

[ChrisF1961]

74. Because you gave a non answer

Why did you feel it necessary to post other than to attack?

[tonedevil]

78. I made an observation...

if you felt attacked that's what you did with my observation.

[ChrisF1961]

80. Why did you feel the need to

make an “observation”? What was the point of making an “observation”? I make observations all the time but don’t always feel the need to post them unless I have a point.

[tonedevil]

82. My point is you seem very defensive..

I don't know why you want it to be more.

[ChrisF1961]

83. Again so what?

Why did you feel the need to point it out? And just because is not an answer.

[tonedevil]

84. It is the only answer I have to give you.

Maybe don't post so defensively on a public comment forum if you don't want it mentioned.

[ChrisF1961]

85. So you don't know why you took an action?

You don’t know what your motivation was? Is this true of other actions you take in life?

[tonedevil]

86. LOL..

Do you really think this is demonstrating how you are not defensive?

[ChrisF1961]

87. Never denied

That I was defending myself. I was. I’m just curious as to why you felt the need to point it out. What was the goal of doing so? And refusing to an answer a question is a type of defensive behavior.

[tonedevil]

89. Why do you think there is something more?

I read your comments and you come off as very defensive. There is no further goal i saw and I commented if that is too much for you I can't help you.

[ChrisF1961]

91. Maybe because

I don’t take an action unless there is a reason behind it. So again I’ll ask the question, do you often take actions and not know why you did? For example, do you go to the store and not know why you went there?

[tonedevil]

94. Observing someone's posts...

on a public message board and commenting on said posts is reason enough for me. If that's not enough for you it isn't my fault.

[ChrisF1961]

95. I observe people's posts all the time

I only respond to or comment on them if I have a point to make. So what was the point of your comment?

[tonedevil]

97. What other point...

do you suspect is lurking? The point is you are very defensive in your posting. It was glaring enough I felt I should mention it. What is the point of your comment on my shopping behavior?

[ChrisF1961]

99. Why did you feel you should mention it?

There must be a reason why you felt you should mention it.

[tonedevil]

100. It stuck out to me. /nt

[ChrisF1961]

102. Why so defensive?

You said you felt the need to comment. Plenty of posts stick out, that’s not an answer. So stop being so defensive and state the reason why you felt the need to comment.

[tonedevil]

103. I have answered you...

you not accepting my answer is your doing. If this seems defensive to you I can live with that.

[ChrisF1961]

105. No

You gave a defensive non-answer. You said you felt the need to comment. Why did you feel the need to comment? Simple question, should be a simple answer.

[tonedevil]

106. I saw someone being...

ridiculously defensive after trying to characterize another poster as a bad Democrat. The defensiveness was so glaring i felt it need to point it out.

[ChrisF1961]

108. I wasn't characterizing anyone

I was asking a question to determine the purpose behind their statements. However, you have characterized me as being defensive yet you’ve been defensive when asked to explain why you felt the need to comment. So you’ve done what you’ve accused me of doing.

[tonedevil]

111. That is cute...

It is rare to see someone so dedicated to the I'm rubber and you're glue strategy.

[ChrisF1961]

112. Again you're characterizing me

as well as still not answering my question as why you felt the need to comment.

[tonedevil]

113. What am I characterizing you as? /nt

[ChrisF1961]

114. Are you claiming that you didn't characterize me?

[tonedevil]

117. I did characterize you as...

a ridiculously defensive person. I think you have provided ample evidence of that.

[ChrisF1961]

118. Thanks for being honest

Now just be as honest about why you felt the need to comment about it.

[tonedevil]

121. It is not hard to see who lacks...

honesty in this thread.

[ChrisF1961]

122. So you're now characterizing me as a liar?

Tell me what have I lied about?

[tonedevil]

123. That i have been dishonest with you...

regarding my answering your bullshit inquiry for one. That gab13by13 is a bad Democrat for two. Join that with a general mean spiritedness and bad faith arguing you are regular trifecta.

[Brother Buzz]

124. Just so you know, Elvis has left the building

[tonedevil]

125. Oh I missed that, thanks. /nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. Your #9 post was a classic example of "too many post something expecting everyone else to just ...

... automatically agree with them and as soon as someone disagrees they get all defensive". You said too many people blame Democrats for everything wrong; the poster replied they didn't, and then you illogically said 'so you're in the "Democrats are useless unless they do what I want" camp?' (which was the camp of, in your extremely limited worldview, those who blame Democrats for everything wrong" ). When asked to stop (even with a ''pleading" emoji - after all, you are making a mockery of discussion) - you pretend you aren't being allowed to discuss things.

