But the Georgia 6 April primary was a continuation of some 2016 turnout trends too — trends that should worry Democrats. In 2016, turnout among whites was up across the country, and in highly educated areas like the 6th District in the suburbs of Atlanta. This redounded to Democrats’ advantage. At the same time, black turnout was down precipitously, from 66 percent in 2012 to 59 percent in 2016. This black-white turnout gap continued in the first round of Georgia’s special election, where the Democrats got impressive turnout levels from all races and ethnicities — except African-Americans.
Turns out the sort of campaigns Democrats like Ossoff are running is leaving African Americans snoozing and reverting to the mean in the general.
Edit: Since we seem to be having such a riveting discussion about GA-6. Kellen Squire the democratic candidate for VA House of Delegates - 58, had some useful insight. Essentially, she sees little point in dwelling on GA-6 because what the left needs to do is build from the ground up (and this isn't just the people running the democratic party). GA-6 wasn't just a deep red district, the democrats have just done a shit shop at building and maintaining a proper infrastructure for getting their candidates into office at all levels.
Pulling this out, cause I thought that was a good article. I really want to see infrastructure for local elections, and I hope we don't have to wait for Democratic leadership to figure out that they have a problem to get it.
But the Georgia 6 April primary was a continuation of some 2016 turnout trends too — trends that should worry Democrats. In 2016, turnout among whites was up across the country, and in highly educated areas like the 6th District in the suburbs of Atlanta. This redounded to Democrats’ advantage. At the same time, black turnout was down precipitously, from 66 percent in 2012 to 59 percent in 2016. This black-white turnout gap continued in the first round of Georgia’s special election, where the Democrats got impressive turnout levels from all races and ethnicities — except African-Americans.
Turns out the sort of campaigns Democrats like Ossoff are running is leaving African Americans snoozing and reverting to the mean in the general.
Turns out systematic voter suppression keeps black people from voting.
But the Georgia 6 April primary was a continuation of some 2016 turnout trends too — trends that should worry Democrats. In 2016, turnout among whites was up across the country, and in highly educated areas like the 6th District in the suburbs of Atlanta. This redounded to Democrats’ advantage. At the same time, black turnout was down precipitously, from 66 percent in 2012 to 59 percent in 2016. This black-white turnout gap continued in the first round of Georgia’s special election, where the Democrats got impressive turnout levels from all races and ethnicities — except African-Americans.
Turns out the sort of campaigns Democrats like Ossoff are running is leaving African Americans snoozing and reverting to the mean in the general.
That quote makes it sound like turnout is up? Low, but up.
Edit: Dorp. Was reading those percentages as non-participants. /Edit
But the Georgia 6 April primary was a continuation of some 2016 turnout trends too — trends that should worry Democrats. In 2016, turnout among whites was up across the country, and in highly educated areas like the 6th District in the suburbs of Atlanta. This redounded to Democrats’ advantage. At the same time, black turnout was down precipitously, from 66 percent in 2012 to 59 percent in 2016. This black-white turnout gap continued in the first round of Georgia’s special election, where the Democrats got impressive turnout levels from all races and ethnicities — except African-Americans.
Turns out the sort of campaigns Democrats like Ossoff are running is leaving African Americans snoozing and reverting to the mean in the general.
That quote makes it sound like turnout is up? Low, but up.
Have a link?
I quoted the paragraph directly about the 6th, but the article covers more.
But the Georgia 6 April primary was a continuation of some 2016 turnout trends too — trends that should worry Democrats. In 2016, turnout among whites was up across the country, and in highly educated areas like the 6th District in the suburbs of Atlanta. This redounded to Democrats’ advantage. At the same time, black turnout was down precipitously, from 66 percent in 2012 to 59 percent in 2016. This black-white turnout gap continued in the first round of Georgia’s special election, where the Democrats got impressive turnout levels from all races and ethnicities — except African-Americans.
Turns out the sort of campaigns Democrats like Ossoff are running is leaving African Americans snoozing and reverting to the mean in the general.
