@detroitmechworks @detroitmechworks

Same shit, different day, of course you're going to worry about the box you have on the shelf.

The dems worry about their pretty media boxes because they can't change the product, which comes direct and ready for insertion into the back door of the American people.

@Phoebe Loosinhouse How in the world did you ever find this?

where the contestants are coached incessantly to "create their brand" and "tell their story".

Some of us might feel that gaining elected office with the resultant power of either enhancing or screwing up the lives of the rest of us might warrant some reference to specific views, goals and policies, but that would imply that the desired end was bettering the lives of the constituency and not simply enhancing the resume and earning potential of the candidate/party.

It would be laughable if it weren't so pitiable with such grave consequences for the hoi polloi. I read a bunch of sad stories today about the Dems' effort attain better messaging and NONE of it focused on policy, only on improving PR in order to be "relatable" to the deplorables who for some obscure reason did not respond positively to insults and belittlement - a point of commonality with they shared with the Berners.

What is there left to say about a Party that remains so relentlessly clueless and unplugged in to the zeitgeist? It reminds me of the time the Lawrence Welk Singers did "One Toke Over The Line" introducing it as a "modern spiritual".

Lawrence Welk - One Toke Over the Line

@Phoebe Loosinhouse The "wow, we're getting away with this" looks on their faces while they sing make it even better.

(Also, I had a dress very similar to the one Gail is wearing when I was a little kid. Hee!)

where the contestants are coached incessantly to "create their brand" and "tell their story".

Some of us might feel that gaining elected office with the resultant power of either enhancing or screwing up the lives of the rest of us might warrant some reference to specific views, goals and policies, but that would imply that the desired end was bettering the lives of the constituency and not simply enhancing the resume and earning potential of the candidate/party.

It would be laughable if it weren't so pitiable with such grave consequences for the hoi polloi. I read a bunch of sad stories today about the Dems' effort attain better messaging and NONE of it focused on policy, only on improving PR in order to be "relatable" to the deplorables who for some obscure reason did not respond positively to insults and belittlement - a point of commonality with they shared with the Berners.

What is there left to say about a Party that remains so relentlessly clueless and unplugged in to the zeitgeist? It reminds me of the time the Lawrence Welk Singers did "One Toke Over The Line" introducing it as a "modern spiritual".

Lawrence Welk - One Toke Over the Line

@Benny
The message has to be an authentic expression of the candidate's values. The values need to come first, not the message. It seems like this consultant is saying that you put the message first and then you pretend to have values that match the message. What kind of queasiness inducing loser bullshit is that? Be a false person? Don't reveal your real values? All these corporatists, from both parties, would lose big in real, publicly funded, clean, transparent elections with debates instead of sound bites, which maybe explains a lot.

You do have to have a message, but it starts with "I'm candidate X and I'm running to make government a better one for you." That seems superficial, but that was Bernie's message, and it would work for moderates as well (not that I am of that political persuasion, but you get the point). Bernie took it a little further, saying that Democrats/politicians cannot just serve the wealthy, that we [not he] believe that government serves a purpose beyond corporate welfare and defense spending. We want everyone to succeed which means having a government take a real economic role for citizens and a vision that if we have a good rolling tide, all boats will rise, not just the 1%ers or those in MIC.

The same consultants that Ossoff had were likely the same ones Clinton had, not just Obama. As Parnes & Allen pointed out in Shattered, Clinton did not give her speech writers much to work with except her many nuanced plans, which isn't a vision; consequently, that equates to not having a message either. Too many chiefs and not enough cooks, so to speak. She pitted people against each other when it suited her personal gain, not for the campaign's purpose. Or at least, that's how her message came across to me. #I'mwithHer. Really? About what or why? Because she's a woman with a great resume for the professional moderates? I didn't see much empathy either.

So you do have to have a message, but as Nina Turner said very succinctly about the Democrats at the People's Summit:

Titles are Good, Purpose is Better.

And you have to show more than just values, and this is where I agree with the diarist, you talk about issues or concerns to people who were out of reach. Her husband successfully did that in 1992. Governance is another issue that doesn't need to be rehashed, we know it created dot.com bubbles, dismantled Glass-Stegall, supported trade agreements that caused tons of jobs move overseas, as well as his administration threw away marriage equality and universal healthcare under the bus. The only thing Hillary Clinton appeared to want to do differently was marriage equality; that was already decided before the 2016 election cycle. Nope, just status quo, which Shattered the Democratic Party.

However, Bill Clinton's SCOTUS picks turned out to be decent ones for social justice in the long term, and I suspect Hillary's would have been on scales of social justice. Don't know if they would have stood related to the commerce clause though.

Thanks for pointing out the article. I didn't catch it until I saw it here.

@FuturePassed
on your face. It's being telegraphed enough:

Since they won't ever get the bi-partisanship and compromise they are looking for from the Republicans as cover for their own conservative, elitist, privileged bent, they will compound their own poison pills by salting their own party liberally with newly minted conservative Dem Blue Dogs on whose behalf they are busily drawing up the blueprints for as we speak - candidates who "match their District" or "engage the heartland".

The success of this plan is somewhat doubtful, because we've seen this play before and the typical result is that they depress their own base vote and get no crossover anyway since people will once again vote for the real Republican and not the Dem Lite Republican, BUT it is possible that the overt homicidal tendencies of the Republican healthcare bill might energize the We'd Like To Live faction of the electorate and give the Dems seats they would not otherwise have won.

They will reward these voters by offering up watered down half solutions to the pressing issues facing the general public and then in the next cycles will go back to losing seats and statehouses and will hold autopsies where everyone in the inner circles of power will agree that once again they were done in by poor messaging.

Democratic Groundhog Day.

Please take a look at Westen's book, THE POLITICAL BRAIN". You might find you agree with him more than you think.

"The goal seemed to be to find something vaguely Republican for him to say, and to keep his head down." He's saying he should have sounded like a Democrat.

Bernie didn't go into depth about a huge range of issues. He kept his central focus on issues surrounding economic inequality including health care. (His decision was the basis of many of the identity politics attacks.) The rest was narrative. But did his supporters have any trouble deducing his position on other issues from his narrative and his voting record?

Westen is a clinical psychologist. He has literally hooked up groups of people to brain scans and observed their unfiltered responses to political stimuli. Generally, he consults for Democrats to the left of Clinton and Obama. He may have offered Obama some help, but when Obama was slowly evolving on GLBT issues he wrote a scathing article in which he charged that Obama thinks gays are "icky".

And Ossaff was a terrible candidate who did little to identify himself as a Democrat, a perfect DCC choice who wasted lots of DCC money.

@eyo @eyo

I've driven up the 101 (The Redwood Highway) a number of times and have always enjoyed stopping in Willits for a bite to eat. I've also enjoyed stopping at nearby Hopland to go to one of their excellent breweries. When I was a kid I went on the steam powered Skunk Train from Willits, over beautiful hills and through redwood forests to Fort Bragg on the coast. I imagine the bypass will do some economic damage to Willits.

Millions that could have been put to better use, I'd say. It's not like there's no homeless emergency, or hunger, or poverty, or anything. "We're Hollywood, We Do Our Part". Insert Silicon Valley now I guess, and the next Kannabis king will be worshipped as the fisheries die, the watershed fades. And tunnels! Woo, who woulda thought they'd have "no significant environmental impact"? omg corrupt.

Final price of Willits bypass $159 million higher than reported because of course! How pathetic, even Arnie's CalTrans seemed much better run then the current hot mess Brown doesn't care for. What a dick.

How the budget Jerry Brown just signed affects schools, marijuana and child care

The budget also calls for modest spending on students in both systems who can’t afford food.

Whack! Thank you sir, may I have another?

"Vote for us, we modestly spend a pittance on hunger." Fair wages? Not so much. Housing? Fugetaboutit. Thanks.

@Phoebe Loosinhouse LOL: WTF does this even mean?

(Rhetorical question).

That is the gist of this article in The Guardian:

Schumer: new democratic 'agenda' will 'resonate with middle class'
“Democrats need a strong, bold, sharp-edged, and common-sense economic agenda. Policy, platform, message that appeal to the middle class. That resonate with the middle class … and unite Democrats. That’s what I’ve been working on for months.”

Gee, ya think, Chuck? In another exciting tidbit from the article, Schumer sat next to a real live Trump supporter at a ballgame and survived to tell the story. He can confirm that they do actually exist.

In all this boo-hooing and scab-picking about poor messaging, I think something is being lost. The Democrats DID have a message and the electorate received it loud and clear.

The Democrats message was that they didn't need a message, and they pretty much despise having to go through this whole annoying election process in the first place; they could and would continue to coast on lesser evilism and demographics. They telegraphed their contempt for their own voters by excluding them from the selection process in the primaries by lining up the super-delegates and the endorsements so that Hillary was a foregone conclusion. THEY picked her in the smoke-filled back room and their voters could like it or lump it. Then they doubled down on their elitism by insulting both large portions of their own base as well as the Trump supporters.

One of the most telling moments was when Schumer referred to sectors of the electorate like he was upgrading his baseball card selection - two suburban voters for one blue collar voter was a good deal to him. Voters were/are interchangeable pieces on the Stratego board, not flesh covered breathing humans who can literally live or die based on whatever corporate sponsored legislation is being served up by our horrific duopoly.

You know how Democrats crow about winning the popular vote by three million? They lost to TRUMP! They should have won the popular vote by tens of millions and had a sweep of the electoral college. Reflect for a moment on how existentially bad a party and candidate has to be to lose to Donald J. Trump. Not to mention all the other seats lost over the years of centrism, pragmatism,expediency,tri-angulation, incrementalism and ill-conceived one-sided bi-partisanship.

I'm sorry, it may seem hard-hearted, but Chuck and Nancy have to be led onto the ice floe by the tribe and set gently adrift into the sunset and new leaders with more credibility have to take the helm.