Feeding the Frenzy - Have the Democrats Run Out of Ads and Twitter Outrages ?

Jan 2016
1,212
255
1984, all over again
to Rebrand itself? The real reason Clinton lost the election was Sanders booster club stayed home in Nov. 2016. You know it, I know it. It is no mystery that your typical Progressive tuned out, toned down, and dropped in to new interests after Sanders lost the nomination. Scrambling to keep the herd fixated, Democrats plastered the internet with LGBT, immigration outrage, race, class, gender, feminism, all the niche audience markers repeated daily after the adsurd DNC directed Jill Stein Green Party recount debacle failed. All of the exhaustive Russia paranoia via the MSM during the last 14 months has failed, and the A and B listed Late Night Hollywood fear campaign has not worked to amplify or generate a cohesive message, platform, or mindet
amongst all astroturf Democrat Party Elites slick sign printing, and TV hype it could muster in "Breaking News" blips every 15 min. on CNN/ MSNBC. Too bad guys, indentity politics failed - time to get a brand new bag of politically correct tricks?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Jan 2016
57,388
54,210
Colorado
to Rebrand itself? The real reason Clinton lost the election was Sanders booster club stayed home in Nov. 2016. You know it, I know it. It is no mystery that your typical Progressive tuned out, toned down, and dropped in to new interests after Sanders lost the nomination. Scrambling to keep the herd fixated, Democrats plastered the internet with LGBT, immigration outrage, race, class, gender, feminism, all the niche audience markers repeated daily after the adsurd DNC directed Jill Stein Green Party recount debacle failed. All of the exhaustive Russia paranoia via the MSM during the last 14 months has failed, and the A and B listed Late Night Hollywood fear campaign has not worked to amplify or generate a cohesive message, platform, or mindet
amongst all astroturf Democrat Party Elites slick sign printing, and TV hype it could muster in "Breaking News" blips every 15 min. on CNN/ MSNBC. Too bad guys, indentity politics failed - time to get a brand new bag of politically correct tricks?
Russia paranoia?!? Are you one of the incredibly naïve people who actually think Russia is our friend?!?
 
Jul 2014
40,588
11,065
midwest
Russia paranoia?!? Are you one of the incredibly naïve people who actually think Russia is our friend?!?
You may be thinking of Obama during his debate with Romney.

Yes, that was incredibly naïve of Obama.

One of the stupidest things he ever said.
 
Jan 2016
57,388
54,210
Colorado
You may be thinking of Obama during his debate with Romney.

Yes, that was incredibly naïve of Obama.

One of the stupidest things he ever said.
No, I am actually thinking of Donald Trump, with his repeated denials that Russia interfered in our election, and his refusal to say ANYTHING negative about Vladimir Putin.
 
Sep 2017
5,469
6,537
Massachusetts
to Rebrand itself? The real reason Clinton lost the election was Sanders booster club stayed home in Nov. 2016. You know it, I know it. It is no mystery that your typical Progressive tuned out, toned down, and dropped in to new interests after Sanders lost the nomination. Scrambling to keep the herd fixated, Democrats plastered the internet with LGBT, immigration outrage, race, class, gender, feminism, all the niche audience markers repeated daily after the adsurd DNC directed Jill Stein Green Party recount debacle failed. All of the exhaustive Russia paranoia via the MSM during the last 14 months has failed, and the A and B listed Late Night Hollywood fear campaign has not worked to amplify or generate a cohesive message, platform, or mindet
amongst all astroturf Democrat Party Elites slick sign printing, and TV hype it could muster in "Breaking News" blips every 15 min. on CNN/ MSNBC. Too bad guys, indentity politics failed - time to get a brand new bag of politically correct tricks?
What happened in 2016 is no great mystery. Essentially the same thing happens every time we get near full employment. When unemployment is well under 5%, real incomes are rising at a quick pace, and poverty is plunging, the American people stop thinking in terms of practical considerations like the economy, when they decide how (and whether) to vote. Instead, they think in terms of more symbolic matters -- tribal loyalties, cultural wedge issues, etc. That favors the Republicans, whose brand is built around bolstering the supremacy of the majority tribal and cultural groups -- whites, heterosexuals, Christians, etc. If people are thinking not in terms of who has the better economic plan, but rather how candidates come down on identity-politics issues, Republicans win.