Turns out systematic voter suppression keeps black people from voting.
In short, no that's doesn't get at what's happening. If you look at states without an increased voter suppression effort you'll find the same story of black participation dropping across the board everywhere.
But the Georgia 6 April primary was a continuation of some 2016 turnout trends too — trends that should worry Democrats. In 2016, turnout among whites was up across the country, and in highly educated areas like the 6th District in the suburbs of Atlanta. This redounded to Democrats’ advantage. At the same time, black turnout was down precipitously, from 66 percent in 2012 to 59 percent in 2016. This black-white turnout gap continued in the first round of Georgia’s special election, where the Democrats got impressive turnout levels from all races and ethnicities — except African-Americans.
Turns out the sort of campaigns Democrats like Ossoff are running is leaving African Americans snoozing and reverting to the mean in the general.
Turns out systematic voter suppression keeps black people from voting.
In short, no that's doesn't get at what's happening. If you look at states without an increased voter suppression effort you'll find the same story of black participation dropping across the board everywhere.
Some only vote for presidential candidates. Who are named Obama. Ugh.
But the Georgia 6 April primary was a continuation of some 2016 turnout trends too — trends that should worry Democrats. In 2016, turnout among whites was up across the country, and in highly educated areas like the 6th District in the suburbs of Atlanta. This redounded to Democrats’ advantage. At the same time, black turnout was down precipitously, from 66 percent in 2012 to 59 percent in 2016. This black-white turnout gap continued in the first round of Georgia’s special election, where the Democrats got impressive turnout levels from all races and ethnicities — except African-Americans.
Turns out the sort of campaigns Democrats like Ossoff are running is leaving African Americans snoozing and reverting to the mean in the general.
Turns out systematic voter suppression keeps black people from voting.
In short, no that's doesn't get at what's happening. If you look at states without an increased voter suppression effort you'll find the same story of black participation dropping across the board everywhere.
Also Georgia has not had any significant changes in voting laws since 2012. I get the appeal of the "voter suppression" answer (because it makes it the Republicans' fault), but that doesn't mean it is always correct.
But the Georgia 6 April primary was a continuation of some 2016 turnout trends too — trends that should worry Democrats. In 2016, turnout among whites was up across the country, and in highly educated areas like the 6th District in the suburbs of Atlanta. This redounded to Democrats’ advantage. At the same time, black turnout was down precipitously, from 66 percent in 2012 to 59 percent in 2016. This black-white turnout gap continued in the first round of Georgia’s special election, where the Democrats got impressive turnout levels from all races and ethnicities — except African-Americans.
Turns out the sort of campaigns Democrats like Ossoff are running is leaving African Americans snoozing and reverting to the mean in the general.
Turns out systematic voter suppression keeps black people from voting.
In short, no that's doesn't get at what's happening. If you look at states without an increased voter suppression effort you'll find the same story of black participation dropping across the board everywhere.
Some only vote for presidential candidates. Who are named Obama. Ugh.
Maybe instead of blaming voters for not voting, we figure out how to make them want to vote and help them get to the polls.
Ossoff's candidacy was pushed by the liberal grassroots, especially dailykos, and John Lewis. Complaining that he represents the national party not getting black voters doesn't make any sense unless you just want to be mad at the national party.
But the Georgia 6 April primary was a continuation of some 2016 turnout trends too — trends that should worry Democrats. In 2016, turnout among whites was up across the country, and in highly educated areas like the 6th District in the suburbs of Atlanta. This redounded to Democrats’ advantage. At the same time, black turnout was down precipitously, from 66 percent in 2012 to 59 percent in 2016. This black-white turnout gap continued in the first round of Georgia’s special election, where the Democrats got impressive turnout levels from all races and ethnicities — except African-Americans.
Turns out the sort of campaigns Democrats like Ossoff are running is leaving African Americans snoozing and reverting to the mean in the general.
Turns out systematic voter suppression keeps black people from voting.
In short, no that's doesn't get at what's happening. If you look at states without an increased voter suppression effort you'll find the same story of black participation dropping across the board everywhere.
