US elections 2021-2022

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,700
Sometimes, a state constitution can bail you out. Arizona's has a provision that lets voters petition to have controversial laws that the legislature has enacted be voted on by the electorate at the next election. Petitions are in progress to repeal all or parts of the recent voter suppression law.

 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
19,433
Yang hasn't "dropped out" of the race, as the BBC's copy writer claims he has. Yang has conceded that he cannot win the nomination.
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
19,433
The board would not elaborate on the nature of the discrepancy; Valerie Vazquez-Diaz, a spokeswoman for the board, said only that it was related to the “difference in votes cast” between what was disclosed on primary night and on Tuesday.

🗳️ :bloc:
:skandal
:watch:
 

Artistic Skaters

Drawing Figures
Messages
7,977
Get ready for some more hillbilly stories:
J.D. Vance, an author and venture capitalist whose best-selling memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy,” focused on the social and economic underpinnings of former President Donald J. Trump’s appeal to the white working class, said on Thursday that he would seek the Republican nomination for the Senate in Ohio.
This is an interesting quote considering Peter Thiel (PayPal mogul) is funding so much of his campaign:
“If you look at every issue in this country,” Mr. Vance said, “every issue I believe traces back to this fact: On the one hand, the elites in the ruling class in this country are robbing us blind, and on the other, if you dare complain about it, you are a bad person.”
Peter Thiel, crusader for non-elite grassroots Americans:
WWMT? What would mamaw think? :lol:
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,700
Republicans are planning to run on crime. They better look at their own houses as well as those of Democrats.


In April, the top 65 cities for homicides in 2019 were published:

1. St. Louis, Missouri - 64.54 per 100,000
2. Baltimore, Maryland - 58.27 per 100,000
3. Birmingham, Alabama - 50.62 per 100,000
4. Detroit, Michigan - 41.45 per 200,000
5. Dayton, Ohio - 34.18 per 100,000
6. Baton Rouge, Louisiana - 31.72 per 100,000
7. New Orleans, Louisiana -30.67 per 100,000
8. Kansas City, Missouri -29.88 per 100,000
9. Memphis, Tennessee- 29.21 per 100,000
10. Cleveland, Ohio - 24.09 per 100,000


....

Bet you thought these would be top ten?

13. Washington, D.C. - 23.52 per 100,000
16. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania -22.47
...
28. Chicago, Illinois - 18.26 per 100,000
Why are Republicans always beating on Chicago???

New York City, New York, Los Angeles, California, and Boston, Massachusetts don't make the top 65.

Somebody should tell Josh Hawley to look first to improving his Missouri which needs to look to improving its handling of crime?

Maybe if they had more gun laws ;)
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
58,761
I think for Chicago its absolute numbers. There have been 336 murders in Chicago so far in 2021; D.C. shows 98.
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,700
Yes. But the more relevant number is still number per 100,000.

There is a lot of innumeracy out there, sad to say.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,710
So republicans do run Missouri but not St Louis. St. Louis chooses elect all free all the criminals democrats.
 

Dobre

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,932
I'm not sure where to put this so I guess I'll put it here.

I think that Democrats in general & pro-Democrat editorialists in particular need to reconsider some of the vocabulary they use to make their points.

Mind you, I don't mean talking down to people or taking the more accurate & precise vocabulary out altogether. It's fine to use it, but you have to explain it in more common terms and don't use it for the punchline.

Terms like "systemic," "authoritarianism," "socialist," & "propaganda": many people don't know what these words mean. By all means use them for accuracy, but you can't make your point with them. There's no punch.

You undercut the whole purpose behind your point.

I mean, if talking over the average audience's head is your schtick & selling point, then of course some writers are going to do that & reach their audience. But if your hope is to persuade the average Joe to rethink the ideas propagated (nope, that would be a poor term), espoused (nope, that wouldn't communicate well either), emphasized by the current Republican party, then you need to make sure the words you use to make that point are understandable to the people you are trying to reach.
 
Last edited:

olympic

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,043
I'm not sure where to put this so I guess I'll put it here.

I think that Democrats in general & pro-Democrat editorialists in particular need to reconsider some of the vocabulary they use to make their points.

Mind you, I don't mean talking down to people or taking the more accurate & precise vocabulary out all together. It's fine to use it, but you have to explain it in more common terms and don't use it for the punchline.

