I have no idea what you're talking about. There's no run-out-the-clock strategy in place anywhere.

That is the strategy that doomed Hillary Clinton's final attempt to win the presidency.

I have no idea what you're talking about. There's no run-out-the-clock strategy in place anywhere.

The time for Democrats to 'find better phrases' is long past as well, now that "the game is afoot".

And the game is 'souls to the polls'. It's a turnout contest from this point on. Folks are already voting.

Sure, we'll see a lot of ads in these next few weeks - every last minute convert will help - but these will be 'closing arguments' for the most part, and in some cases, desperate appeals - the equivalent of long passes into the end zone.

Don't expect uniquely clever appeals to be delivered during this time. We're all just hoping that our favorite candidates have the least annoying political ads. The rest is really up to us.

.

I'm hoping the last presidential election taught Democrats that a run-out-the-clock strategy is no strategy for winning.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/samuel-l-jackson-political-ads_us_5bc042c1e4b040bb4e80b6f7

You make many very salient points. Which should form the thinking that goes into the Democratic message for 2020.

I'm thinking that the economic part of that message has to take into account those living below the comfort line without slamming those who live way above it.

Democrats must find better phrases such as the extremely loaded “shared wealth” if they wish to attract a healthy majority of Americans. The concept of economic inequality and practical solutions for it need to be better explained using words that everyone can relate to. And, Democrats need to own their share of the blame for the situation and demonstrate that they have actually learned something.

A friend of mine went to Kentucky a few weeks ago with a writer-friend of hers who was working on a story about feral horses. When there she discovered that something like 60% (she was told) of the kids in the county she visited were living in foster situations as a result of the opioid crisis. She also said they learned the majority of the children in the area ate one meal a day, at school. The poverty she saw appalled her.

I write periodically about people being "comfortable". The "comfort-line" starts where people have enough money to be able to pay their way out of problems. Below that line people are forced into trade-offs. Above the line, your car has a problem, you get it fixed and nothing else about your life changes. Below that line, your car has a problem, and to fix it you have to give something else up because you don't have the extra money available.

The comfort-line varies from place to place - it's relative to lifestyle and costs in a given area. But the difference in how life feels above the line versus below the line is stark. Some of the intriguing people running for office right now - like Stacy Abrams in Georgia, have lived below that line.

The number of Americans who have fallen below that line has been rising year after year after year. Search google for "Americans living paycheck to paycheck" and you'll seem claims articles with statistics ranging from 35% of Americans to 78% of Americans! Additionally less than half of Americans have sufficient savings to meet emergencies. Virtually nowhere in America can a single person afford an apartment if they work full-time earning minimum wage. Etc.

My point relative to this column: a market downturn is likely to affect voters above the comfort-line not those below, for whom such things are essentially meaningless. The downturn may affect folks in ways they don't notice or grasp (market misery trickles down in a way that market flourishing does not) but the struggle feels the same no matter what the cause.

But people who drive media discourse live WAY above the comfort-line and it will all seem very significant to them. As with so much of media discourse, inordinate attention will be paid to the fears of the comfortable classes while, all around America, more people will kill themselves on drugs and more children will go hungry.

I don't think there is anyone on the planet that knows more about fighting financial fires.

Of course, he also pretty good at putting in place regimes to prevent them, too - despite his many faults.

I don't even think the Trump administration would know enough to even call him in should they ever have to deal with another financial crisis.

I'm still very worried ...

I don't know that there are enough people around there who really understand how the whole thing is wired together.

I'm not too worried though, until it becomes clear that the corrupt Commies who run the PRC can't keep a lid on their mess.