Some only vote for presidential candidates. Who are named Obama. Ugh.
Maybe instead of blaming voters for not voting, we figure out how to make them want to vote and help them get to the polls.
While true, what did they think would happen if the Democrats lost? The point in voting is to get more votes than the other team, Dems are not going to automatically win every time there is an election. This is also why mid-terms are as important as presidential races, the party which controls the presidency and congress wins the game for at least 2 years. This goes double for the GOP, who naturally retain more power than their left brethren in the same spot.
This kind of nonsense is why I wanted Ossoff to win. There will always be something better that could have been done, sure. But this afterparty silliness is worse than an interminable election period.
But the Georgia 6 April primary was a continuation of some 2016 turnout trends too — trends that should worry Democrats. In 2016, turnout among whites was up across the country, and in highly educated areas like the 6th District in the suburbs of Atlanta. This redounded to Democrats’ advantage. At the same time, black turnout was down precipitously, from 66 percent in 2012 to 59 percent in 2016. This black-white turnout gap continued in the first round of Georgia’s special election, where the Democrats got impressive turnout levels from all races and ethnicities — except African-Americans.
Turns out the sort of campaigns Democrats like Ossoff are running is leaving African Americans snoozing and reverting to the mean in the general.
Turns out systematic voter suppression keeps black people from voting.
In short, no that's doesn't get at what's happening. If you look at states without an increased voter suppression effort you'll find the same story of black participation dropping across the board everywhere.
Some only vote for presidential candidates. Who are named Obama. Ugh.
Maybe instead of blaming voters for not voting, we figure out how to make them want to vote and help them get to the polls.
I don't see how?
if the thought of donald fucking trump taking away your childrens healthcare doesn't do it ....
But the Georgia 6 April primary was a continuation of some 2016 turnout trends too — trends that should worry Democrats. In 2016, turnout among whites was up across the country, and in highly educated areas like the 6th District in the suburbs of Atlanta. This redounded to Democrats’ advantage. At the same time, black turnout was down precipitously, from 66 percent in 2012 to 59 percent in 2016. This black-white turnout gap continued in the first round of Georgia’s special election, where the Democrats got impressive turnout levels from all races and ethnicities — except African-Americans.
Turns out the sort of campaigns Democrats like Ossoff are running is leaving African Americans snoozing and reverting to the mean in the general.
Turns out systematic voter suppression keeps black people from voting.
In short, no that's doesn't get at what's happening. If you look at states without an increased voter suppression effort you'll find the same story of black participation dropping across the board everywhere.
Some only vote for presidential candidates. Who are named Obama. Ugh.
Maybe instead of blaming voters for not voting, we figure out how to make them want to vote and help them get to the polls.
I don't see how?
if the thought of donald fucking trump taking away your childrens healthcare doesn't do it ....
I don't know, maybe we ask them
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
But the Georgia 6 April primary was a continuation of some 2016 turnout trends too — trends that should worry Democrats. In 2016, turnout among whites was up across the country, and in highly educated areas like the 6th District in the suburbs of Atlanta. This redounded to Democrats’ advantage. At the same time, black turnout was down precipitously, from 66 percent in 2012 to 59 percent in 2016. This black-white turnout gap continued in the first round of Georgia’s special election, where the Democrats got impressive turnout levels from all races and ethnicities — except African-Americans.
Turns out the sort of campaigns Democrats like Ossoff are running is leaving African Americans snoozing and reverting to the mean in the general.
Turns out systematic voter suppression keeps black people from voting.
In short, no that's doesn't get at what's happening. If you look at states without an increased voter suppression effort you'll find the same story of black participation dropping across the board everywhere.
Some only vote for presidential candidates. Who are named Obama. Ugh.
Maybe instead of blaming voters for not voting, we figure out how to make them want to vote and help them get to the polls.
I don't see how?
if the thought of donald fucking trump taking away your childrens healthcare doesn't do it ....
It did not in November, why would it now ?