Terms like "systemic," "authoritarianism," "socialist," & "propaganda": many people don't know what these words mean. By all means use them for accuracy, but you can't make your point with them. There's no punch.

You undercut the whole purpose behind your point.

I mean, if talking over the average audience's head is your schtick & selling point, then of course some writers are going to do that & reach their audience. But if your hope is to the persuade the average Joe to rethink the ideas propagated (nope, that would be a poor term), espoused (nope, that wouldn't communicate well either), emphasized by the current Republican party, then you need to make sure the words you use to make that point are understandable to the people you are trying to reach.
You have nailed what is normally a key failure in the typical D campaign; inability to clearly message and reach those voters who decide elections - Not the 40% which comprise a solid D base of white liberals and minorities, but the only somewhat tuned-in voter who is more apolitical and tends to not look far beyond their pocketbook or the price at the gas pump, and don't keep up with news. Those are the voters in the swing states like OH, IA, FL that bounced between D <-> R candidates the last 30 years. Rs kill in the messaging dept. because it is simple, short, untruthful of course, but highly effective. Also, Ds still play nice in campaigns, Rs slit your throat. IT. WORKS. Being apolitical means what outrages the base doesn't do too much to these voters who decide elections.

A political strategist said something that I couldn't stop thinking about - Ds talk to voters like College graduates. Rs talk to voters like shoppers at Walmart.

Sadly, I also think what happens is that those voters who could benefit from D policies like white, working class voters run away from Ds because they don't identify with the message due to wording and the demeanor of the messenger, and form an incorrect opinion of the messenger.
 
Last edited:

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,700
Yes.
And another thing:

People are often saying that what the rw media are selling is fear. So when you deal with a rw talking point, you should try to deal with the fear the talking point is stoking, if you can figure it out.

Take "cancel culture"

The right cancels people too does not at all deal with the fear that item inspires in rw folk.

What they say they fear is that they will say something at home in private that will get themselves fired. It is the cheerleader case the Supreme Court dealt with recently, or the cases of the ESPN basketball commentators Rachel Nichols or Paul Pierce.

Defund the police may be about the fear that BLM mobs will riot and steal their stuff, and there will be no police to stop it

The CRT fear is maybe that their children will look down on them, or that their children will be traumatized or...there is a lot of fears in that one topic.
 

Dobre

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,932
I think Trump is a terrible speaker. His let's-fumble-any-word-that-sounds-foreign-or-scientific-or-educated technique is degrading and offensive. Working class Americans are not incapable of cohesive thought. There's plenty of middle ground to be found. But any educator or linguist knows that language usage has to change in order to reach the audience. I just keep reading articles or hearing speeches in which I think the author or speaker is about to make his/her point and then they get to the drive-it-home section and blow it because they use some term most people would just mentally skim past. Or they use so many at the start of the article or speech that even I check out.

I was reading the editorial on ********* in Uganda yesterday and thinking that's how it's done. It was just exceptionally well-written. Clear. Hit all the important points. And because of that the emotion hit home & rang true.

Biden's speech at the Democratic Convention did as well. Tapped in because it was well done.

Psaki is also generally very clear.

I disagree that you have to hype up the emotion or couch it in outrage when you discuss policy. You just need to humanize it and direct your language to the audience you need to reach. Obama was very good at giving human examples.

I just seem to be coming across a lot of pundits or writers who are repeating significant ideas over & over again, thinking they are making their point.

And they aren't. Because the words they are using don't have meaning for the people they actually need to reach. The concept would have meaning, if they would just adjust their language to the right audience.

(Then there are the ones that totally miss the boat. Stop harping on about voter suppression being about black voters. Voter suppression hurts all voters. It hurts you. That's what people need to be saying. Those people who voted to overturn the election in Pennsylvania. That's all of Pennsylvania. It could have been any of you. That's the message. Don't tell people that only black voters are in danger of being disenfranchised. It's anyone who has an independent opinion. If it wasn't you this time, it could be you next time. That's the message. And don't keep repeating how you are telling migrants not to come. You ran on a platform that focuses on all the positive and amazing things that come out of immigration. Here we are in an economy that needs workers, and there are people who can do those jobs. No, we don't need a flood and an overwhelmed border. It's OK to be perfectly clear about legal requirements & security measures. But don't own the Republican message for them. Then the people who voted for you because you supported immigration will say to themselves that you are just like the other side. And now you've lost all the support you worked so hard to earn).
 

el henry

#WeAllWeGot #WeAllWeNeed
Messages
1,548
I think Trump is a terrible speaker. His let's-fumble-any-word-that-sounds-foreign-or-scientific-or-educated technique is degrading and offensive. Working class Americans are not incapable of cohesive thought. There's plenty of middle ground to be found. But any educator or linguist knows that language usage has to change in order to reach the audience. I just keep reading articles or hearing speeches in which I think the author or speaker is about to make his/her point and then they get to the drive-it-home section and blow it because they use some term most people would just mentally skim past. Or they use so many at the start of the article or speech that even I check out.

