ChrisWeigant.com

At Least We're Not The Other Guys? Really?

[ Posted Thursday, July 6th, 2017 – 17:26 PDT ]

So the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is running a few new campaign slogans up the old flagpole, but so far it doesn't seem like many people are saluting them. It's the D.C.C.C.'s job to get more Democrats elected to the House of Representatives, and part of that job is to help out Democratic candidates with messaging they can use in their campaigns. But what they came up with is pretty insipid -- and I'm even bending over backwards to be polite, at that.

The D.C.C.C. is currently running a contest to pick a campaign sticker to print up and distribute. Here are the four slogans (although you really need to take a look at the stickers' designs to fully appreciate how weak they are):

  • RESIST & PERSIST
  • she persisted / WE RESISTED.
  • Democrats 2018 / I MEAN, HAVE YOU SEEN THE OTHER GUYS?
  • MAKE CONGRESS blue AGAIN

Again, I can only approximate the layout, due to the technical limitations of how text is displayed here. Check out the image to see how they really look.

Before we get to the messages, though, we have to offer up some criticism of the designs. Overall, my first advice would be to absolutely ditch the fancy script fonts, which I've indicated by italic text, above. These are supposed to be messages, and the message is lost if you can't make out the font from a distance of more than two feet.

One by one, the first sticker has an incredibly ornate ampersand between "RESIST" and "PERSIST". Why? Seriously, was the overall effect they were shooting for "as frou-frou and elitist as possible"? That's the only conclusion that seems logical. Otherwise, however, this sticker is the best of the lot -- two words, in capitals, in an easy-to-read font. If slapped on a car's bumper, the drive behind could easily read it, sitting at a stoplight. So points for clarity, except for that godawful ampersand.

The second is the worst of the lot, when it comes to fancy-schmancy font use. You can barely make out the "she persisted" text, which isn't helped by it lacking any capitalization at all. Or punctuation, for that matter, which is why the period at the end of "WE RESISTED" is odd.

The third one tries for "inside joke" status. The "Democrats 2018" is big and bold, and the rest of it (even though in all-capitals) is very tiny, at the bottom of the image. It's supposed to (I'm assuming) make you want to look closely, and then burst out laughing at the tiny punchline. More on that in a moment, but from a design perspective, once again the message is largely lost to anyone beyond a distance of two feet.

The last one is the most generic of the lot, although the overall effect is lessened once again by a fancy script font for the word "blue."

All four of these look like they were thrown together by an intern with a deep-seated love for curlicue fonts and a real lack of understanding of the concept of "use stickers to clearly communicate a political message." I mean, did the person who designed these only recently graduate from loving My Little Pony and Disney princesses, or what?

OK, I've avoided it as long as I could, but let's take a look at the content of the slogans themselves. The last one is the most generic, and is easily translated into: "Let's elect so many Democrats to Congress that we take control of it once again!" The slogan does open itself to mockery on the use of the word "blue," which can also mean "emotionally down or depressed," but that's not really the fault of the D.C.C.C. (the red/blue color divide was created by the media, largely, in their use of election-night maps a few decades ago). Overall, the message is pretty clear, but it's not much of a rallying cry, really. How about something to get the blood stirring a little more, like maybe: "Democrats will TAKE CONGRESS BACK in 2018!" At the very least, add an exclamation point at the end.

Next in the order of generic-to-specific is "RESIST & PERSIST". Loosely translated, this would be: "Fight back against Trump and never give in!" The slogan is trying to co-opt two slogans already in use, but we'll get to that in the next slogan's critique. The big problem with this slogan is that it is essentially a call to the barricades, and not a positive vision for the future. Elect us and we'll fight back is inspiring, in one regard, because it's a whole lot better than "maybe we can get along with Trump," but at this point that should be almost assumed for any serious Democratic candidate. So this slogan might work in conjunction with a positive message for the future (which absolutely none of these slogans actually have).

The next is the most obvious attempt by the Democratic establishment to co-opt movements that have sprung up largely beyond their control. The "she persisted" refers to Elizabeth Warren attempting to read a letter from Coretta Scott King on the floor of the Senate, and being bullied with parliamentary rules to sit down and shut up. Mitch McConnell actually uttered the line "Nevertheless, she persisted" afterwards, explaining why he felt he had to shut Warren up. "WE RESISTED" refers, of course, to the anti-Trump resistance movement that has seen so many millions of people marching in the streets, starting the day after he got sworn into office. But the Democratic leadership has largely been following this movement, instead of getting out in front and leading it (I should add that this may be an overgeneralization -- there are indeed Democratic officeholders who have shown some leadership qualities in the movement).

But by combining the two, the message is either confusing or completely lost. First, not every voter has ever heard the "she persisted" line, so if you aren't aware of the history, you're left wondering who "she" is, what she had to persist to do, and who she was persisting against. Without knowing about Warren's speech, an easy (and wrong) conclusion to arrive at is that some Republican woman persisted in doing something bad, but that Democrats resisted her. "She persisted, but we resisted her," in other words. The other easy (but erroneous) reading of this slogan is that somehow Democrats are itching to run Hillary Clinton as a candidate again. Anyone unaware of the Warren connection might leap to the conclusion that "she" was the most prominent Democratic female politician -- Hillary Clinton. I mean, I know "persisted" and "resisted" rhyme and all, but their juxtaposition is confusing for someone not up on recent political history.

And finally, the worst stinker of the lot. Really? "Have you seen the other guys?" Wow. That's just... wow. OK, it's slightly amusing, I'll give it that. But it is sending a terrible message, in reality. "We're not so bad as the other guys" is hardly an inspiring cry to rally the troops, after all. I mean, why didn't they just go with: "We don't suck as much as them"?

