Friday, July 15, 2016

Is "Lesser Of Two Evils" Going To Be Good Enough In November? What Does The Democratic Party Claim To Be Offering?


A new poll from AP/GfK indicates that 33% of Americans would feel afraid if Trump gets elected and 25% would feel afraid if Hillary gets elected. The worse news is that 23% say they will feel afraid if either of these two awful candidates gets elected. In other words, just 3 and a half months before election day over half the population would be afraid to wake up and find a President Hillary in the White House and not many more than that would be afraid of waking up and finding a President Trumpy-the-Clown in the White House.

Who do the Democrats have to blame for not being able to obliterate this pile of runny diarrhea with a $60,000 weave? Bring out a big mirror. The Democratic Party-- as Thomas Frank outlined so eloquently in his latest book, Listen Liberal-- What Ever Happened To The Party of the People, has turned itself into a Republican-lite party that represents the top 10% and is utterly unrelated the legitimate aspirations of working families. It has more in common with the policy agenda of Thomas Dewey than it does with a policy agenda of Franklin Roosevelt. Lake Research, working for, conducted an exhaustive study of independent swing voters and the Rising American Electorate (defined as voters of color, younger unmarried women, and Millennials) across thirteen battleground states: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin and they found a race that is dangerously competitive between two candidates that people neither like nor trust.

The voters that got Obama over the hump both times-- voters of color, younger unmarried women and Millennials-- "are less certain than swing voters about their participation in the election, even though-- and by substantial margins-- "see Trump as an essentially hateful, unstable bully, fundamentally untrustworthy and lacking the temperament necessary for the next President." They worry that Trump "would escalate the likelihood of catastrophic violent conflict from without and within, posing a serious threat to the future of the United States."

And Hillary is still struggling to close the deal! 10% of these voters are ready to vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson at this point, meaning they don't want Trump or Hillary. Maybe she should examine what it means to be a candidate of the people who is offering something to the people. Something! Instead Steve Israel's Democratic Party Policy and Communications Committee (which includes such anti-working family stalwarts as Blue Dog Cheri Bustos and Wall Street-owned New Dems as Jim Himes, Scott Peters, and John Delaney celebrated Bastile Day by sending out a letter to all Democratic congressmen (on recycled paper; see the Democrats are better than the Republicans) with the 2016 Democratic Party messaging. If nothing else, it shows why the Republicans have won hundreds of House, Senate and state legislative seats while people like Israel, Pelosi, Hoyer, Wasserman Schultz, Van Hollen and Emanuel have been in control of the party establishment. They named it Stronger America: A New American Security Agenda based on Israel's research which told him that voters like the words "stronger" and "security." He claims the document :reflected the diversity of our Members... As House Democrats, we must go home with our strong message of solutions for the American people. We will be able to tell our constituents how we will secure their nation, secure their future and secure their democracy."

And what is it that the worst and most failed DCCC chairman in history, Steve Israel, and his vision-free cronies are offering specifically?
House Democrats will:

Combat global terror hy working with allies in the Middle East and other countries, partnering with technology companies to combat online radicalization;

Ensure that our military and the brave men and women who keep us safe have the resources they need to eliminate security threats;

Increase funding for the FBI to enhance and expand their counterterrorism efforts and our response to threats at home;

Keep guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists and criminals with commonsense measures like "No Fly, No Buy" and expanded background checks;

• Expand DHS airport perimeter programs and screening of passengers.

Is he trying to elect Trump? I'm sure talking about expanding DHS passenger screenings will help elect exactly no one ever. That was Israel's first batch of how to communicate to win instructions. I wonder how much the House Democrats spent on the research that went into that. Here ares em of his other outstanding talking points for Members going home to stump for reelection.
House Democrats will:

Create innovative platforms to equip our workers with skills and training they need for the jobs of tomorrow;

Stop secret money from buying elections by overturning Citizens United and passing the DISCLOSE act;

Level the playing field so the voices of all Americans have an equal chance to be heard by passing the By the People legislative package
There are some typically hollow points about pay equity for women, investing in infrastructure, strengthening Social Security, guaranteeing voting rights and other things the Democrats have failed to do and on which many people doubt their sincerity. So, if you wonder why Democrats lose...

And one more word about the Lake Research survey worth remembering:
[A] word of caution in advancing a message that is fundamentally based on stoking public fears about Trump: cynicism about the political process is a significant barrier to voting, and messages that operate on a solely one-sided, negative dimension could have the impact of diminishing enthusiasm in the elections. Acting to eliminate something bad-- even a very potent bad-- is not as effective, empowering, or sustainable as acting to create something good. Ultimately, for this message approach to have maximal impact, it would be complemented by a positive antithesis to the core set of arguments against Trump, providing the voters something, and someone, affirmative to vote for.
These are not Steve Israel Democrats:
Goal Thermometer

Labels: , , , ,


At 5:58 AM, Anonymous DebbyNYC said...

It's all too true. The Democrats are Republican, and we're facing another Bush administration. But Bernie forced the genie out of the bottle, and they can't put it all the way back.

At 2:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Democrats lose because they want to be ruthless Republicans, but they are too cowardly to cross the aisle. Their constituents would throw them out of office if they did, and they can't live off the public teat.

At 8:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The first two comments are right on. I guess undoing the Reagan Devolution is going to take a while.

The lesser of two evils seems to have little meaning any more when one attributes evil to non-huge differences of opinion and any conflict whatsoever with one's own idea of ideological purity. I say that even though I agree 100% with you and Ken and Gaius and the others on every single issue, including being a long-time avid Bernie supporter.

There's no such thing as 'If Trump wins, then Dems will get more progressive next time cause they've learned their lesson'. If we elect a Republican, we automatically get equivalents of an Iraq and a Financial Meltdown and greater domestic suckitude. If we elect a Democrat, we at worst get less of that and always some real progress if not what we would consider enough or consistent enough.

Because you work so tirelessly and wisely for awesome candidates - and because your posts are so well-researched and evince such original often fascinating thinking - your opinions carry a huge amount of weight with me, more than anyone else online. I guess I'm tired of hearing about false equivalencies elsewhere that are totally bogus, and that I should cut you some well-deserved slack.

At 8:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, regarding Debby's excellent comment, I do disagree that with Hillary we'd get another Bush administration. Domestically - and domestic progress is crucial to dozens of millions of people - I think we'd get to continue the real progress, incremental and otherwise, that has happened under Obama, even if it's mostly by executive order and Cabinet rulemaking. I think she'd expand progressive goals even more than Obama did.

Foreign policy under Hillary may be Bush-like, but we don't know yet, despite her previous stances. I'm not at all naive about her neocon-ism and may be more hopeful than some that she will have to operate with greater constraints as has Obama. However, I don't think she'd send 100,000 troops and 50,000 mercenaries anywhere in particular.

Not a very high foreign policy standard, I know, but compare to Trump's anger, rage, arrogance, and constant lying. If you believe Trump's words that he's a non-interventionist, then I've got a bankrupt Atlantic City casino I'd like to sell you and get commission on. Projecting any GOOD thing onto Trump is obviously wishful thinking and Hillary hatred gone irrational.

No, not Lesser of Two Evils this year. Instead it's: One Huge Evil and One Oh God Please Let Her Follow Bill's Less Jingoistic Example.


Post a Comment

<< Home