Really, I plead with you to take a break from this thread, come back, read your own posts objectively, and reconsider your style of discussion. It'd be better for everyone.

[ChrisF1961]

66. If you don't like my posts

you don’t have to read them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. But if you reformed, you could be an addition to DU

so it seems worth trying to get you to think again. Of course, if you don't like posts on DU, you don't have to reply to them.

[ChrisF1961]

69. I'm going to reply

when I disagree and when I’m attacked.

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. So why get snitty when someone disagrees with you?

"You don't have to read my posts" is a useless reply, which shows you're not trying to have a serious conversation, or thinking how your own posts might actually be received.

[ChrisF1961]

76. Because most are not disagreeing

They are attacking my approach rather than actually discussing the issue.

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. Most in the thread are discussing the OP issue; it's the sub-thread from your #9 that is the problem

because #9 was not an attempt to discuss the issue. It was a cheap, though invalid, shot based on your own earlier post rather than something anyone else had said. Nothing you have said in the sub-thread under that has been anything to do with the thread subject.

[ChrisF1961]

81. I asked a question

And have been relentless attacked for it. If there wasn’t a continued piling on in an attempt to bully me there wouldn’t be a sub-thread.

[muriel_volestrangler]

88. Your "question" was a bad-faith attack on a DUer

'So you're in the "Democrats are useless unless they do what I want" camp?' was a profoundly stupid 'question' to ask, even by the logic of your previous post. If there's any 'bullying' in this thread, that was the first example of it.

[ChrisF1961]

90. That's your opinion

You’re not in my head and don’t know what my motivation was.

[muriel_volestrangler]

92. Maybe it is

"But this is a discussion forum and people are allowed to have opinions. Too many post something expecting everyone else to just automatically agree with them and as soon as someone disagrees they get all defensive and try to move the goal posts of what they said." - as you said.

If your posts come across, to more than one person, as bad faith, it could be a sign you need to rethink how you post.

[ChrisF1961]

93. Maybe so

But it wasn’t bad faith, that’s making an unfair assumption. Provocative? Yes . Stated in artfully. Maybe. But still not an excuse for being attacked in an attempt to bully me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

98. Others think you were unfair in #9:

'So you're in the "Democrats are useless unless they do what I want" camp?'

The problem is that what you said doesn't look "inartful" or "provocative" to others. Calling you out for it is not "bullying". And the first accusation of bullying came from you; then, you seemed happy to assume the motivation of others.

[ChrisF1961]

101. Others think Biden cheated

and Trump is really the President. Doesn’t make them right. And there are millions of them. Far more than the handful of people here who objected to me asking a question.

I asked a question. Maybe in artfully. But it was just a question. No need for the vitriol that I’ve gotten in response.

[muriel_volestrangler]

104. It's not "vitriol", but it's very clear there was a big need for it

I think you know that your "question" wasn't a real one, but an attempt to score a cheap point, along the lines of the classic "when did you stop beating your wife?". If we point out your failures in argument, you may learn from them and not repeat them. That's the point. I recommend you do look up "sealioning", though.

[ChrisF1961]

107. Again that's your opinion

I admit I was being provocative. Continuing to attack me for it is vitriol.

[Texasgal]

119. Good GRIEF!

That's two minutes of my life wasted.

[ChrisF1961]

120. My apologies

[treestar]

13. What does that one mean?

Useless posturing doesn't get anything done, either.

The votes have to be there. "Fighting" is not a thing. Bernie does all this "fighting" but nothing happens. "Fighting" Manchin, how do the Democrats do that? How do they "fight" the Turtle? How do they get Republican votes by means of a "fight?"

[gab13by13]

15. I am not a Senator,

if I were Chuck Schumer I would break up S1 into individual bills with the obvious no brainers in the beginning. Bring each bill up for a vote rapid fire, one after the other, and when Republicans vote every bill down go to Manchin, Sinema, and whoever and ask them why they are against a filibuster carve out for election bills.

That is what I call fighting.

I am just a flunkie so I'm sure that smarter Senators can come up with similar ideas.

[treestar]

21. If that would work, IMO Schumer would have thought of it

I don't understand the arcane Senate procedures, but it looks like they already did some major fighting when they got the Parliamentarian ruling that they could pass more than one budget bill filibuster free. But no one posted on DU to give credit for that "fight."

[Caliman73]

23. Can you give some examples of what "fighting harder" means to you.

Concrete examples of what you think is possible, and what (let's say) you would do if you were Pelosi, or Schumer. With the caveat of taking a look at the media environment, what is it that Democrats should be doing to "recapture" the narrative?