If the D.C.C.C. was going for comedy, why not just be completely honest about it? The slogan that truly sums up their offerings would have to be something along the lines of: "THIS time we're going to run on something! Really! We'll let you know when we figure out what it is...."

Sigh.

I would like to end this article on a high note, though. Because while the D.C.C.C.'s offerings were pretty insipid, there was one new messaging idea from Democrats which could work quite effectively. This one didn't come from a bumpersticker contest, but rather from unidentified "Democratic leadership" in Congress. And it shows that perhaps some Democrats are beginning to understand what works and what does not. The slogan has obvious historical roots: "A Better Deal."

This would be the third such "Deal" slogan in roughly the past century of American political history. First there was Teddy Roosevelt's "A Square Deal." It had three pillars: conservation of natural resources, control of corporations, and consumer protection. Franklin Delano Roosevelt later updated his cousin's idea to become "The New Deal." This was explained (by his pick to run the Labor Department) as: "a forty-hour workweek, a minimum wage, worker's compensation, unemployment compensation, a federal law banning child labor, direct federal aid for unemployment relief, Social Security, a revitalized public employment service and health insurance." This, of course, led to the biggest redefinition of the federal government in the past century, and possibly in America's entire history.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether Democrats can agree on a such sweeping and muscular agenda to run on next year. But offering up "A Better Deal" than what the Republicans are offering could be a real winner, depending on what agenda items they attach to it. At the very least, it would be a whole lot more forward-looking than just "we'll stop Trump and the Republicans from screwing things up."

By November of next year, some of the Trump agenda (and, more realistically, the Paul Ryan / Mitch McConnell agenda) will quite likely have been enacted. The results will already have started to be felt, by those directly affected. In addition, there will be an absolute mountain of unkept Trump promises for Democrats to point to: "He promised you this -- and you got nothing -- which is why we've got A Better Deal for you!"

So there is hope, after all. The House caucus committee trying to get Democrats elected deserves the ridicule it is now getting online for its weak and laughable attempts at sloganeering. But they're not the whole party, and others obviously have a much better understanding of the basic political fact that a party really should offer up something positive to the voters at election time. There is plenty of time to hash out what exactly A Better Deal would actually contain, but for now at least it seems like the right direction for the party to be heading.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

94 Comments on “At Least We're Not The Other Guys? Really?”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You can barely make out the "she persisted" text ...

    And, that's the best thing about the second option. Heh.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    VOTE DEMOCRAT BECAUSE WE FINNALY GET IT!

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Damn, I thought 'she' referred to you know who ... oh, well, same sentiments on my part, essentially.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But by combining the two [persisted, resisted], the message is either confusing or completely lost.

    Indeed. It confused and lost me, at least. :)

  5. [5] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    MAKE CONGRESS blue AGAIN....Have them all cryogenically frozen!

    A better today by creating a worse tomorrow!

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How about,

    VOTE DEMOCRAT BECAUSE WE FINALLY GET IT

    Then Democrats can take turns explaining the many things 'it' refers to and what they're going to do about it.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't suppose we could delete [2], eh?

  8. [8] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang

    Since the tactics laid out and debunked in this article rear their ugly head here so often, I am offering a link to this article before I comment on the new, and excellent column.

    An Army of Smear Artists is Working Overtime to Undermine Sy Hersh's Syria Bombshell

    http://www.alternet.org/world/undermining-sy-hershs-syria-bombshell

    There are a couple of folks here who owe it to themselves and others to read this short article, and hopefully learn a thing or two... and I'm not talking about Syria.

    A

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you consider yourself a kind of contrarian, Al?

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Al!

    What do you say we wait for the report to be issued by the United Nations and Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, due out by October.

  11. [11] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    I sure hope someone at the DCCC is reading your column, because it is spot on.

    Like the support for the A Better Deal suggestion from unnamed sources, all the criticism is valid... and indeed generous.

    I can't believe they would hold a contest to pick among such stinkers rather than having an open contest for good sticker suggestions. Were they afraid mocking ideas like you and Liz offered would dominate? Or are they living in such a bubble that top down dictation is all they can fathom rather than welcoming grass roots input?

    I'd also call it an unintentional replay of the 2016 election... which a wise man suggested was a choice between cholera and gonorrhea.

    Anyway, I am justifiably hesitant about the suggestion that A Better Deal can be chosen, and the details worked out later. Those details should have been worked out already (Chuck Schumer was duly mocked in a recent link I posted for claiming he's been working on an economic plan for "months" and it will be ready next month).

    But my main concern is that the plan is for bold and effective policy changes that will actually motivate voters... rather than watered down, focus group tested, donor approved platitudes... and that the Democrats running on A Better Deal are sufficiently credible as champions of that plan.

    You would think that Dems could at least reaffirm their support for the list you gave for the New Deal... and it's sad that it's even necessary.

    But seriously, choosing the A better Deal slogan and then trusting that Dems can and will fill in the details with skill and effectiveness would be a huge leap of faith for many. I don't know how you maintain such optimism CW.

    Here are my suggestions in the spirit of this column-

    My other car is a limousine!!!

    I still think they're deplorable!

    We bomb other countries too!

    Wall Street Rules!

    We'll bring back the TPP!

    Romneycare is as far as we'll go!

    It'll never happen!

    Everything is still great!

    A

  12. [12] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: But offering up "A Better Deal" than what the Republicans are offering could be a real winner, depending on what agenda items they attach to it.

