waterfield wrote:

I guess I’ve never understood this business about Clinton being a bad candidate.

If you go by her resume, Hillary was the most qualified candidate ever to run for the presidency.

Going back to what WV said, Hillary told a crappy story. I think the subtext of her entire campaign was something like “I, Hillary Clinton, have bided my time consolidating the entire Washington apparatus, and am now prepared to become the first Woman president ever, a historical Glass Ceiling moment that I, Hillary Clinton, am entitled to!”

At a time when anti-establishment sentiment was cresting…it wasn’t a good story. With Trump on her right, and Sanders on her left, Clinton appeared to be the consummate focus group manufactured persona with a Madison Avenue shine, and with distrust of insiders at a high, she was the wrong person at the wrong time.

waterfield wrote:

Why not ?

Because there is NOT.

And it reeks of the LA Times trying to shape public opinion by pretending that there is. Just like the WaPo and NY Times.

waterfield wrote:

“Elections aren’t about policy”

Not sure about that. Was the democratic victories in 2018 all about policy- namely the issue of health care ?

Mmmm…yeeeah. I think. The ISSUES matter. The VISION matters. To some extent healthcare was a big deal in 2018. But I don’t think people were well-informed on that issue. I mean…nobody knows how the ACA works, but they know what little healthcare people have is better than nothing, and shouldn’t be repealed by the GOP. They know and care about it that much.

But people don’t sit around with their BINGO cards on issues with the answers they like all over the card, and making decisions based on how many squares each candidate aligns with. Very few voters are THAT discerning about the person they vote for. If they were, few of our representatives would win elections since Medicare-for-all, expanded social security, increased spending on public education, higher wages, and so on are desired by a significant majority of Americans, but opposed by almost all our representatives.

So…they go for the Vision Thing, and candidates lie about that.

Billy_T wrote:

Elections aren’t about policy. Which means you can’t be “too far left” on those. If elections were about policy, the GOP would never win a single national election, because their policies are forever unpopular. Trump never described his. He won anyway.

Elections are all about “stories,” sales teams and united fronts. The side that tells the best stories, sells them, and keeps a united, confident front, wins.

I agree with that entire post, not just the part I copied here for emphasis.

This is what I have been saying. The Dems need to sell the Green New Deal as a job and wage-building investment that will lead to the coolest hi-tech world you can possibly imagine…while saving the planet from climate change.

They can sell that vision.

The “pragmatic” Baby Steps approach Biden et al offer is not going to get people out to vote.

Not only do atheists die earlier, they also don’t get to go to heaven.

I don’t suppose anybody in this country would ever think of holding a conversation about “What Personality Types are Attracted to Police Work in the First Place?” and “Is That a Good Thing?”

wv wrote:

Has the statute of limitations run out on the Tom Mack call?

Cuz, if we not, we should sue.

We should sue anyway. Just on the principle.

w
v

I have to say…

I am GLAD that now, as a Rams fan, I am in a position to say to another team’s fans…”F you.”

Go forth and suffer.

Been there, done that.