[treestar]

127. That gets said a lot

As if the Democrats are willfully lazy. As if there are things they could easily do, but refuse to. Never looking at the system as it is. It favors those who don’t want change. That makes Republican obstruction easier for Republicans. Democrats do t want to obstruct. They want passage.

This is why it is frustrating to see them criticized for not doing enough. It is we who could do more We could protest, get out the vote and plod along not expecting fast results. But it is easier to sit back and claim someone is else is not fighting hard enough.

[Caliman73]

128. Too often.

I don't mind when people criticize a situation they don't like, but I prefer that they state what they would do differently.

[treestar]

126. What does that mean

What does it entail? How do they do that?

[iemanja]

11. Welcome to legislative democracy

Bills need to get a majority of votes. Biden doesn't rule by fiat.

[Ponietz]

14. My ledge: the FBI has an independent duty to investigate January 6th

It’s great with the little fish but gives every impression of impotence, indifference, and even sympathy for the traitors. Nothing works while criminal malefactors walk free, and the Congressional investigation will hit the pause button on law enforcement.

There is every indication the “right”will attempt to seize power permanently at the next opportunity. In the past 5 years some in the opposing camp even merited FISA warrants. WTF? Where are the indictments?

[brooklynite]

27. I'm impressed that you know what the FBI is and is not investigating...

How often do you get a briefing from them?

[Ponietz]

36. I remember your post about sleeping well at night prior to the insurrection

while many, many people attempted to sound the alarm. You didn’t take those warnings seriously, then, so I don’t expect much now from you, honestly.

[brooklynite]

37. I recall that there was a leadership change on Jan 20.

I have confidence in Joe Biden’ DOJ and FBI. Perhaps you don’t?

[Ponietz]

42. I already clearly stated I did not have confidence in the FBI -- especially under Wray

Just yesterday we learned the FBI did NOT investigate Kavanaugh as directed to by the Senate. Any confidence in the FBI right now is overconfidence, it seems.

[dajoki]

18. The narrative keeps changing because...

every time one of the Q's decide to say or do something stupidly different the media just allows them to rant on without any pushback. That being said, our Democratic lawmakers and strategists need to step up their game and keep the pressure on at all times. S1 must get passed one way or another, it's too important to all of us, not to mention the future of our country.

[Caliman73]

26. Agreed. The media actually controls the narrative. Conservatives have advantages in influencing it.

When the model of media is one of corporately controlled outlets that are driven by the profit motive, the side that relies on sound policy, fact, and being honest with the people, will always be at a disadvantage. The side that engages in hyperbole or outright lying, and expresses no shame and no remorse for the damage they do, will have an advantage because they are willing to say and do anything that brings attention to their cause.

I also completely agree that Democrats should, every time they get the chance, (and creating their own chances) pound away at the Republicans with true, but more fiery language. Call a LIAR a LIAR. McCarthy is a provable LIAR. They should say that. Jordan is disruptive and never comes to congress in good faith. Say that. Joy Reid says it on her show, however, her audience does not have the reach of ABC, NBC, or even Fox shows.

If neither S1 or the Infrastructure bill are passed through. It will be difficult for Democrats to maintain their majorities in the House and Senate. If they lose those chambers, Joe Biden will likely be a one term President.

[joetheman]

25. Bunk the narrative...it changes every other day. Tell the truth, do your duty for the people, and

get the hell out and vote in every fucking election from dog catcher to President! Allow no unopposed or unchallenged state or local elections. Run your mama if you have to. Just don't give democracy away. By the time 2022 is here the narrative will change and probably our way!

[Politicub]

31. What's a narrative?

And how does one go about not losing it?

[Poiuyt]

32. It's true that Republicans seem to always be winning, dispite Dems owning the top three branches of

government. Dems in Congress are working hard to follow Biden's agenda, but Republicans have been largely successful at blocking it.

Remember, Democrats are also fighting against conservative state legislatures, gerrymandering, the Electoral College, the filibuster, and inadequate representation in the House.

[Ponietz]

35. ...judicial appointments by TFG, white supremacist law enforcement,...

Dems have two branches of government — the executive and the legislative (both chambers, theoretically). The Supreme Court belongs squarely in their camp.

[ChrisF1961]

52. But Republicans owe the media

The so called “liberal media”.

[ismnotwasm]

33. No, they haven't .

[uponit7771]

49. Pauline says different, only 58% of whites think vote denial and nullification are important issues

[uponit7771]

51. NO NO NO!!! ... We should be blaming slogans for loss of narrative not dem messaging !!! / sarc

[radius777]

70. You're going to get hammered, but exactly correct.

Dems (at least the ones in control of the party apparatus) have long been naive to how the game works, and constantly get played by the Repubs and the media, who aren't operating in good faith.