    Whatever the Democrats actually do end up offering up, it needs to be "The Real Deal" versus the old populist "bait-and-switch" bullshit and LIES spewing out of the orange blowhole of Benedict Donald a/k/a Don the Con. If Democrats go too hard left with all the "agenda items," they risk sounding exactly like Trump, making promises they can't possibly ever keep. There's a fine line to walk somewhere between reality and reality TV star cult of personality bullshit fabricating con artist.

  13. [13] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    9

    The article provides your answer.
    Your question is just as offensive as the tactics addressed therein.

    10

    What do you say we stop ruling out other possibilities and stop treating dubious claims from pro-war interventionists with a horrible track record as fact?

    A

  14. [14] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    12

    FDR would be so proud.

    I think the team motto in Dodgeball was-
    Aim Low!

    A

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, Al ... are you saying that you don't have any faith in what the UN/OPCW will report?

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Were they afraid mocking ideas like you and Liz offered would dominate?

    I wasn't mocking. I think it would be a great slogan, if I do say so myself. :)

    It opens up an endless array of possibilities ...

    Vote Democrat because we finally get it! We finally get that ... fill in a countless number of blanks!

  17. [17] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    Delayed response to comment 131 from FTP443

    Doing a little catch-up here.

    I wrote
    "Way to climb into the gutter."

    You responded
    "I'm sorry, Al ..."

    So, I still don't care what you call me.
    You should be apologizing to girls for pigeonholing them like that.
    It's a very patriarchal mindset.
    :)

    A

    PS- Of course, I'm assuming you were being sincere.

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    When have I ever been insincere?

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, most girls are a tad hypersensitive.

    Bill Maher coined the phrase, feminization of America. I chided him for that and said that a more appropriate phrase would be the "hyper-sensitization of America" but, you know what, it's mostly girls who are hypersensitive. I can say that because ... I'm a girl! And, I keep my hypersensitivities pretty close to my chest, most of the time. :)

  20. [20] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    If Democrats go too hard left with all the "agenda items," they risk sounding exactly like Trump, making promises they can't possibly ever keep.

    Spot on! There has to be a commitment to bringing honesty and integrity back into politics. We, the people, need to be able to trust that the journalists that we get our news from are reporting the facts. We need politicians that are willing to call out their own party when the legislation before them has serious problems. The Democrats need to strive for integrity with as much determination as the GOP is willing to be dishonest -- the more they lie, the more the Dems must defend the truth.

  21. [21] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    15

    All but two in Congress supported Trump's act of war and violation of international law in Syria, and the entire corporate media and, if I recall correctly, everybody here who commented except neil bought into the narrative that was trotted out to justify it, despite the source of the information.

    Given the recent history, a little more skepticism would be the wise path to take, no matter how y'all feel about Assad.

    Now, the preliminary report from the OPCW used the term "sarin like symptoms", thus feeding into that narrative. Not sure if that was a sign of bias, or just unintentional.
    The OPCW report on the 2013 sarin attack (which was also used in an attempt to launch a US intervention by blaming Assad without proof) refused to reach any conclusions about who was responsible... and a similar result this time will allow the potentially false narrative to stand.

    And, to my knowledge, no actual investigation has been undertaken on the ground at the site of the recent attack.

    That said, the point I was hoping to convey was that the tactics discussed in the article are used by some here across a wide variety of topics beyond Syria... usually in defense of the establishment or one of the major parties.

    A

  22. [22] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    18

    Go back and read your comments about me prior to the one I quoted in 17.
    I'm guessing you would call it justifiable insincerity though.

    19

    Given the context of that discussion, your "hypersensitive" characterization also seems like an insincere effort to justify the dismissal of an anti-establishment viewpoint without engaging on the specifics.

    Honestly, how would you feel if your well informed views based on facts and critical thinking, about say the Iran nuclear deal, were dismissed as girly?

    That said, I'm still not comfortable with the perpetuation of the stereotype.

    And the Maher debate seems like a selective use of a human trait that has spanned the ages in both sexes whenever something people feel strongly about is challenged.
    I don't know the context he brought it up in, but his whole shtick is based on the concept... as in his hypersensitivity about other peoples hypersensitivity.

    A

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Damn, I thought 'she' referred to you know who ... oh, well, same sentiments on my part, essentially.

    Yer not alone... I thought the same thing..

  24. [24] 
    michale wrote:

    Well, it just shows ta go ya...

    The Dumbocrats don't have a snowball's chance in hell of having anything meaningful to say for at least the next 7.5 years...

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    I have NEVER stated I was a christian.. I have gone to GREAT lengths to state that I am not a christian or religious in the least...

    Cite?

    But his religious aspects rubs me the wrong way, as all religious aspects do.. I am as agnostic as they come and I firmly believe that "freedom OF religion" also means "freedom FROM religion"...
    chrisweigant.com/2011/08/12/ftp177/#comment-15663

    Like being religiously agnostic, I am also politically agnostic.. I am neither beholden nor enslaved by any Party or it's Dogma..
    chrisweigant.com/2007/07/31/scandal-fatigue/#comment-320

    Do you need more??

    Or has yer pee-pee been whacked sufficiently???

    :D

    Gods, yer so easy, Victoria....

  26. [26] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    <I.And that is an ad hominem bigus dorkus attack (I get that right, JL?? :D )that proves you have NO FACTS to support your argument..

    Whining for JL's help again proves my point.

    It proves the point that you have no point..

    Do I need JL's help to show what a lame luser you act like??

