Jump to content

US Politics: Mail and Managers for Mitch


Tywin Manderly

Recommended Posts

The real voter fraud!  Holy cow! Maybe you all have but I had not met Stacy the disaffected Dem voter.

This sadly dissappointed in the local Democratic congressional member commercial is running in many states, and in some of them in more than one district in that state. The commercial is exactly the same in each district, with "Stacy" the disappointed Dem voter claiming to being resident there. The only difference is the name of the Dem congressional member the commercial claims is doing nothing about border control and the opioid crisis. 

Don't know how it would play on your device, but there are ads for Bernie that run before this segment plays.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The real voter fraud!  Holy cow! Maybe you all have but I had not met Stacy the disaffected Dem voter.

This sadly dissappointed in the local Democratic congressional member commercial is running in many states, and in some of them in more than one district in that state. The commercial is exactly the same in each district, with "Stacy" the disappointed Dem voter claiming to being resident there. The only difference is the name of the Dem congressional member the commercial claims is doing nothing about border control and the opioid crisis. 

Don't know how it would play on your device, but there are ads for Bernie that run before this segment plays.


 

I know from all the things wrong there, this is probably the least of the problems with this spot, HOWEVER, I find it amusing how they describe Stacy there.

Mom, Wife, Teacher. In that order. Spot the conservative there.

I can almost picture the thought process in the meeting that went into creating her.

We start with her biological function as a mother. then we go on to her role a manpleaser, eh sorry, wife. Shouldn't she also have likesay a career. Sure let her be a teacher or something.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I find it funny how the stories about Amy mistreating her staff keep dogging her. Hillary was known to be terrible to her staff and yet that never seemed to become a thing.

 

With Clinton there was so much other stuff that it was probabaly lost in the trees.  With Klobuchar she's unfamiliar to most voters compared to Sanders or Biden or Warren, and the two reports about that both had memorable details - the stapler and the spoon* - and they were covered by major newspapers.  I do think misogyny plays a part in how much flak she's gotten for it, but at the same time it's not like that justifies the behavior.  In a vacuum, it's not weird or funny that being an abusive boss would be something people are concerned about .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

With Clinton there was so much other stuff that it was probabaly lost in the trees.  With Klobuchar she's unfamiliar to most voters compared to Sanders or Biden or Warren, and the two reports about that both had memorable details - the stapler and the spoon - and they were covered by major newspapers.  I do think misogyny plays a part in how much flak she's gotten for it, but at the same time it's not like that justifies the behavior.  In a vacuum, it's not weird or funny that being an abusive boss would be something people are concerned about .

I also think this seems more relevant to people after having Trump in office for three years, because it makes Klobuchar seem seem like she shares a personality characteristic with Trump. There has been a lot of reporting the last three years about how Trump treats his staff, and even though Klobuchar's problems in that regard (even if true) aren't as bad as Trump's. I think it makes Democratic primary voters more wary of her, as having someone who is NOT like Trump would be one of their main goals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Few thoughts on the Gray Lady's dual-endorsements.  First, it's obviously completely feckless to endorse two candidates on its face.  But this shouldn't be surprising to anyone familiar with the NYT over the past twenty years.  In my adult life the "paper of record" has:  lent credibility in its reporting to the Bush administration's build-up to the Iraq War; championed "considered moderates" such as Tom Friedman and David Brooks that's ethos is so focused on trying to straddle the political divide it makes all "moderates" or pragmatists look indecisive and weak; bowed to the "pressure" of hiring bigoted pseudo-intellectuals to their Op-Ed page in the absurdly ironic interest of "highlighting diverse perspectives."  So, yeah, not exactly shocked that their editorial board did something feckless and indecisive, that's par for the course.

Second, endorsements don't matter anymore.  Especially newspaper endorsements - they were quite influential when most of the electorate actually read a newspaper, but for the same reason, they are almost completely irrelevant now.  Generally, endorsements don't matter other than as an indicator for which primary candidate(s) is receiving institutional support.  Only endorsement that would matter in this Democratic primary is Barack Obama's, and/or Michelle's.  I'd say the Clintons, but that's just as likely (if not more so) to backfire.