"Fear the Republicans" is clearly not a winning strategy; it would be a good idea to stop using it.
This kind of nonsense is why I wanted Ossoff to win. There will always be something better that could have been done, sure. But this afterparty silliness is worse than an interminable election period.
For you, maybe. I was getting 2-4 ads per commercial break for the last 4 months and 1+ mailers every day. At least the canvassers stopped coming around after I told them I early voted 3 weeks ago.
But the Georgia 6 April primary was a continuation of some 2016 turnout trends too — trends that should worry Democrats. In 2016, turnout among whites was up across the country, and in highly educated areas like the 6th District in the suburbs of Atlanta. This redounded to Democrats’ advantage. At the same time, black turnout was down precipitously, from 66 percent in 2012 to 59 percent in 2016. This black-white turnout gap continued in the first round of Georgia’s special election, where the Democrats got impressive turnout levels from all races and ethnicities — except African-Americans.
Turns out the sort of campaigns Democrats like Ossoff are running is leaving African Americans snoozing and reverting to the mean in the general.
Turns out systematic voter suppression keeps black people from voting.
In short, no that's doesn't get at what's happening. If you look at states without an increased voter suppression effort you'll find the same story of black participation dropping across the board everywhere.
Some only vote for presidential candidates. Who are named Obama. Ugh.
Maybe instead of blaming voters for not voting, we figure out how to make them want to vote and help them get to the polls.
I don't see how?
if the thought of donald fucking trump taking away your childrens healthcare doesn't do it ....
I don't know, maybe we ask them
Do we know they haven't?
Not to mention the media has been digging into that for months, and continues to do so. Not everyone comes to this game conclusion with the answers they get.
"Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, an open critic of Ms. Pelosi, called the Georgia result “frustrating” and urged a shake-up at the top of the party.
Representative Kathleen Rice of New York told CNN the entire Democratic leadership team should go.
Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio, who tried to unseat Ms. Pelosi as House minority leader late last fall, said she remained a political millstone for Democrats. But Mr. Ryan said the Democratic brand had also become “toxic” in much of the country because voters saw Democrats as “not being able to connect with the issues they care about.”
Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., who supported Ryan in the leadership elections, also said it was time for a change at the top, and that this loss — where Democrats poured in tens of millions of dollars only to do worse than Clinton did in the district — "better be a wake-up call."
"Look, I think the Democratic Party has to come to terms with the fact that what we're doing isn't working," Moulton said. "It's time for some change. I think it's time for a new generation of leadership."
Moulton, a 38-year-old Iraq War veteran, was elected to Congress in 2014. He argued that when strategy doesn't work, there have to be repercussions at the top.
"Certainly, one thing I learned as a Marine is my job description was very simple: You're responsible for everything your platoon does or fails to do," Moulton said. "I think our leadership owes us an explanation for what's gone on in these four elections, but also a plan for moving forward. That's the most important part."
Democrats have been counting on Pelosi to motivate their base for years, and it's a tactic that, by all appearances, is as reliable as ever. (Pelosi, for what it's worth, never campaigned with Ossoff or Parnell, and spent election night at a U2 concert in D.C.)
If she is so incredibly toxic in districts like Georgia's sixth and South Carolina's fifth, at some point Democrats have to ask whether Pelosi – as impressive a fundraiser as she is known to be – is more of a liability than an asset. Ossoff's loss, and Parnell's, should be a come-to-Jesus moment for Democrats. Instead of praying for dry weather, they might want to take a hard look at some of the factors within their control that are turning voters off in ostensibly competitive races like these.
ome Democrats want to replace Pelosi atop their caucus, as they have since last November’s poor showing at the polls; they say there is no way to get back in the majority with her as their leader. And others who backed her in last year’s leadership challenge have now flipped their stance.
“I think you’d have to be an idiot to think we could win the House with Pelosi at the top,” said Rep. Filemon Vela (D-Texas), who supported Pelosi in her last leadership race. “Nancy Pelosi is not the only reason that Ossoff lost. But she certainly is one of the reasons.”
Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.), who backed a challenge to Pelosi last year, said the results of the Ossoff race further underscore that Pelosi should let someone else take the reins.
“There comes a time when every leader has to say, ‘For the good of the order and for the betterment of the party, it’s time for me to step aside.’ And I wish that that would happen right now,” Rice said in an interview. “This is not a personal thing. I want to get back in the majority.”
Blaming Pelosi is certainly the narrative the media has been trying to push. I literally just heard the question "Is Nancy Pelosi more toxic than Donald Trump?" asked on MSNBC this morning.
It's extremely infuriating. I think any "journalist" that acts shocked that the Democrats couldn't flip these insanely and traditionally safe and hardcore Republican districts in off year special elections should be fired for sheer incompetence.
It's not just journalists though, as evident by the Dem reps quoted. Seth Moulton, an otherwise fine rep from MA, is among them unfortunately, but I attribute that more to his semi-contrarian approach to intra-party politics (as he had to win his 2014 primary going against some of the more sclerotic elements of the MA state Dem party) rather than some need to whinge and whine about "identity politics" a la Tim Ryan.
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
At some point these people have to admit that what they're really saying is "It's harder for Republicans to drum up hate against straight white men, so that's the only kind of person who should be allowed to be Democratic party leaders."
+9
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
It's not like Nancy Pelosi being the scapegoat is a new thing either.
"Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, an open critic of Ms. Pelosi, called the Georgia result “frustrating” and urged a shake-up at the top of the party.
Representative Kathleen Rice of New York told CNN the entire Democratic leadership team should go.
Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio, who tried to unseat Ms. Pelosi as House minority leader late last fall, said she remained a political millstone for Democrats. But Mr. Ryan said the Democratic brand had also become “toxic” in much of the country because voters saw Democrats as “not being able to connect with the issues they care about.”
On Tuesday, Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff lost in a special election against Republican Karen Handel. Todd speculated that Pelosi was Republicans' most “potent” weapon of “attack,” and suggested that she had more of a presence in the race than President Donald Trump.
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Republicans do actually use Pelosi in their attack ads, so they at least seem to think that she's a liability. But then again, any minority leader might find themselves in a similar position. Democrats have certainly used "[X] is LAUGHING" and "[X] WINS" for all Republican values of X in fundraising and so on, so it may just be that visible politician --> oppo demonization without really that much concern for what they're actually doing or like.
I think Pelosi is good at her job and I generally trust her on the issues so I'd be reluctant to see her go even if she was an awkward ally for house members contesting marginal districts. In general, the things which seem to be hate magnets for her are that she's a powerful woman (and liberal) from San Francisco (a very liberal district) and I'm not really seeing a leadership I love that doesn't have figures like that somewhere in it. So I'm more inclined to think that sort of animosity is something we need to find ways to message around. Or, at least, that's my relatively unstudied take on the situation.
On Tuesday, Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff lost in a special election against Republican Karen Handel. Todd speculated that Pelosi was Republicans' most “potent” weapon of “attack,” and suggested that she had more of a presence in the race than President Donald Trump.
Well, he's not exactly wrong. They did do everything they could to tie him to Pelosi, and demonize Pelosi. I think there was even one add where his face is ripped off and revealed to be a mask Pelosi was wearing. But I don't think Republicans who wouldn't have ever voted for him anyway that hate Pelosi is what cost him the election.
Ossoff's candidacy was pushed by the liberal grassroots, especially dailykos, and John Lewis. Complaining that he represents the national party not getting black voters doesn't make any sense unless you just want to be mad at the national party.
When I say we should figure out how to turn out the black vote I mean we should figure how to turn out the black vote, I don't mean we need more white people to congratulate themselves for their association with a civil right leader. The black vote is not turning out for Democrats like it used to, and that's just a plain fact and it's most acute among young black voters who aren't responding to this messaging.