    "Haaaardly"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD III With A Vengeance

    I was simply giving JL the opportunity to disavow Partisan Bigotry and come down on you and Balthy for the same things that he comes down on me for..

    I was disappointed, but I can understand his position..

    If he were to call ya'all on ya'all's many transgressions, he would be spending a LOT more time here in Weigantia and I am certain he has better things to do..

    Me?? I don't.. :D One of the joys of retirement.. heh

    Anywho... I'll let you go lick your wounds now.. :D

    "Never cross brains with Mr Spock. He will cut you to pieces every time.."
    -Ensign Hikaru Sulu

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    We need politicians that are willing to call out their own party when the legislation before them has serious problems.

    And you need Democrat rank and file to do the exact same thing...

    Your elected Democrats follow ya'all's example!!

    They will do WHATEVER ya'all let them get away with...

    If you want to see who is responsible for the malfeasance of ya'all's elected Democrats...

    You need do nothing but look in the mirror..

    Think about it...

    the more they lie, the more the Dems must defend the truth.

    And THEREIN lies the crux of ya'all's problem..

    ALL ya'all care about is "truth"... But truth is subjective and can depend on a variety of factors... As long as ya'all demand ONLY "truth", you will only GET the "truth".. Or at least, your elected Democrats version of it..

    What ya'all SHOULD demand is FACTS.....

    But ya'all won't because you KNOW that your elected Democrats are as far from FACTS as ya'all accuse the GOP of being...

    Once again, to see the problem, you need do nothing but look in a mirror..

    Because yer elected Democrats are simply a reflection of YOUR beliefs and YOUR attitudes..

    It couldn't be any other way...

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    CW,

    And finally, the worst stinker of the lot. Really? "Have you seen the other guys?" Wow. That's just... wow.

    That was NOT-45's entire campaign!!

    It worked SO WELL for her..

    Why not having the DCCC adopt it! :D

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4670214/Hamburg-braces-major-pre-G20-protest-leaders-land.html

    Ahh yes.. The Left Wingery...

    Such a non-violent, tolerant and respectful lot.. :^/

  30. [30] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Democrats 2018- we will apply Vaseline"

  31. [31] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Why not re-brand entirely: DemyMcDemface!

  32. [32] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    In the interest of fair play/equal time/journalistic responsibility how about an article (or more appropriately, PERSISENT articles) on the slogan and the idea behind it that citizens need to use on all candidates and parties from a previous slogan contest that you are familiar with?

    "TAKE BIG MONEY-LOSE OUR VOTES"

  33. [33] 
    michale wrote:

    Why not re-brand entirely: DemyMcDemface!

    Hehehehehe

    Now THAT was funny....

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al,

    Given the context of that discussion, your "hypersensitive" characterization also seems like an insincere effort to justify the dismissal of an anti-establishment viewpoint without engaging on the specifics.

    I'm afraid you have the context all wrong. I would never justify the dismissal of an anti-establishment viewpoint or even an anti-Enlightenment viewpoint without fully engaging on the specifics. That's how I roll, in fact.

    My inquiries as to the sex of the individual ANONYMOUS commenter, such as yourself, have to do solely with their, and your, propensity for taking offense and/or claiming ad hominem attacks, a sure sign in my mind of a response typed out by a girl.

    I could be wrong in my assessments, but I don't think it's happened yet. Has it? :)

  35. [35] 
    michale wrote:

    US nonfarm payrolls total 222,000 in June vs 179,000 expected
    http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/07/us-nonfarm-payrolls-june-2017.html

    President Trump...

    Making America Great Again

    Eat yer heart out, Odumbo!!! :D

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm nothing if not sincere, Al ...

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You and President Trump have a few people to thank for the continued job growth but Secretary Geithner and President Obama top that list.

    Let's give some credit where credit is due!

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    You and President Trump have a few people to thank for the continued job growth but Secretary Geithner and President Obama top that list.

    We'll just have to agree to disagree...

    Obama's orgy of regulation held this economy back for 8 long years...

    It's only since President Trump was elected and started getting rid of Obama's job killer regs has businesses in the US feel good about themselves again..

    Remember Obama's YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT BUSINESS bullcarp???

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Obama's orgy of regulation held this economy back for 8 long years...

    That's not the tale the numbers tell.

    Remember Obama's YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT BUSINESS bullcarp???

    Well, that's not quite what he said but, his "you didn't build that" (referring to all of the infrastructure and education that allows business to thrive) was a seriously inelegant phrase that left him open to all kinds of criticism ... criticism which he failed utterly to silence.

  40. [40] 
    michale wrote:

    Well, that's not quite what he said but, his "you didn't build that" (referring to all of the infrastructure and education that allows business to thrive) was a seriously inelegant phrase that left him open to all kinds of criticism ...

    That's spin..

    If Obama was referring to the roads and bridges as he said, he would have said, "You didn't build THEM"...

    But he was referring to the business that was built, which is why he said "THAT"...

    Regardless of that, it is simply inarguable that Obama and his administration was NOT "business friendly"...

    President Trump *IS* business friendly and THAT's why the economy is doing so much better under President Trump than it could EVER do under Obama or a (thank the gods it didn't happen) NOT-45 Administration...

    That's not the tale the numbers tell.

    That's EXACTLY the tale the numbers tell.. Obama is the ONLY POTUS in US History to have less than 3% growth his ENTIRE presidency...

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    Grrr.. Forgotten attribute..

    That's not the tale the numbers tell.

    That's EXACTLY the tale the numbers tell..

    Obama is the ONLY POTUS in US History to have less than 3% growth his ENTIRE presidency...