Third, I can see a positive aspect to this - in that it counters the electability perception that both Biden and Sanders have the best chance of winning in their respective wings of the party.  That's an assertion I wholeheartedly agree with.  And, really, if a voter told me that's why she supports both Klobuchar and Warren but will just figure out who has the best chance between the two on election day, I'd say that's wholly reasonable (and even impressively strategic) decision-making.  So, if that was their main thesis in making the endorsements, I think it's actually a pretty cool idea.  Especially considering the NYT editorial board does still retain influence among elite opinion-makers.  But, even though I haven't read their reasoning, I'm guessing this aspect was not emphasized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I find it funny how the stories about Amy mistreating her staff keep dogging her. Hillary was known to be terrible to her staff and yet that never seemed to become a thing.

The article actually mentions the other Clinton (and Biden and Trump as well) as berating his staff. I've never heard of HRC in this context ever, actually.

Speaking of the editorial,

Quote

There will be those dissatisfied that this page is not throwing its weight behind a single candidate, favoring centrists or progressives. But it’s a fight the party itself has been itching to have since Mrs. Clinton’s defeat in 2016, and one that should be played out in the public arena and in the privacy of the voting booth. That’s the very purpose of primaries, to test-market strategies and ideas that can galvanize and inspire the country.

Thank you for clarifying absolutely nothing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Impmk2 said:

Yeah is there any source to those 2016 stories? The narrative I recall was that HRC was very well liked by her close staff.

The problem with Hillary's staff wasn't her treatment of them, it was that they were incompetent.  Goes for 2008 as well.  If anything, Hillary tended to defend her staff to her detriment in both campaigns.  At least high-level staff.  I don't know about personal aides and such (which is really where the Amy stuff is coming from).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

The problem with Hillary's staff wasn't her treatment of them, it was that they were incompetent.  Goes for 2008 as well.  If anything, Hillary tended to defend her staff to her detriment in both campaigns.  At least high-level staff.  I don't know about personal aides and such (which is really where the Amy stuff is coming from).

Sure. But Tywin said upthread that:

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I find it funny how the stories about Amy mistreating her staff keep dogging her. Hillary was known to be terrible to her staff and yet that never seemed to become a thing.

 

Which I'd never heard before. Tbh I recall the complete opposite narrative which made me wonder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the impeachment hearing starts tomorrow and here it is, 5:15 pm and Moscow Mitch still hasn't released his set of rules. The day starts with the tabling of the rules and each side has an hour to present arguments about them and then Schiff has an hour to suggest amendments. Exactly how does one prepare their argument about what will presuably be a 100 pages of rules without seeing them? I assume Mitch finally hands them over at midnight. And do you think the Trump defense team hasn't seen them yet?

Schiff believes both the NSA and the CIA are withholding docuents related to the Ukraine issue. If the Democrats beat Trump, that would make for one helluva an interesting investigation. Did Trump order them to withhold documents, or, like the National Archives, did they decide they needed to protect the president?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see Joe Biden attacked video games again. Guy's been trying to censor them for years. Guess he's not that interested in expanding his voter base beyond 80+ year conservatives who might not vote for Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNN just obtained a copy of Moscow Mitch's rules. It's only 4 pages long.

As expected, each side is going to be given 24 hours to make a case, BUT, over 2 days. 12 hours sessions, so no one will watch the whole thing or into the night.

There will be 4 hours to argue whether or not there should be witnesses, then a simple majority vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Triskele said:

There's a fascinating essay here that's sort of a "I'm an educated liberal and here's the problem with us educated liberals" take on how badly the Dems do with the proverbial white working class or the non-college population.  

He's mostly correct about the problems, but this solution:

Quote

But more than a change of program, the whole party, left and center left, needs a change of heart. Rather than commission studies of the working class by postgraduates in top-ranking universities, maybe we need to figure out a way to live among them. We need to find a way back into the neighborhoods from which our liberal politics used to come—instead of buying them up and pushing people out.

is a complete non-starter. If the neighborhood in question is close enough to postgraduate jobs for somebody who shares his view to live there, then it's only a matter of time before other postgraduates buy out what remains of the working class in that area. The problem can be solved, but only by those at the very top and they have no intention of solving it (they like the concentration of postgraduate jobs because it concentrates the talent in places that they themselves like to be).

