Sorry, your comments and those of others here prove all of you have already gone first.

Thank you for playing, Don, but you're 100% completely and totally wrong yet again. Your website is the beacon that proves to the entire world that you got us all beat by decades.

I have none of the credentials normally listed in a bio. No degrees, no years of running a successful business and no experience in political campaigns or activism. I am simply an average person that has been working and living at survival mode. But I have the only credentials that I believe really matters. I am a citizen and I have an idea that may improve our political system. ~ Don Harris

You could shorten that whole thing up and say: "I have no education, no experience, no success, and absolutely no idea what I'm talking about." :)

americans like pie, and it's time our politicians start acting like it.

I am an American, and I do like pie.

over 80% of likely voters are in favor of pie.

I am a voter in favor of pie, and I like this pie idea of yours except I have a lemonade stand that runs in very much the same manner except you write in Don Lemon's name instead of "pie."

starting tomorrow, i'm going to write about pie on every entry, until CW meets his journalistic obligation to write about pie.

Me too... except lemonade and Don Lemon. :)

You can repeat all you want- but it doesn't matter if all you do is repeat a statement that you do not back up with anything except the statement.

It's your statement, Don; why don't you back it up by not trolling CW repeatedly insisting that he has a responsibility to shill for you since "you don't get to define other people's choices to fit your desires."

The reality is that it is not my comments it is your comments that fit the definition provided by nypoet in comment 117.

The reality is:

You don't get to define other people's choices to fit your desires. ~ Don Harris

I suspect the reason you keep coming up with bullshit excuses is because you are just looking for anything to make it possible it dismiss One Demand because it threatens your view of how things are and/or is covered by nypoet's comment 117.

No one here is threatened by you and your failed attempt at political activism in the least, Don; you're simply proving Russ's point that you live in your own special fantasyland if you believe that ridiculous notion.

The only way that it can be proved one way or the other is if we try it.

I think it would be more interesting if we all shoved our heads up our backsides to see if we could still breathe; it's the only way that it can be proved one way or the other. You go first.

And commenting here to try to get CW to meet his responsibility as a journalist with information to provide this information is part, but not all, of how I am working on One Demand.

CW doesn't have a responsibility as a journalist to provide your information to anyone because:

You don't get to define other people's choices to fit your desires. ~ Don Harris

So, CW, will you honor Listen's request for proof?

Russ didn't ask for proof; you simply defined his word choice to fit your desires; you don't get to do that for Russ or CW or anybody... according to yourself. :)

If you wish to make a universe from scratch, you must first invent the apple pie.
~carl sagan
Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie.
~gloria steinem

starting tomorrow, i'm going to write about pie on every entry, until CW meets his journalistic obligation to write about pie.

I am not trolling or defining CW's choices, I am giving my opinion of his choices in the hope he will make better choices going forward.

Russ is exactly right about you and your rhetoric versus reality. So I repeat: You're trolling CW regularly and insisting he has a responsibility to inform citizens about your fantasy; the very least you could do is own it and take your own advice:

You don't get to define other people's choices to fit your desires. ~ Don Harris

It IS necessary to itemize each participant if you want to show that you actually accomplished something! Are YOU going to be following the voting districts for every person who signs up with OneDemand?

I and anyone else can cast a vote for whatever purpose we want and to accomplish anything we want. You don't get to define other people's choices to fit your desires.

So this is truly all in your head is what you are saying! You can cast your write in vote for the purpose of making you King of the World if you want, but that doesn’t change the reality of what your ballot’s true purpose accomplishes!

Wait....Never mind! I don’t know why I keep asking you these questions as if YOU are actually doing ANYTHING to make it a reality. Your idea won’t work and the proof of that is that you haven’t gotten anyone on board despite crowing about it constantly!

Please prove me wrong! I would be THRILLED to have to eat crow because One Demand took off and had an impact in any election... but that’s up to you to do! Best wishes to ya, Don, but I finally see that these conversations are not based on reality, but are based on what you dream it could be like.

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/troll_2

Says the man who cannot validate his position.

Great posts. :)

Something to keep in mind when you're trolling CW yet again and insisting he has a "responsibility" to write about your failed attempt at political activism:

You don't get to define other people's choices to fit your desires. ~ Don Harris

They sure can! Instead of thinking "oh, this write-in vote is a persuasive warning about the perils of being a big money candidate and now I will change what I do!"

the candidate can think: "Some idiots wrote names and messages on their ballots instead of picking a candidate. Morons!"

Or any number of other things.

I reiterate: anyone who does a write-in vote in this election is irresponsible - at best. Vichy traitors at worst.

As for forgiveness - like any situation in which someone has done harm - it's relatively easy to forgive people who are genuinely contrite and who try to make amends (i.e. atone).

I should have been more clear on this: I don’t blame those who don’t really follow politics closely and support Trump. I am not so forgiving of those that actively participated in the GOP’s dishonest power grab over the last few decades. Those people must be held fully accountable for their actions!

I think that Mueller’s findings could have the same effect as when the German citizens were forced to view the concentration camps for the first time...the blinders that they had chosen to wear for so long came crashing off and the reality of what they had been a part of was overwhelming.

I pray you are right, and that the blinders come off before the concentration camps start happening! (Beyond those holding asylum seekers on the border right now which are bad enough!)

As for forgiveness - like any situation in which someone has done harm - it's relatively easy to forgive people who are genuinely contrite and who try to make amends (i.e. atone). Some kind of truth and reconciliation effort could really help. But GOP leadership needs to be banished from power and shunned. The fooled are easier to forgive than the cynical operators who did the fooling.