Republicans do actually use Pelosi in their attack ads, so they at least seem to think that she's a liability. But then again, any minority leader might find themselves in a similar position. Democrats have certainly used "[X] is LAUGHING" and "[X] WINS" for all Republican values of X in fundraising and so on, so it may just be that visible politician --> oppo demonization without really that much concern for what they're actually doing or like.
I think Pelosi is good at her job and I generally trust her on the issues so I'd be reluctant to see her go even if she was an awkward ally for house members contesting marginal districts. In general, the things which seem to be hate magnets for her are that she's a powerful woman (and liberal) from San Francisco (a very liberal district) and I'm not really seeing a leadership I love that doesn't have figures like that somewhere in it. So I'm more inclined to think that sort of animosity is something we need to find ways to message around. Or, at least, that's my relatively unstudied take on the situation.
Pelosi the rest of the leadership should make themselves irrelevant by producing a new sexy platform for people to talk about instead of personality. Oooga booga look there's Nancy! would be less effective if there was something else to talk about.
Republicans do actually use Pelosi in their attack ads, so they at least seem to think that she's a liability. But then again, any minority leader might find themselves in a similar position. Democrats have certainly used "[X] is LAUGHING" and "[X] WINS" for all Republican values of X in fundraising and so on, so it may just be that visible politician --> oppo demonization without really that much concern for what they're actually doing or like.
I think Pelosi is good at her job and I generally trust her on the issues so I'd be reluctant to see her go even if she was an awkward ally for house members contesting marginal districts. In general, the things which seem to be hate magnets for her are that she's a powerful woman (and liberal) from San Francisco (a very liberal district) and I'm not really seeing a leadership I love that doesn't have figures like that somewhere in it. So I'm more inclined to think that sort of animosity is something we need to find ways to message around. Or, at least, that's my relatively unstudied take on the situation.
Pelosi the rest of the leadership should make themselves irrelevant by producing a new sexy platform for people to talk about instead of personality. Oooga booga look there's Nancy! would be less effective if there was something else to talk about.
What difference would it make? Whoever the Dems put in charge next will just become the next boogeyman. This isn't about Pelosi, it's about the party.
Republicans do actually use Pelosi in their attack ads, so they at least seem to think that she's a liability. But then again, any minority leader might find themselves in a similar position. Democrats have certainly used "[X] is LAUGHING" and "[X] WINS" for all Republican values of X in fundraising and so on, so it may just be that visible politician --> oppo demonization without really that much concern for what they're actually doing or like.
I think Pelosi is good at her job and I generally trust her on the issues so I'd be reluctant to see her go even if she was an awkward ally for house members contesting marginal districts. In general, the things which seem to be hate magnets for her are that she's a powerful woman (and liberal) from San Francisco (a very liberal district) and I'm not really seeing a leadership I love that doesn't have figures like that somewhere in it. So I'm more inclined to think that sort of animosity is something we need to find ways to message around. Or, at least, that's my relatively unstudied take on the situation.
Pelosi the rest of the leadership should make themselves irrelevant by producing a new sexy platform for people to talk about instead of personality. Oooga booga look there's Nancy! would be less effective if there was something else to talk about.
What difference would it make? Whoever the Dems put in charge next will just become the next boogeyman. This isn't about Pelosi, it's about the party.
i think his point was instead of replacing Pelosi, improve messaging so that instead of constantly playing defense, Dems can actually motivate their base
Posts
Turns out the sort of campaigns Democrats like Ossoff are running is leaving African Americans snoozing and reverting to the mean in the general.
Pulling this out, cause I thought that was a good article. I really want to see infrastructure for local elections, and I hope we don't have to wait for Democratic leadership to figure out that they have a problem to get it.
Turns out systematic voter suppression keeps black people from voting.
That quote makes it sound like turnout is up? Low, but up.
Edit: Dorp. Was reading those percentages as non-participants. /Edit
Have a link?
I quoted the paragraph directly about the 6th, but the article covers more.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/black-voters-arent-turning-out-for-the-post-obama-democratic-party/
In short, no that's doesn't get at what's happening. If you look at states without an increased voter suppression effort you'll find the same story of black participation dropping across the board everywhere.