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    A little context, Michale, would be nice. :)

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That you had any growth at all throughout most of his presidency is a great testament to the competency of the Obama administration.

    Let's see where the numbers are for Trump after eight years, alright?

  44. [44] 
    michale wrote:

    A little context, Michale, would be nice. :)

    For which part??? :D

    That you had any growth at all throughout most of his presidency is a great testament to the competency of the Obama administration.

    That growth happened IN SPITE of Obama's actions..

    Not DUE to Obama's actions...

    From over-regulating the gas and coal industries to forcing small businesses to forget their religious rights and adhere to arbitrary Identity Politics, the Obama administration was CLEARLY anti-business...

    Let's see where the numbers are for Trump after eight years, alright?

    Fair enough... It's gonna be like the Reagan years around here!! :D

  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    The GOP has a great slogan for the Dems in 2018...

    DEMOCRATS 2018
    We Win Moral Victories, Not Elections

    That about sums things up perfectly!! :D

  46. [46] 
    neilm wrote:

    These slogans have to be a joke - right?

    The "Better Deal" tagline works well. Add three simple bullet points:

    - Government that works for all Americans
    - When America gets richer, regular Americans should get their fair share
    - Healthcare is a right, not a luxury

    Seems simple enough.

  47. [47] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "It's not the way that you say it when you say those things to me,
    it's more the way you really mean it when you tell me what will be"
    The Question
    -Moody Blues

  48. [48] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Fair enough... It's gonna be like the Reagan years around here!! :D"

    You mean with a deficit ballooning out of control and passing the largest tax increase in history during his second term? Because THOSE WERE both Ronald Reagan's actions and legacy. That's historical FACT.

  49. [49] 
    neilm wrote:

    US nonfarm payrolls total 222,000 in June vs 179,000 expected

    I've been holding back on my thoughts on the economy, because one swallow does not make a spring, however since Michale has opened the door, there are some dark clouds gathering.

    I'm hoping they are blown away by strong growth in the second half of the year, however GDP growth has been very anemic, auto sales have dropped off significantly, job growth has been weak (hence the low expected number of 179,000 - just to stand still we need to create over 200,000 jobs per month).

    The dollar has leveled out wrt to the basket of major currencies, and you can almost taste the desperation from the Fed to raise interest rates quickly and reload their monetary weapons before the next downturn.

    45 isn't talking about Q1 performance of course (probably because it isn't mentioned on Fox News and he is blissfully ignorant), but GDP growth dropped to 1.4%. Everybody started muttering about "weather" and other excuses, and predicted a surge in Q2. Well for those of us who follow GDPNow, etc. the Q2 predictions have petered out as Q2 progressed.

    Just as one swallow does not make a summer, one raven does not make a Shakespearean tragedy (it is usually three ;). But the number of raven sightings is outpacing the "swallows".

    Just a final note on the June estimate - 179,000 is a very low bar based on weakness concerns in H1 - the number for June 2016 was 261,000 (thanks Obama!).

  50. [50] 
    michale wrote:

    These slogans have to be a joke - right?

    The whole PARTY is a joke right now..

    THAT's what you don't get...

    I've been holding back on my thoughts on the economy, because one swallow does not make a spring, however since Michale has opened the door, there are some dark clouds gathering.

    TRUMP IS TOAST prediction #6,189 :D

  51. [51] 
    neilm wrote:

    The whole PARTY is a joke right now..

    The whole 45 regime is a joke. Just digest this for a second because it is quite amazing. The guy who bragged about his business and in particular his hospitality expertise didn't book a hotel for the Hamburg G20 trip!.

    Yup, they fired up Air Force One and forgot they needed somewhere to sleep in Hamburg.

    What a bunch of clowns.

  52. [52] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And that is an ad hominem bigus dorkus attack (I get that right, JL?? :D )

    no, just an ad hominem fallacy. the bigus dorkus is all you ;p

    JL

  53. [53] 
    michale wrote:

    no, just an ad hominem fallacy. the bigus dorkus is all you ;p

    Apparently, it's the one who uses the ad hominem fallacy...

    But *ONLY* if that person is NOT a Democrat Party zealot...

    I am trying to abide by ya'all's rules, but it's confusing sometimes..

  54. [54] 
    michale wrote:

    The whole 45 regime is a joke. Just digest this for a second because it is quite amazing. The guy who bragged about his business and in particular his hospitality expertise didn't book a hotel for the Hamburg G20 trip!.

    Yup, they fired up Air Force One and forgot they needed somewhere to sleep in Hamburg.

    What a bunch of clowns.

    Cite???

  55. [55] 
    michale wrote:

    The whole 45 regime is a joke.

    And what does that make YOUR candidate who got totally DEVASTATED by that "joke"???

    A BIGGER joke, eh?? :D

  56. [56] 
    michale wrote:

    You mean with a deficit ballooning out of control and passing the largest tax increase in history during his second term? Because THOSE WERE both Ronald Reagan's actions and legacy. That's historical FACT.

    Of course, defeating the Soviet Union doesn't enter into your thoughts at all, right??

    Typical Left Winger... :^/

  57. [57] 
    michale wrote:

    THERE IT IS!!!!

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/07/07/15/article-4675262-421E606400000578-252_636x475.jpg

    Proof POSITIVE that President Trump colluded with the Russians!!!!!

    Yea.. The Democrat Party *IS* a joke...

  58. [58] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Reagan was a lousy president. Just about everything he got credit for was someone else's doing - winning the cold war was 90% Nixon. The irony is HW Bush was a solid president, cleaned up Reagan's mess and got stuck holding the bucket.

  59. [59] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    While it is not usually productive, it is at least entertaining observing the arguments over which pile of shit stinks more.
    This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:
    "Life is steady diet of shit- it all depends on how much you swallow."

  60. [60] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    Reagan was a lousy president. Just about everything he got credit for was someone else's doing

    Yes, that IS what the Left Wing says... :D

  61. [61] 
    michale wrote:

    And everything good that Trump does is because of Obama, right? :^/

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Donald Trump has been denigrating President Obama and everything he has done for many years now, at every opportunity and this has continued into the Trump administration, on US soil and abroad.

    President Trump wishes to move on from the Russian meddling into the 2016 election. Why can't he leave the constant denigration of Obama behind, too? I mean, he's acting in every way he can to undo much of what Obama has done. Isn't that enough?

  63. [63] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Of course, defeating the Soviet Union doesn't enter into your thoughts at all, right??

    Typical Left Winger... :^/"

    EXCEPT, I remember telling you a while back that I voted for Ronald Reagan TWICE. I actually happen to have liked his foreign policy towards the old Soviet union, and I will give him credit there where credit is due.

    ALSO, do you forget that Reagan and Gorbachev ALMOST came to an agreement to COMPLETELY eliminate nuclear weapons all together? And that it only foundered due to Reagan's insistence not to give up his Star Wars initiative?

    Typical Right Winger! :-)

  64. [64] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "And everything good that Trump does is because of Obama, right? :^/"

    YES, THAT's EXACTLY RIGHT!

    Because as you know, it takes at least 6 months to a YEAR for a NEW President to turn the HUGE ship of state around to a new course from that of the FORMER President.

  65. [65] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And everything good that Trump does is because of Obama, right?

    Obama left Trump in much better shape than his predecessor, with a brisk economy, falling deficit, and low unemployment. It will be up to Trump and the GOP not to upset the apple cart. If the economy is still chugging along a year from now, Trump can take credit for not screwing it up. If not, by then it won't do any good to blame the Democrats.

  66. [66] 
    michale wrote:

    Donald Trump has been denigrating President Obama and everything he has done for many years now, at every opportunity and this has continued into the Trump administration, on US soil and abroad.

    And Obama and all the rest of the Left Wingery has been doing the same to President Trump..

    Again, what's the point??

    President Trump wishes to move on from the Russian meddling into the 2016 election. Why can't he leave the constant denigration of Obama behind, too?

    Because it's well documented that Obama was informed about the Russian interference in the election but Obama did NOTHING because he thought it wouldn't matter.. Obama thought that NOT-45 would win..

    I mean, he's acting in every way he can to undo much of what Obama has done. Isn't that enough?

    If Obama and the LEft wouldn't start none... There wouldn't BE none...

  67. [67] 
    michale wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "And everything good that Trump does is because of Obama, right? :^/"

    YES, THAT's EXACTLY RIGHT!

    Exactly...

    The Partisan Bigotry is well documented...

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I have no time for more of your nonsense, Michale.

  69. [69] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And everything good that Trump does is because of Obama, right?

    We can address that question if he does something good.

  70. [70] 
    michale wrote:
  71. [71] 
    michale wrote:

    We can address that question if he does something good.

    You have already stated that President Trump DID do something good..

    If you want to retract that in favor of Party bigotry, go ahead..

  72. [72] 
    michale wrote:

    I have no time for more of your nonsense, Michale.

    Which nonsense is that?? There is so much to choose from.. :D

    Trump colludes with Russia...

    Russia changes NOT-45 votes to Trump votes..

    President obstructs justice....

    Which nonsense are you referring to??

  73. [73] 
    Paula wrote:

    https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/7/7/15934752/health-insurance-heterotaxy-twitter

    The attacks became increasingly personal and increasingly violent. Strangers were telling me it would have been cheaper to make a new kid, as if anyone in the history of the world could ever replace this bright light of mine, the boy who loves animals and can’t keep himself from kissing babies and always wants to sleep with one arm wrapped around my neck.

    Trumpers. Or Russian trolls (whom Trumpers think are just ducky).

  74. [74] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Quickly back to last week, thanks so much for the sesquicentennial felicitations. We in Canada appreciate the occasional mention, we're vain that way. Sadly, our politicians and attendant system aren't as colourful as those of our neighbours to the south...we'll live vicariously, baring a national political disaster.
    The talking points/suggested DNC platform is well worth the read, all the points are valid jumping off positions, and with a little tweaking and the right amount of sugar, would resonate with the average person on the st. However, the problem that's most pervasive, at least from my perspective, is the ongoing disunity and prevailing schism within the DNC and it's followers. Given the fact that Mr Trump and his gang seem hell-bent on being their own worse enemy, enmity within the DNC just adds to people's view that all things politic are crippled. Time to forget the debacle that was 2016 and get out ahead of the next cycle and rid us ALL of this turbulent priest. LL&P

  75. [75] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    25

    So around 5 and 10 years ago, you stated you were agnostic, but only months ago you used the terms "my religion" and "Protestant" in the same sentence and then went on to explain you were tolerant of all religions.

    That's why people might think you're a Christian. It's not complicated no matter how you want to spin it.

    Or has yer pee-pee been whacked sufficiently???

    You are projecting again, goober. :)

  76. [76] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    26

    It proves the point that you have no point..

    You were asking for JL's help; that WAS the point.

    Do I need JL's help to show what a lame luser you act like??

    You called for his help so apparently you needed it.

    I was simply giving JL the opportunity to disavow Partisan Bigotry and come down on you and Balthy for the same things that he comes down on me for..

    So you needed his help and whined like a toddler for him to come to your aid.

    I was disappointed, but I can understand his position..

    So my point was correct that you were calling for JL's help, and you got your fee fees hurt.

    If he were to call ya'all on ya'all's many transgressions, he would be spending a LOT more time here in Weigantia and I am certain he has better things to do..

    So CRACK A BOOK and learn something instead of whining like a toddler for other people's help.

    Me?? I don't.. :D One of the joys of retirement.. heh

    Apparently you've got time on your hands among other things.

    Anywho... I'll let you go lick your wounds now.. :D

    I'm not the one whining for help; again, you are projecting.

    "Never cross brains with Mr Spock. He will cut you to pieces every time.."
    -Ensign Hikaru Sulu

    I'm going to assume Mr. Spock is JL, and you're the dimwit who keeps posting the same lame line over and over again because you refuse to CRACK A BOOK and learn something new. :)

  77. [77] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    55

    And what does that make YOUR candidate who got totally DEVASTATED by that "joke"???

    A BIGGER joke, eh?? :D

    You actually think you're a political agnostic? *LOL* You worship Trump as if he were your messiah, and if anyone makes a valid criticism about the stupidity of either Trump or the Trump Administration, you then claim their stupidity and poor planning of this week somehow reflects on another candidate retroactively. You always have to deflect any current criticism of your messiah back on the election of 2016 as if it means anything in the past; it doesn't. It's the same "election deflection" you do all the time because you can't admit the idiots in the Trump Administration who forgot to book a hotel room made an ignorant mistake.

    Your Party bigotry is showing. :)

  78. [78] 
    michale wrote:

    Your Party bigotry is showing. :)

    Ahhhhhh The old I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I rebuttal.

    Sad.....

    Grow up, Victoria... :D

  79. [79] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    That's why people might think you're a Christian. It's not complicated no matter how you want to spin it.

    Says the spin master.. :D

    NO ONE here, with more than 2 brain cells to rub together, would think I was a christian..

    Which is probably why you do... :D

    You are projecting again, goober. :)

    Whatever you have to tell yerself to sleep at night.. :D

    You were asking for JL's help; that WAS the point.

    Whatever you have to tell yerslef to sleep at night. :D

    Apparently you've got time on your hands among other things.

    What *IS* your obsession with my body parts, Victoria???

    Not getting any at home??? :D

    I'm not the one whining for help; again, you are projecting.

    Yer not fooling anyone, Victoria.. All your comments are NOTHING but whining.. :D

    I'm going to assume Mr. Spock is JL,

    Do you know what happens when you make an assumption??

    You make an ASS out of YOU... And umption...

    Are you done making an ass out of yourself?? Because, if yer not, I'll be happy to keep pointing it out.. :D

  80. [80] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    So around 5 and 10 years ago, you stated you were agnostic, but only months ago you used the terms "my religion" and "Protestant" in the same sentence and then went on to explain you were tolerant of all religions.

    No.. Around 40 years ago, I used terms like "my religion" and "protestant"...

    5 and 10 years ago (amongst many other times) I stated I was agnostic..

    A few months ago, I relayed an incident from 40 years ago when I used terms like "my religion" and "protestant"..

    As to why I haven't mentioned my religious agnosticity much recently??

    Because *NO ONE* here would be STOOPID enough to think I was a christian...

    And yet, here you are.. :D

  81. [81] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    I seriously thought you were joking when I read those slogans. I thought the link you gave was a spoof, trying to parody how out of touch Dem leadership is. I had to actually find the contest on the DCCC's website before I believed it was real!

    I had thought my opinion couldn't be much lower of the DCCC and party leadership generally. I would've expected some bland, meaningless tripe from them. This is worse than that, especially the "have you seen the other guys" one. Wow. Just wow.

  82. [82] 
    michale wrote:

    Yea.. It's a shame what the Democrat Party has become..

    But they only have themselves to blame...

    When they run on a platform of divisiveness and hatred and bigotry and hatred of America and they pit American against American......???

    Well, eventually patriotic Americans get fed up with that and throw the bums out of office....

    And considering that the Democrat Party is going to double down on the hatred and bigotry and pitting American against American???

    It doesn't look like it's going to get any better for the Dem Party anytime soon...

  83. [83] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    77

    Ahhhhhh The old I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I rebuttal.

    Nope. It's the brand spanking new "Michale-is-such-a-Party-bigot-that-he-can't-even-admit-it-was-stupid-for-the-Trump-Administration-to-fail-to-book-a-hotel-room-in-Germany rebuttal.

    If you could argue otherwise, there'd be no need to insult me with your elementary school style weak insults. *LOL* :)

  84. [84] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Bclancy,

    I had to actually find the contest on the DCCC's website before I believed it was real!

    How do you account for why Democrats don't take full advantage of the situation to put their vision - a general vision that most of the country supports - front and center and demonstrate real leadership?

    Are they simply incapable or do they just prefer to rest on their presumed laurels?

    I just don't get it ... :(

  85. [85] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    the political class in general is very out of touch with what their constituents want and need.

    @michale,

    you're right, i had forgotten about that thing i thought donald did well; obama can't take credit for it. still waiting for another.

    @kick,

    maybe i'm just out of my vulcan mind...

    @bclancy,

    alas, i thought it was a prank too.

    JL

  86. [86] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    78

    What *IS* your obsession with my body parts, Victoria???

