HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Qutzupalotl » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »

Qutzupalotl

Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 13,121

Journal Archives

This might have been the best outcome for our democracy.

Obviously, this was not the outcome we had hoped for. Holding both chambers would have made a world of difference for the country, and benefitted our party for 2024.

This might be the second best outcome for our party, but I wonder if it wasn't the better outcome for our country. We demonstrated to election deniers that we can lose. That should give them pause: after all, if we were capable of rigging elections, wouldn't we have saved the House? We wanted it badly, and didn't get it.

I wonder, though: if we did keep both chambers, what would that do politically? The election deniers would have hit the roof, with accusations flying everywhere. J6-style attacks could have been staged at state capitols, and the country pushed closer to breaking apart.

But now? Barely a peep. The RNC was quick to boast about winning the House. No problem with those ballots.

While I would have greatly preferred to continue checking agenda items off our list, I would not at the expense of a second civil war. This outcome is bittersweet, but maybe a little sweeter when you consider an alternative timeline of utter chaos.

As it stands, we dodged a bullet. We blunted the worst of the expected red wave, and it was not a humiliating defeat for either side. Republicans won't be able to get anything done for the people. The election results were widely accepted, and seemed to go fairly smoothly.

Nothing is ever permanent in politics, so an uneasy truce may be the best we can hope for at this point. Democracy, like justice, must be continually safeguarded. Our country is battered, but holding. We live to fight another day.

How can they tell?

I'm picturing a burglar opening an empty jewelry box and stuffing his pockets full of air.

As a dude, I can say it was probably RNC dudes who thought you'd forget

about your own bodily autonomy and get mad about this other thing they want you to be mad about.

It doesn't affect us dudes on a visceral level the way it does you, so we are distractible and assume everyone else is, too.

But the women Dobbs affects will never forget, and I am proud and grateful they rose up to answer it.

It poisons the electorate, though.

It normalizes insanity and makes it even more extreme. Yes, there is a short-term gain, but the cost to society could be enormous.

Agree completely.

No slot anywhere uncontested.

Talk with the people everywhere. Let them see we all want the same basic things, you'll win a few over. At a minimum they would respect you more for expressing your opinion and explaining what you stand for. That woud at least give you a foothold in areas we've been writing off in order to “focus resources elsewhere.”

Local candidates just need to be on the ballot. $250 in some places. That's all they would need to be there to catch the anti-incumbent vote, to at least have an alternative for voters, in the event of a scandal.

Not being there to defend your beliefs looks weak. Be everywhere.

I think polls are missing a lot of rightfully angry women.

Think Kansas.

If I had to guess, I's say a shift of about 5% or so — huge in political terms — coming from women who won't tell a pollster their true feelings in front of their family, but alone in a voting booth can vote in their own interests.

Dobbs is still resonating, and a lot of people don't have the luxury of forgetting about it.

How in hell is pressuring a state to falsify an election

a protected legislative activity? It wasn't even the state be purportedly represents. The Senate was not in session. And it was part of a conspiracy to defraud the United States.

Keep in mind people are more siloed than ever, and might never hear about

all the terrible things Republicans do that we discuss here. Likewise we only hear a few outlines of what they are talking about. Both sides are acting according to their media input. Consider that if you heard about someone who was really eating babies, of course you'd want to stop them. They just lack the skills to differentiate true and false, but otherwise they act according to their beliefs as we do ours. They are your countrymen and women. They are political rivals but not enemies. Just some perspective.

Dems: When asked any question, SAY WHAT YOU BELIEVE.

We tend to rattle off specific policy proposals as answers. That interests our base, but the Right hears that and thinks, more government is not the solution, so they harden against us.

But if you use any question as a chance to say WHAT YOU BELIEVE, independents and RW voters will a) see you as fearless, bold unafraid—a leader; and b) see you as likable and one of them, because we all want the same things—a fair shot to earn a living, good schools, good opportunities, good healthcare. Articulating these has the added benefit of making your opponent appear to be against those things.

Fetterman excels at this. That and his image are why he is catching on, IMO.

When I say we should show emotion, this is what I mean.

Righteous anger is contagious, and winning.

We tend to come off as wonkish or robotic if we just rattle off policies, even if we're listing benefits. But if you show genuine emotion in in plain language, everyone will be influenced and tend to agree.

Talk radio and right wingers do this all the time. Tim Ryan can do it. Even Sen. Bennett can do it. More on our side should, and more often.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »