Snake? Snake! SNAAAAAAAAKKKEEEE!!! 2020I mean, it's California.
A cardboard box with a D on it might win Statewide.
I imagine she would have been trounced in a gubernatorial race in Georgia, lol.
These are bills that can pass Day 1 of a Democratic government.
It has nothing to do with "messaging" impeachment. The American public does not care that much, and the media doesn't cover it unless it drives some narrative that gets viewers. You cannot sell them all a bill of goods they have no interest in.Democrats in Congress couldn't properly message an impeachment if Trump actually did shoot somebody on 5th Avenue.
It has nothing to do with "messaging" impeachment. The American public does not care that much, and the media doesn't cover it unless it drives some narrative that gets viewers. You cannot sell them all a bill of goods they have no interest in.
Republicans don't have good "messaging". They just say the things they know their rabid voter base wants to hear. Preaching impeachment is not going to win all the people who don't care or who aren't interested in going through that process, even if the left would eat it up (and it accomplishes nothing, like Benghazi or repealing the ACA).
If Benghazi was nothing, Hillary would be president.Preaching impeachment is not going to win all the people who don't care or who aren't interested in going through that process, even if the left would eat it up (and it accomplishes nothing, like Benghazi or repealing the ACA).
I've seen Kamala in action.
She is a great campaigner. And a wonderful and passionate speaker. I don't buy the argument that she's "bad at this" when she's managed to stay above, for so long, candidates who are allegedly better.
But she is being failed by her campaign. Which is, ultimately, on her.
To me, Kamala is running the splitting image of HIllary's 2016 General campaign in terms of everything I thought that campaign did wrong. Basically, it's an old-school campaign of peaks and valleys. It's a campaign primed for "big moments" and...radio silence until the next big moment.
When Kamala experienced that 10 point bump after the first debate, i knew it wasn't going to last. NOT because she attacked Biden (in my book, she's STILL the only candidate to effectively clean Biden's clock in a debate), but because her campaign was completely unprepared to capitalize on the moment. They sold some t-shirts, and then outside of a few small interviews went completely quiet. That just doesn't fly in the age of social media and 24 hour news where the President can change the topic with a tweet.
When Warren was fading, she responded with relentless campaigning.
Hell, when Buttigieg was fading, he responded with relentless campaigning.
Kamala, on the other hand, seems to be constantly waiting. And, that's the death knell.
While the gambit ultimately paid off (because the media was so eager to facilitate their bad-faith bullshit), the hearings were a complete waste of time and produced no actionable results.
Chris Murphy right now giving it to the Senate, for the umpteenth time, about gun legislation.
I caught it, but not in time haha!I too fear that cheap unlicensed gin distillers are flooding our streets with poison.
(you go Chris)
Missed this post earlier. Quality.I've seen Kamala in action.
She is a great campaigner. And a wonderful and passionate speaker. I don't buy the argument that she's "bad at this" when she's managed to stay above, for so long, candidates who are allegedly better.
But she is being failed by her campaign. Which is, ultimately, on her.
To me, Kamala is running the splitting image of HIllary's 2016 General campaign in terms of everything I thought that campaign did wrong. Basically, it's an old-school campaign of peaks and valleys. It's a campaign primed for "big moments" and...radio silence until the next big moment.
When Kamala experienced that 10 point bump after the first debate, i knew it wasn't going to last. NOT because she attacked Biden (in my book, she's STILL the only candidate to effectively clean Biden's clock in a debate), but because her campaign was completely unprepared to capitalize on the moment. They sold some t-shirts, and then outside of a few small interviews went completely quiet. That just doesn't fly in the age of social media and 24 hour news where the President can change the topic with a tweet.
When Warren was fading, she responded with relentless campaigning.
Hell, when Buttigieg was fading, he responded with relentless campaigning.
Kamala, on the other hand, seems to be constantly waiting. And, that's the death knell.
Yes focus on more useless legislation that virtually no one is paying attention to vs kneecapping kav which people actually would pay attention to or capitalizing on an actually very well done impeachment hearing today.
I can see the impeachment happening if Trump's goes through. Or if Kav does something dumb now that he's already made it there.How the hell are you going to "kneecap kav" ? He ain't getting a 2/3s majority to impeach. He's not going to be shamed into resigning a LIFETIME appointment. He's not getting voted out of office. You can't make the GOP take a "difficult" vote when the people we're targeting...already took said vote to put him on the fucking supreme court. Like...impeachment is the new left's catchall for impotent rage, told by (rightly!) frustrated liberals, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
I also think a lot of people have a very hollywood view of what impeachment is, and really have no grasp for how shitty prepared our media is to cover it fairly. (And, ya, I mean fairly, not with the tint I'd like them to give stories but with actual facts which are not always 1:1).