    Now there's some real comedy and projection, being that it's YOU who is the one who does this frequently in your posts.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/07/06/at-least-were-not-the-other-guys-really/#comment-104663

    Not getting any at home??? :D

    It seems in your frequent projection, perhaps you've confused this political board with a different website. If you'd like to discuss your intimate personal life or that of others, why don't you seek out the players' board and find someone "agnostic" who is interested in fat, bald, and uneducated. *LOL*

  87. [87] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    79

    A few months ago, I relayed an incident from 40 years ago when I used terms like "my religion" and "protestant"..

    So you could at least acknowledge the fact that someone who didn't read your posts from 5 or 10 years ago might read your recent post and think you were a Christian because you used those phrases and then insisted you were tolerant of all religions.

    As to why I haven't mentioned my religious agnosticity much recently??

    I didn't ask that question and don't care. Spin it however you want to, you asked why anyone would think you were a Christian, and I answered.

    If you can't acknowledge that your post might lead someone to believe that, then your willful ignorance is again showing, and that's not at all an uncommon occurrence on these boards. :)

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    the political class in general is very out of touch with what their constituents want and need.

    Can you account for that? I mean, what gives ... especially in this era of Trump?

  89. [89] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    the theorist whose views most closely mirror my own is GW Domhoff. i'll post a link, but i'll also try to summarize:

    http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/class_domination.html

    essentially, the US has a flexible upper class, based mostly on economic power, with its own set of rules to assimilate anyone newly wealthy and to keep the rest of us subservient. they use money and social influence to set the terms of political debate, within which the rest of us have no choice but to operate. this is not cynical manipulation, it's just part of upper class culture.

    to a limited extent, voters can choose which members of the elite classes hold power. however, a narrow range of choices in policy and leadership has already been cooked into our society. what's going on now is that the rest of the country is starting to catch on to the fact that their influence on the direction of the country is largely an illusion. many people incorrectly blame this condition on whichever the "other party" happens to be, when in reality it's just what america always was.

    donald trump got popular because even though he is a member of the elite class, he still talks and acts like a member of the lower classes. plus he is savvy enough to listen and tell people back what they desperately wish to hear. i'll bring back your jobs, i'll make everything great, and he's willing to be vulgar to try to make the changes he wants. the upper and political classes are in no danger of going broke and losing their healthcare - their passion seems more like a show than genuine concern for the country's working people.

    and if it's all really a show anyway, why not elect a real showman?

    that's my best guess.

    JL

  90. [90] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks for taking the time to post that, Joshua!

    That doesn't seem to take into account the fact that the two parties have diverged so much from each other that one relies, at least to some extent, on common sense solutions and believes in science and enlightenment. Whereas the other party has developed into one with an anti-Enlightenment agenda that ignores basic fundamental truths and evidence-based assertions.

    Neither does it take into account the emergence (and re-emergence) of truly up-wing leaders like the Governor of California, Jerry Brown.

    It makes sense to think that in this time of Trump there should be more Brown-like leaders who step forward with future-oriented vision and the courage to carry out that vision in the face of special interests and dark money.

    From what I can tell, the Democratic party is the best hope there is for the survival and continued evolution of the idea of America or of what I like to call the promise of America. I hope there are enough visionary leaders - Democrat or Republican - who are able to cut through the barriers set out in that article you cite.

  91. [91] 
    michale wrote:

    he still talks and acts like a member of the lower classes. plus he is savvy enough to listen and tell people back what they desperately wish to hear.

    And then turns around and delivers on every promise he can...

    But the IMPORTANT part of your comment is the "LISTEN" part..

    Democrats don't LISTEN anymore. They dictate...

    YOU WILL NEED THIS.. YOU ONLY NEED THAT.. YOU SURE DON'T NEED THE OTHER THING...

    That is why the Democrat Party is decimated in the here and now..

    They got fooled by the euphoria of the Obama phenom into thinking that the American people REALLY like the Democrat Party and really BELIEVE in what the Democrat Party was selling..

    But Obama was nothing more than a celebrity Politician. A Clint Eastwood for Mayor... A Jesse Ventura for Governor... A Arnold Schwarzenegger for Governor... A Dwayne Johnson for President....

    Without an Obama, when the field is level, Americans turned back to the Party that most match their values and wants and needs..

    And that is the Republican Party...

    Until the Democrat Party can fundamentally change the way they treat Americans, they will remain the minority Party for the rest of our lives...

    It's really that simple...

  92. [92] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    88

    the theorist whose views most closely mirror my own is GW Domhoff. i'll post a link, but i'll also try to summarize:

    http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/class_domination.html

    Very nice post and interesting link.

    Thank you so much for posting it. :)

  93. [93] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    domhoff goes into quite a bit of detail about how the two party system got to where it is, i just ran out of energy to post about it.

    @kick,

    much obliged :)

    @michale,

    dems won in 2006 without obama, and donald trump is the epitome of "celebrity politician." read a book!

    https://youtu.be/kZhJlGV2s_k?t=23s

    a majority of the electorate actually prefers the democratic platform to the republican one, they just don't trust democrats to go to the mat for the ideals they claim to support. after so many years of "splitting the baby," there's a credibility gap.

    fewer people support the republican platform, which as liz says is "anti-enlightenment / ignores basic fundamental truths and evidence-based assertions." however, they have a much better track record for trying to achieve their stated goals, and therefore tend to get more reliable turnout.

    JL

  94. [94] 
    michale wrote:

    dems won in 2006 without obama, and donald trump is the epitome of "celebrity politician." read a book!

    Yea.. A DECADE ago..

    And Dems have been *LOSING* ever since...

    WHY is that??

    Because the American people realize that Democrats are selling bullshit and the American people just ain't gonna buy it anymore...

Comments for this article are closed.