That's why Democrats consistently succeed their way out of a job. Any time Democrats are given long enough in the White House to bring us to a point of near-full-employment and soaring incomes, the result is a culture-war vote that puts the Republicans in power. If it had only happened in 2016, my explanation would be mere speculation. But it happened in 2000, too: near full-employment, plummeting poverty, soaring incomes, and the result was a contest where the economy didn't matter much. In that context, the race-baiting, cultural-wedge-using party got enough votes that --with the help of "home field advantage" in the electoral college-- their guy became president. Go back before that, and when was the last time we had a presidential election with low and falling unemployment, soaring incomes, plunging poverty, etc.? 1968. Democrats had led us to remarkable prosperity, so Americans handed the presidency to the Republicans. Before that? 1952. In November of that year, the unemployment rate was just 2.8% -- down from the 24% the last Republican president had left. The reward for that remarkable success? The American people picked a Republican president (who, predictably, left an unemployment rate 3.7 point higher than the one he'd inherited.)

The remarkable thing here is how few people have noticed such a clear and consistent pattern. Every time Democrats lead us to prosperity, the American people show them the door. The only time in living memory they were able to hold onto power for more than eight years was the one time they'd inherited a situation so dire that eight years of very rapid improvement was still not enough to get us anywhere near full employment, so Americans gave them a few more years to finish the job before rewarding them for their success by electing a Republican. It's just how it works.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
Jul 2014
40,588
11,065
midwest
No, I am actually thinking of Donald Trump, with his repeated denials that Russia interfered in our election, and his refusal to say ANYTHING negative about Vladimir Putin.
Obama did it, and now looks foolish for having done so.

You don't remember that exchange?

Selective memory?

Oh well, they say the mind is the second thing to go...
 
Jul 2014
40,588
11,065
midwest
What happened in 2016 is no great mystery. Essentially the same thing happens every time we get near full employment. When unemployment is well under 5%, real incomes are rising at a quick pace, and poverty is plunging, the American people stop thinking in terms of practical considerations like the economy, when they decide how (and whether) to vote. Instead, they think in terms of more symbolic matters -- tribal loyalties, cultural wedge issues, etc. That favors the Republicans, whose brand is built around bolstering the supremacy of the majority tribal and cultural groups -- whites, heterosexuals, Christians, etc. If people are thinking not in terms of who has the better economic plan, but rather how candidates come down on identity-politics issues, Republicans win.

That's why Democrats consistently succeed their way out of a job. Any time Democrats are given long enough in the White House to bring us to a point of near-full-employment and soaring incomes, the result is a culture-war vote that puts the Republicans in power. If it had only happened in 2016, my explanation would be mere speculation. But it happened in 2000, too: near full-employment, plummeting poverty, soaring incomes, and the result was a contest where the economy didn't matter much. In that context, the race-baiting, cultural-wedge-using party got enough votes that --with the help of "home field advantage" in the electoral college-- their guy became president. Go back before that, and when was the last time we had a presidential election with low and falling unemployment, soaring incomes, plunging poverty, etc.? 1968. Democrats had led us to remarkable prosperity, so Americans handed the presidency to the Republicans. Before that? 1952. In November of that year, the unemployment rate was just 2.8% -- down from the 24% the last Republican president had left. The reward for that remarkable success? The American people picked a Republican president (who, predictably, left an unemployment rate 3.7 point higher than the one he'd inherited.)

The remarkable thing here is how few people have noticed such a clear and consistent pattern. Every time Democrats lead us to prosperity, the American people show them the door. The only time in living memory they were able to hold onto power for more than eight years was the one time they'd inherited a situation so dire that eight years of very rapid improvement was still not enough to get us anywhere near full employment, so Americans gave them a few more years to finish the job before rewarding them for their success by electing a Republican. It's just how it works.
Politics goes in cycles.

Been that way a long time.

I don't see that changing anytime soon...
 
Jan 2016
57,388
54,210
Colorado
Obama did it, and now looks foolish for having done so.

You don't remember that exchange?

Selective memory?

Oh well, they say the mind is the second thing to go...
Obama NEVER ONCE said that Russia could be our 'friend'. Trump has REPEATEDLY talked about how 'nice' it would be if we could 'get along' with Russia. It is YOUR memory that is selective here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Sep 2017
5,469
6,537
Massachusetts
Politics goes in cycles.

Been that way a long time.

I don't see that changing anytime soon...
The point, though, is about the nature of the cycles we've seen in the past, say, 90 years or so. Basically, Republican presidents screw up the economy, which makes voters responsive to Democratic economic ideas, and a Democrat gets elected president. Then we get years of improvement. Eventually, the economy gets to a point near "full employment," poverty is plummeting, and incomes soaring, and voters get complacent. They stop thinking in terms of economics and instead vote tribally. That puts a Republican president in power. Then the cycle repeats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person