Painful to watch, I agree. But this is how these judicial, intelligence, and oversight hearings have been so far. These people just don't cooperate or take congressional responsibility seriously, and they want other people to come away with the same feeling (not taking government seriously) - so that as many of them as possible will either vote for Trump or sit out the general election.
The difference now is that this is "post-impeachment-announcement", but otherwise there's really not much difference than the earlier ones.
And yet, so much has been gathered and uncovered to this point. And at every hearing, the up-to-the-moment news coverage has been "what in the world are they doing", but by 24 hours later the story has completely changed and more gets either leaked or uncovered. So I am going to stick with this for now and their performances before congress are not going to sway me into sitting out the general election.
As for VP, yes please keep Stacey Abrams far far far away. It's funny how everyday a lot of you shit on Kamala Harris, a qualified black woman with actual experience. But then you double down on the insult by elevating a token unqualified black woman to be VP. We're past the point of needing just any black face on the ticket when we have actual qualified people of color for the job....
What does "kneecapping Kav" mean here? Is there a way to basically make SCOTUS decisions null-and-void based on who made them? Because if not, all you'd be doing is sowing distrust of SCOTUS as an institution. And if that's what you want, then okay, but it won't help in the near-term, and it'll be actively harmful in the long-term.
If we successfully impeach and convict Trump, then, sure, you have a case to make for being okay with getting rid of both of Trump's nominees. I just don't think that will happen. And Kav has no reason to do something stupid, because this is all pointless to his position. Like, it's sad but true. That's one of the downsides from lifetime appointments.I can see the impeachment happening if Trump's goes through. Or if Kav does something dumb now that he's already made it there.
I'd recommend watching Berke's tear down:
The key thing from this whole cherade, though, and the reason I think it took so long to get to, is that Nadler was laying down the rule changes to prevent future stone-walling. Don't be surprised if other witnesses now entirely chicken out of every appearing, and may need to be fined repeatedly to attend.
Impeach Thomas or the democrats are useless cowards.
I'd recommend watching Berke's tear down:
The key thing from this whole cherade, though, and the reason I think it took so long to get to, is that Nadler was laying down the rule changes to prevent future stone-walling because the response from Republicans when this happened was sheer chaos, but they can not do it again. Don't be surprised if other witnesses now entirely chicken out of every appearing, and may need to be fined repeatedly to attend.
How the hell are you going to "kneecap kav" ? He ain't getting a 2/3s majority to impeach. He's not going to be shamed into resigning a LIFETIME appointment. He's not getting voted out of office. You can't make the GOP take a "difficult" vote when the people we're targeting...already took said vote to put him on the fucking supreme court. Like...impeachment is the new left's catchall for impotent rage, told by (rightly!) frustrated liberals, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
I also think a lot of people have a very hollywood view of what impeachment is, and really have no grasp for how shitty prepared our media is to cover it fairly. (And, ya, I mean fairly, not with the tint I'd like them to give stories but with actual facts which are not always 1:1).
I mean, it's California.
A cardboard box with a D on it might win Statewide.
I imagine she would have been trounced in a gubernatorial race in Georgia, lol.
Sounds like Coogan will win handily in November at least.Correia, who is facing multiple federal corruption charges, finished behind Paul Coogan, a two-time school committee member. As the top two vote-getters, Coogan and Correia are advancing to the general election.
According to unofficial results, Coogan received 8,273 votes (62.6%) while Correia received 2,777 (21.0%). Third-place finisher Erica Scott-Pacheco, a community advocate, received 16.4% of the vote with 2,171 ballots cast in her favor.
The 27-year-old Correia pleaded not guilty this month to extorting hundreds of thousands of dollars from marijuana companies. He's also pleaded not guilty to federal charges he defrauded investors in a smartphone app he was developing.
The city council last week voted to temporarily remove Correia from office, but Correia has refused to leave, saying the council lacks the authority.
But you don't get to unfuck that chicken. We're not the party that rallies against the legitimacy of co-equal branches of government. Kav absolutely should not have been appointed to the supreme court, but he was confirmed legally. He's a piece of shit who should probably be in prison, but no amount of illegitimizing him is going to change that. And, let's say we appoint Thomas' and Ginsberg's replacements, thus balancing the court a bit. We gonna now tell people "Trust the supreme court NOW.....even though the guy who we used to damage it is still there?"You render him illegitimate and damage the reputation of the Supreme Court as a result. About the only play left. If they poison the institution with toxic people who can't be removed, then the institution itself must be quarantined.