I was reading the editorial on ********* in Uganda yesterday and thinking that's how it's done. It was just exceptionally well-written. Clear. Hit all the important points. And because of that the emotion hit home & rang true.

Biden's speech at the Democratic Convention did as well. Tapped in because it was well done.

Psaki is also generally very clear.

I disagree that you have to hype up the emotion or couch it in outrage when you discuss policy. You just need to humanize it and direct your language to the audience you need to reach. Obama was very good at giving human examples.

I just seem to be coming across a lot of pundits or writers who are repeating significant ideas over & over again, thinking they are making their point.

And they aren't. Because the words they are using don't have meaning for the people they actually need to reach. The concept would have meaning, if they would just adjust their language to the right audience.

(Then there are the ones that totally miss the boat. Stop harping on about voter suppression being about black voters. Voter suppression hurts all voters. It hurts you. That's what people need to be saying. Those people who voted to overturn the election in Pennsylvania. That's all of Pennsylvania. It could have been any of you. That's the message. Don't tell people that only black voters are in danger of being disenfranchised. It's anyone who has an independent opinion. If it wasn't you this time, it could be you next time. That's the message. And don't keep repeating how you are telling migrants not to come. You ran on a platform that focuses on all the positive and amazing things that come out of immigration. Here we are in an economy that needs workers, and there are people who can do those jobs. No, we don't need a flood and an overwhelmed border. It's OK to be perfectly clear about legal requirements & security measures. But don't own the Republican message for them. Then the people who voted for you because you supported immigration will say to themselves that you are just like the other side. And now you've lost all the support you worked so hard to earn).


This is so true.

As someone who lives on the border of Pennsyltucky, in a 50/50 neighborhood.

You need the slogans, you need the right messenger.

Joe Biden was the perfect messenger. Why? Because he couldn't be labeled a radical left socialist. Not because of any explanation of how the US is really so right wing and nothing here is socialist at all and no one knows what socialism is and ya dee ya dee ya dee. But because he was Joe Flipping Biden.

Bad slogans hurt. "Defunding the police" is terrible in terms of a slogan. So many working class and poor people, whether whites or Blacks, recoil. Yes, you can explain it, policing needs more mental health aspects, better training, and their eyes glaze over because your slogan bites. It's like having to explain COP before someone even sees a skate. Eyes glaze over.

I don't think the liberal equivalent of hyped up Trumpalos will work; at least it hasn't here.🤷‍♀️ Please god let's do what we did last time, only better🙏
 

Karen-W

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,052
Republicans are planning to run on crime. They better look at their own houses as well as those of Democrats.


In April, the top 65 cities for homicides in 2019 were published:

1. St. Louis, Missouri - 64.54 per 100,000
2. Baltimore, Maryland - 58.27 per 100,000
3. Birmingham, Alabama - 50.62 per 100,000
4. Detroit, Michigan - 41.45 per 200,000
5. Dayton, Ohio - 34.18 per 100,000
6. Baton Rouge, Louisiana - 31.72 per 100,000
7. New Orleans, Louisiana -30.67 per 100,000
8. Kansas City, Missouri -29.88 per 100,000
9. Memphis, Tennessee- 29.21 per 100,000
10. Cleveland, Ohio - 24.09 per 100,000


....

Bet you thought these would be top ten?

13. Washington, D.C. - 23.52 per 100,000
16. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania -22.47
...
28. Chicago, Illinois - 18.26 per 100,000
Why are Republicans always beating on Chicago???

New York City, New York, Los Angeles, California, and Boston, Massachusetts don't make the top 65.

Somebody should tell Josh Hawley to look first to improving his Missouri which needs to look to improving its handling of crime?