Some only vote for presidential candidates. Who are named Obama. Ugh.
Also Georgia has not had any significant changes in voting laws since 2012. I get the appeal of the "voter suppression" answer (because it makes it the Republicans' fault), but that doesn't mean it is always correct.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
While true, what did they think would happen if the Democrats lost? The point in voting is to get more votes than the other team, Dems are not going to automatically win every time there is an election. This is also why mid-terms are as important as presidential races, the party which controls the presidency and congress wins the game for at least 2 years. This goes double for the GOP, who naturally retain more power than their left brethren in the same spot.
I don't see how?
if the thought of donald fucking trump taking away your childrens healthcare doesn't do it ....
I've heard about that. Targeting Nancy is only doing the right wing's work for them - and she had absolutely nothing to do with the race.
It did not in November, why would it now ?
"Fear the Republicans" is clearly not a winning strategy; it would be a good idea to stop using it.
For you, maybe. I was getting 2-4 ads per commercial break for the last 4 months and 1+ mailers every day. At least the canvassers stopped coming around after I told them I early voted 3 weeks ago.
I'm just glad it is over either way.
Do we know they haven't?
Not to mention the media has been digging into that for months, and continues to do so. Not everyone comes to this game conclusion with the answers they get.
Name some of the many people and their reasons, otherwise I don't know what's there to talk about.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/us/pelosi-georgia-ossoff-democrats.html
I don't really agree with it, though. It's a bit like saying I can't have ketchup on my hotdog because some people don't like mustard.
http://www.npr.org/2017/06/21/533866997/democrats-play-blame-game-with-pelosi-after-georgia-election-to-gops-glee
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/a-lesson-for-democrats-from-jon-ossoffs-big-loss-w489059
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/21/nancy-pelosi-fallout-georgia-special-election-239804
It's extremely infuriating. I think any "journalist" that acts shocked that the Democrats couldn't flip these insanely and traditionally safe and hardcore Republican districts in off year special elections should be fired for sheer incompetence.
Yep.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
...you shouldn't have ketchup on your hot dog. I just...no. Don't. That's what tomato slices are for.
After the last round of hearings I had a vision of the future. Kamala Harris is next up for the Hillary/Nancy treatment from the GOP.
In addition to those posted above, Meet the Press''s Chuck Todd, who should know better.
http://ijr.com/2017/06/903953-chuck-todd-pelosi-pretty-big-drag-democrats-electoral-chances/
What do all these people have in common, I wonder....
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I think Pelosi is good at her job and I generally trust her on the issues so I'd be reluctant to see her go even if she was an awkward ally for house members contesting marginal districts. In general, the things which seem to be hate magnets for her are that she's a powerful woman (and liberal) from San Francisco (a very liberal district) and I'm not really seeing a leadership I love that doesn't have figures like that somewhere in it. So I'm more inclined to think that sort of animosity is something we need to find ways to message around. Or, at least, that's my relatively unstudied take on the situation.
Well, he's not exactly wrong. They did do everything they could to tie him to Pelosi, and demonize Pelosi. I think there was even one add where his face is ripped off and revealed to be a mask Pelosi was wearing. But I don't think Republicans who wouldn't have ever voted for him anyway that hate Pelosi is what cost him the election.
When I say we should figure out how to turn out the black vote I mean we should figure how to turn out the black vote, I don't mean we need more white people to congratulate themselves for their association with a civil right leader. The black vote is not turning out for Democrats like it used to, and that's just a plain fact and it's most acute among young black voters who aren't responding to this messaging.
Pelosi the rest of the leadership should make themselves irrelevant by producing a new sexy platform for people to talk about instead of personality. Oooga booga look there's Nancy! would be less effective if there was something else to talk about.
So does this actually help or hurt Pelosi?
What difference would it make? Whoever the Dems put in charge next will just become the next boogeyman. This isn't about Pelosi, it's about the party.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
i think his point was instead of replacing Pelosi, improve messaging so that instead of constantly playing defense, Dems can actually motivate their base