I'd recommend watching Berke's tear down:
The key thing from this whole cherade, though, and the reason I think it took so long to get to, is that Nadler was laying down the rule changes to prevent future stone-walling because the response from Republicans when this happened was sheer chaos, but they can not do it again. Don't be surprised if other witnesses now entirely chicken out of every appearing, and may need to be fined repeatedly to attend.
What does any of that functionally mean though? Rendering Kavanaugh illegitimate...what does that even look like? Because at the end of the day he's still a sitting Supreme Court justice, one of the most powerful figures in the country. Being considered an illegitimate judge in the eyes of the public doesn't actually strip him of any power or change anything. To that point: most Americans already have an unfavorable view of Kavanaugh, and yet he continues to sit comfortably on the bench.You render him illegitimate and damage the reputation of the Supreme Court as a result. About the only play left. If they poison the institution with toxic people who can't be removed, then the institution itself must be quarantined.
Be a true progressive and write in Jill Stein.Of course, my candidate for Mayor came in last place. lmao
Our current state Rep, who is a centrist Dem, came in first and a current City Councilor, who is a Republican, came in a close second.
Guess I'll hold my nose and vote for our state Rep. Another white male for mayor in our city!
Fuck no. Like hell I'll have a Republican be Mayor in our city.
HOLY MOTHER OF GOD. I am just now watching this Berke take down. This is savagery!
someone who has been in the State House from a relatively small state
To me, Kamala is running the splitting image of HIllary's 2016 General campaign in terms of everything I thought that campaign did wrong. Basically, it's an old-school campaign of peaks and valleys. It's a campaign primed for "big moments" and...radio silence until the next big moment.
How the hell are you going to "kneecap kav" ? He ain't getting a 2/3s majority to impeach. He's not going to be shamed into resigning a LIFETIME appointment. He's not getting voted out of office. You can't make the GOP take a "difficult" vote when the people we're targeting...already took said vote to put him on the fucking supreme court. Like...impeachment is the new left's catchall for impotent rage, told by (rightly!) frustrated liberals, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
I also think a lot of people have a very hollywood view of what impeachment is, and really have no grasp for how shitty prepared our media is to cover it fairly. (And, ya, I mean fairly, not with the tint I'd like them to give stories but with actual facts which are not always 1:1).
But you don't get to unfuck that chicken. We're not the party that rallies against the legitimacy of co-equal branches of government. Kav absolutely should not have been appointed to the supreme court, but he was confirmed legally. He's a piece of shit who should probably be in prison, but no amount of illegitimizing him is going to change that. And, let's say we appoint Thomas' and Ginsberg's replacements, thus balancing the court a bit. We gonna now tell people "Trust the supreme court NOW.....even though the guy who we used to damage it is still there?"
Like, once that cat's out of the bag, it's out. I think the idea of making an integral part of our government completely illegitimate is a real dangerous idea.
I feel like the message works with all of the skepticism black people have of the Democratic party doing nothing but pandering to black voters with words. Bold solutions for black people living in dire situations is what people want. Idk I'm not sure I see all of this reasoning.I'm listening to Warren's interview on Maddow, and she's repeating something tonight that she said in her speech last night that I really didn't like. The only thing that I really didn't like.
"We won't get anywhere by being afraid. Democrats win by fighting being bold bla bla bla..."
Warren, do not condescend potential voters. This is the type of messaging that's aimed at voters for whom voting was always an allowance. This is a fight message for white people.
You have to understand that for black people, particularly older black people, participating in the political process at all is an act of bravery. It wasn't too long ago, that white supremacists were posted outside of polling places of majority black districts with attack dogs. It wasn't too long ago that black folk were being beaten for daring to exercise their right to vote. For black people, voting AT ALL is brave. Believing in the process AT ALL is brave. Gathering, organizing, and going out to vote for the VP of the First Black President is not going to be seen as the weak, fearful, or even uninspired thing to do.
It's really bad messaging if you're hoping to eventually peel black voters off of Biden. And, make no mistake, if Biden ultimately wins? It'll be because he held on to his black support.
The right would 100% treat her as such, and it would even come with free bonus racism!Abrams is clearly intelligent. Anyone comparing her to Palin is just showing some straight up fucking sexism lol.
Sanders really does have the most qualified then.