Maybe if they had more gun laws ;)
2019 numbers aren't what the Republicans who are running on "crime" will be putting out there. Try 2020 and 2021. They're going to frame this as a pre-"defund the police" vs post-"defund the police" conversation.
 

olympic

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,043
Another point by the political strategist I follow (Rachel Bitecofer) makes is somewhat more controversial - Ds have to message well, but also hit back w. fear: Republicans are going to destroy your democracy. Look at 1/6. Period. Simple. Harsh.

IDK how much I am into that, but she did accurately predict almost to the seat the D takeover of the HoR in 2018, and predicted Biden's win in early 2019, so I still pay attention to what she says.
 

el henry

#WeAllWeGot #WeAllWeNeed
Messages
1,548
Another point by the political strategist I follow (Rachel Bitecofer) makes is somewhat more controversial - Ds have to message well, but also hit back w. fear: Republicans are going to destroy your democracy. Look at 1/6. Period. Simple. Harsh.

IDK how much I am into that, but she did accurately predict almost to the seat the D takeover of the HoR in 2018, and predicted Biden's win in early 2019, so I still pay attention to what she says.
Yes.

whereas the Trumpalos will run on fake fear: whatever numbers the frozen fish stick heir makes up about crime, race, liberals, and AOC, it is nonetheless fear.

Dems can talk about real fear: crazed Trumpalos attacking police. Dems indeed back the blue: Officer Fanone and Officer Sicknick’s family. We stand up for you.

I don’t know if “destroying democracy” is necessarily the point, but I can leave the wording to professionals. The point being that Dems “back the blue” ETA: (good cops, good policing, good military practice ) far more than Republicans, as most Republicans now are busy pledging fealty to Trump.

Among many other arguments :D
 
Last edited:

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,700
2019 numbers aren't what the Republicans who are running on "crime" will be putting out there. Try 2020 and 2021. They're going to frame this as a pre-"defund the police" vs post-"defund the police" conversation.
This is true. But say, Chicago had double the murders in the last year that it had in 2019. That would be 36.52 per 100,000. And in 2019, St.Louis was 64.54 per 100,000 already. And from the tallies St. Louis police are keeping,

The murders are up by as big a percentage as everywhere else in this violent season.

People are more stressed, angry, depressed, and anxious


and have more guns than ever.

It does not matter what a city did about its police. People are killing each other at record rates.
 
Last edited:

olympic

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,043
Yes.

whereas the Trumpalos will run on fake fear: whatever numbers the frozen fish stick heir makes up about crime, race, liberals, and AOC, it is nonetheless fear.

Dems can talk about real fear: crazed Trumpalos attacking police. Dems indeed back the blue: Officer Fanone and Officer Sicknick’s family. We stand up for you.

I don’t know if “destroying democracy” is necessarily the point, but I can leave the wording to professionals. The point being that Dems “back the blue” ETA: (good cops, good policing, good military practice ) far more than Republicans, as most Republicans now are busy pledging fealty to Trump.

Among many other arguments :D
Here in FL, Val Demmings is challenging Marco Rubio for Senate. So far, she is being clever in her messaging. But as an example, Rs nationalize elections and say the same thing everywhere (Ds are socialists and will take away - insert a subject near and dear to voters). Rubio actually tweeted out that Demmings is a socialist who is for chaos in the streets. She posted a photo of herself in her Chief of Police uniform w/ an ironic expression on her face. LOL. However, sadly, voters are really polarized these days and Rubio voters will believe what he tweets.
 

BittyBug

The missing ingredient
Messages
23,664
I don’t know if “destroying democracy” is necessarily the point, but I can leave the wording to professionals. The point being that Dems “back the blue” ETA: (good cops, good policing, good military practice ) far more than Republicans, as most Republicans now are busy pledging fealty to Trump.
How about trying to steal your democracy. January 6, voter suppression laws, etc.
 

olympic

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,043
How about "Little Marco" being a part of the rally to celebrate and support the release of the 1/6 domestic terrorists?


Some support of police 🙄🙄
The man is a human weather vane w/ no moral compass. He blows with the wind. He comes down on the side of what is popular or if it's really egregious, he stays silent. But he throws around bible verses and the word 'socialism'. I do think Val Demmings has a real uphill battle though: In FL, The D candidate needs to drive up huge Latino support and Rubio is Latino, and I think a lot of Latinos particularly men will vote for Rubio. Ironically, the Biden campaign's biggest mistake was Latino outreach particularly in FL and the lesson was not to treat Latinos like a monolithic voting block. However, Rubio's messaging and Latino heritage kind of allows him to generalize their vote
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information