The Democrats Need a New Message. EDITED

[elleng]

Last edited Thu Jun 1, 2017, 04:20 PM - Edit history (2)

After another demoralizing loss to a monstrous candidate, Democrats need a reboot.

'The story of Greg Gianforte, a fiend who just wiped out a Democrat in a congressional race about ten minutes after being charged with assaulting a reporter, is déjà vu all over again.

How low do you have to sink to lose an election in this country? Republicans have been trying to answer that question for years. But they've been unable to find out, because Democrats somehow keep failing to beat them.

There is now a sizable list of election results involving Republican candidates who survived seemingly unsurvivable scandals to win higher office.

The lesson in almost all of these instances seems to be that enormous numbers of voters would rather elect an openly corrupt or mentally deranged Republican than vote for a Democrat. But nobody in the Democratic Party seems terribly worried about this. . .

EDIT: But the explanations themselves speak to a larger problem. The unspoken subtext of a lot of the Democrats' excuse-making is their growing belief that the situation is hopeless – and not just because of fixable institutional factors like gerrymandering, but because we simply have a bad/irredeemable electorate that can never be reached.

This is why the "basket of deplorables" comment last summer was so devastating. That the line would become a sarcastic rallying cry for Trumpites was inevitable. (Of course it birthed a political merchandising supernova.) To many Democrats, the reaction proved the truth of Clinton's statement. As in: we're not going to get the overwhelming majority of these yeehaw-ing "deplorable" votes anyway, so why not call them by their names?

But the "deplorables" comment didn't just further alienate already lost Republican votes. It spoke to an internal sickness within the Democratic Party, which had surrendered to a negativistic vision of a hopelessly divided country.

People need a reason to be excited by politics, and not just disgusted with the other side. Until the Democrats figure that out, these improbable losses will keep piling up.'

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-the-democrats-need-a-new-message-w484569

[trc]

1. This latest "unsurvivable" scandal happened the night before the election

and the rethug lied about it. If you looked at the numbers of those who voted trump versus those who voted Hillary this result, to me, was a forgone conclusion. The reality is we are dealing with rethugs who LIKED AND APPLAUDED this guys treatment of the Liberal Reporter. So what message do you think would have worked in Montana? What message was used in Montana? What did dems do wrong in Montana?

[Mme. Defarge]

2. Amen.

[msongs]

3. such hysteria. sheesh. the guy lost a race by much less than would be reasonably expected and

the thug attack came too late in the election cycle to have much effect on the outcome from what I read about early voting.

[still_one]

4. No surprise this is from Matt Taibbi, and no surprise that Mr. Taibbi leaves out

the complete story.

When Taibbi brings up the assault against the reporter, he doesn't discuss that a large number of absentee ballots had been cast before that incident took place. It doesn't fit his narrative.

When Taibbi highlights a republican district in Montana, he ignores that Rob Quist rejected the DNC's help when Tom Perez offered it, and makes an inadequate conclusion that loss must have been because the "Democratic Message was wrong", failing to note that Gianforte, lost the STATEWIDE election to the DEMOCRAT, Steve Bullock,because it doesn't fit his narrative.

There are different dynamics that go on between a district election and a statewide election, and Taibbi knows that perfectly well.

Taibbi lets his personal bias interfere with his objectivity, and he has done this on a lot of things, especially all through 2016.

Taibbi did the same thing regarding Hillary, the FBI interference, and possible Russian involvement. He accused those who subscribe to the view that those things could have affected the election last year by brushing it off by saying they have no proof. Ironically, he is much more lenient with his ad nauseam refrains which never require proof as far as he is concerned

[brer cat]

14. Excellent post, still_one.

[rogue emissary]

5. What was the point of this article?

Cause the Montana race completely undercuts the article's thesis. Which is the pretty vague idea you just need excitement to get people to vote. That's the only "new message" I could find.

[still_one]

6. A typical Taibbi pseudo intellectual article, signifying very little

That Gianforte won an election in a very republican district says very little. That Gianforte lost the statewide election for Governor to a Democrat speaks volumes

[George II]

12. See my comment #11 below, Taibbi's examples are cherry picked to put Democrats in a bad light.

[still_one]

13. Thanks George, your characterization of "cherry picking" is perfect

and yes, Tabbai will always find some way to criticize Democrats

[LenaBaby61]

8. "What was the point of this article?"

I hear you.

You know, I don't give a damn how excited and passionate Dems would be about voting against this treasonous, putin-loving White House and against treasonous thuglicans in 2018, because as long as you have vulnerable, out of date voting machines, continued voter-suppression IE: Dems names being purged, voter-crosschecked off of voting rolls and NEW types of voter ID laws that discriminate and limit Dems from voting in states like WI., PA., MI., NC., AZ AGAIN but this time under a tRumpputin DOJ with beauguard leading the charge for thuglicans and on 'roids--and oh yes--have ruskie interference being asked for once again per treasonous fatso in the White House no Dem, no matter WHAT the messaging, will be winning the White House in 2020, making a dent in the Senate nor pick up the amount of Congressional seats they need to stop these treasonous thuglicans from destroying the shreading bonds our democracy anytime soon.

[rogue emissary]

15. Exactly.

Don't be surprised if Democrats do make inroads into getting nonvoter to vote. Watch Republican state legislators issue new rules. Like you'd need to have voted in the 2016 election to vote in the 2020 election.

[stuffmatters]

7. I agree w Taibbi that people need to be talked out of not voting at all

Last edited Mon May 29, 2017, 04:51 AM - Edit history (1)

When I looked at the final vote breakdown in Montana, it was actually shocking. There are 700000 registered voters in Montana. Just slightly over 50% actually voted. It wasn't that they all had already voted by mail before The Assault. Instead after The Assault almost half of the Montana's registered voters either were still so unimpressed with either candidate or so alienated that they simply did not care or think their vote mattered enough to vote.

This was a statewide, i.e. non gerrymandered, vote as Montana only has one Congressperson; it really wasn't one that was corrupted because Democratic votes were suppressed or polling places manipulated or voting counts suspicious. Nor do Republicans have such a monolithic grip that it's a one party state (so voters feel that its in the Republican bag no matter what.) It has a Democratic Governor and a Democratic Senator.

Almost half of the voters simply did not vote for either candidate. Those to me are the voters we Democrats must convince to vote, to vote not weakly against a Republican, but to vote enthusiastically for a Democrat. Bashing Trump is not going to win us back the House or the Senate..presenting and promoting respected, likeable, ABF (always be framing) candidates with popular,clear, consistent and honest positions, that's what will get the non voters to vote for Democrats.

[Squinch]

10. .

[George II]

11. Pretty negative, both from Taibbi and the comments following.

Sure, one can zero in on Democratic "losses" in isolated instances - the Gianforti election in MONTANA, the Grimm election on STATEN ISLAND, one of the reddest counties in New York State.

No mention of Christine Pellegrino, who also was involved in a special election, and WON by 16% in a heavily republican district or the election of another Democrat, Edith DesMarais in New Hampshire, who also won in a predominantly republican district.

But if one needs to find something to criticize Democrats, as Mr. Taibbi does, one can find examples.