Incidentally, this part:

Quote

Bernie Sanders has a bill titled College for All. That’s all, as in “everyone.” I regret that even Elizabeth Warren has signed on to the same cause. She’s my ideal of a presidential candidate; I’ve even given money to her campaign. But like any smart liberal today, she is reflecting what so many highly educated Democrats think.

makes me think that the author is either behind the times or not fully aware of Warren's platform. She has gone quite a bit further than most of her fellow candidates and has promised to erase all federally-held student loans without congressional approval. I can't think of anything like this in American history and I suspect that if she somehow accomplished this (i.e. succeeded in her campaign and got this past the courts), there would be violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

With Clinton there was so much other stuff that it was probabaly lost in the trees.  With Klobuchar she's unfamiliar to most voters compared to Sanders or Biden or Warren, and the two reports about that both had memorable details - the stapler and the spoon* - and they were covered by major newspapers.  I do think misogyny plays a part in how much flak she's gotten for it, but at the same time it's not like that justifies the behavior.  In a vacuum, it's not weird or funny that being an abusive boss would be something people are concerned about .

That's the thing though, it's just rumors. I totally believe the comb incident, but other than that, idk. I never experienced anything like that while working for her, and I can only recall one time where she probably crossed a professional line, but it was super minor. I think if anything she suffers from her sometimes unrealistic standards and expectations and that some overworked disgruntled ex-staffers exaggerated a lot of things. And quite frankly, the Obama folks were so much more guilty of that.

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

The article actually mentions the other Clinton (and Biden and Trump as well) as berating his staff. I've never heard of HRC in this context ever, actually.

As said in another comment, her immediate staff love her. But there are all kinds of stories about her mistreating lower level staff and the Secret Service seemed to hate her guts. Here's just a taste:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/21/hillary-clinton-nasty-her-security-staffs-accounts/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Second, endorsements don't matter anymore.  Especially newspaper endorsements

Newspapers themselves, with great sorrow, say the same.  Though probably not the NYT . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's the thing though, it's just rumors. I totally believe the comb incident, but other than that, idk. I never experienced anything like that while working for her, and I can only recall one time where she probably crossed a professional line, but it was super minor. I think if anything she suffers from her sometimes unrealistic standards and expectations and that some overworked disgruntled ex-staffers exaggerated a lot of things. And quite frankly, the Obama folks were so much more guilty of that.

As said in another comment, her immediate staff love her. But there are all kinds of stories about her mistreating lower level staff and the Secret Service seemed to hate her guts. Here's just a taste:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/21/hillary-clinton-nasty-her-security-staffs-accounts/

I would consider the source here. Especially that "she's too erratic to be POTUS."  We've seen what erratic is by now and it sure as hell ain't Hillary.  We could say she hasn't got what it takes to be an effective politician, but that's not the same as erratic.

I've heard only good things about working with or for her, and never that she was abusive. But that doesn't carry any weight either, that I've never heard that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

There's a fascinating essay here that's sort of a "I'm an educated liberal and here's the problem with us educated liberals" take on how badly the Dems do with the proverbial white working class or the non-college population. 

I suspect it'll be quite controversial (TNR, unlimited clicks, I think).

Nice piece, thanks for sharing.

I don't know if it's going to be that controversial though. This perspective, though it surprised me when I first read about it, is increasingly mainstream. Piketty develops it quite a lot in his latest book for instance. The basic idea is that left-wing parties (or parties which used to be left-wing) now pander to the highly educated while right-wing parties continue to pander to the wealthy. There is some overlap, of course, which explains why some policies (generally linked to economic liberalism and globalism) can be shared by both, while being criticized by "populist" parties. Otoh, there are also some salient differences, especially in messaging.
There are many limits to such a perspective. One could say it's a bit simplistic and over-generalizes tendencies that have more to do with messaging and communication than with actual policy, not to mention the fact that there's a lot of variation from country to country (or even from state to state in the US). In other words, it could all be about perceptions... Perceptions matter though, so it's certainly worth thinking about.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...