Isn't part of party building voting for a candidate of that party to show support in an election they can't win to try and build on that support for the next election cycle to reach a point where that party's candidate can win?

Party building happens before and after elections. When you go to cast votes your are making your selection from the candidates that are on the ballots - with extremely rare exceptions like Lisa Murkowski's successful write-in-vote election. At that point the only thing that is going to happen - barring cheating -- is votes will be totalled and winners and losers announced. People writing-in silly names or messages or not-selecting ANY candidate in a slot do not achieve anything except, on occasion, being spoilers.

The person who DIDN'T vote for a particular candidate doesn't convince the candidate of anything - candidates already know some people won't vote for them and they generally have enough to deal with without doing squat about fools after the fact coz they're either taking office or they're not. If they are, the message/blank vote failed. If they aren't, nothing matters coz they're out of office.

And in this current environment, any vote that directly or accidentally helps the GOP is the height of irresponsibility and no thinking person should vote for anyone other than for Democrats.

While writing in without a purpose may not be building anything, One Demand provides a purpose- to build support for small contribution candidates in future elections.

Nope! Writing a name in on a ballot has only ONE actual purpose: casting a vote for the person named on the ballot! That is all! In 2010, Lisa Murkowski lost the Republican Primary, but retained her Senate seat thanks to a successful write-in campaign. Those write-in votes made her the first write-in candidate to win a Senate race in over 50 years.

You can attach any other “purpose” you want, but that “purpose” does not override its actual purpose. Nor will your added “purpose” be known to anyone other than the person who assigns it there! Even if you plan on publishing the names of all of your supporters to cross check against the voting results — which you would need to do to offer any evidence of your group’s influence — you don’t get to change what that ballot is meant to accomplish.

You think OneDemand can take an action that already has a specific purpose and hi-jack it to deliver the message you want to assign to it...and it won’t work!

I think that Mueller’s findings could have the same effect as when the German citizens were forced to view the concentration camps for the first time...the blinders that they had chosen to wear for so long came crashing off and the reality of what they had been a part of was overwhelming.

I hope that Democrats, as Americans, will resist the temptation of rubbing their noses in it and instead recognize that these are generally good folks that were tricked by people they believed they could trust.

I remember my dad making a comment back in 2012 about how Obama had not done very much for the country, and I asked him if he was aware that the Republicans had decided to vote against any piece of legislation that Obama supported, regardless of the consequences that doing so could have on the nation and their constituents. I asked him to think about the fact that not only was the GOP’s decision on how they would vote not based on any facts, not based on any philosophy or political ideology, but that it was decided without the possibility of those things having any impact on their decision. Obama being for it meant they voted against it! They even admitted that the better a piece of legislation would be viewed by the American people, the harder they had to fight to oppose it (can you say, “ObamaCare?).

And as solid of a response that I feel that was to his comment, I immediately realized just how outrageous it sounded for me to claim that every member of one political party would dare to go to such extremes! Even now it sounds crazy to say that, but it doesn’t change the fact that it happened!

This has been one of the GOP’s smartest moves — they have done things so outrageous and unreasonable because they know that most people won’t fully buy into such allegations against individuals that are generally considered to be “reasonable”! Trump never allows for the press to focus on any one of his screw ups or lies long enough for people to put much thought into it, and when the press moves on to his next big lie, it says to his supporters that the story was obviously all hype because nothing was done about it.

It is frustrating as hell because I can understand why a Trump supporter might believe his con game given what they are constantly told!

Exactly!

This is the one thing that I pray the Mueller investigation might be able to accomplish

So do I!

The initial theme I was commenting on was "civility" and the absolute lack of interest in it felt by millions of Americans who are fed up with the abusive right. I think the civility ship has sailed and, for better or worse, change is coming. We don't know who will "win" in the short term or long term. But a lot of us feel there's no choice but to fight in every way we can because our opponents WILL NOT STOP escalating their abuses. It is our view that more and worse violence hasn't happened yet BECAUSE of resistance coupled with the remnants of our legal system, like in NY where Proud Boy's are being prosecuted for attacking protesters over the weekend. That was bad, but counter-protesters have pretty much killed several white supremacist rallies simply by showing up.

Disruptive protests, like those rocking the Capital during the Kavanaugh Cover-up were valuable because they forced the narrative out of the comfortable "Repubs will nominate a scumbag and Dems will do nothing and media will pretend Repubs got a big win" ditch. Repubs "won" but the victory was as pyrrhic as was possible under the circumstances.

I believe more Americans need to start having some very uncomfortable conversations with Republicans around them. Wherever possible. You can't do it with everyone and no one needs to be a martyr. But pretending all is well when it isn't serves the bad guys in power more than anyone else.

Incredibly well said and SPOT ON!

But with respect to the rank-and-file Repubs who sit in their houses watching FOX and believing lies they are fed: they are more akin to addicts than abusers. (Russ' father.)

A great way of viewing this problem! I would guess that most Republican voters fall into the category of being “problem drinkers” or “functioning addicts” in that they do not agree with everything their party does (take their displeasure with families being broken up at the border as an example). This is a much tougher group to convince that their relationship with the GOP is more damaging to their overall life than the alternative.

And FoxNews is definitely consumed in ways that would lead to an addiction by their core audience. The average age of a FoxNews viewer is 71. Not only do most of their viewers say that FoxNews is their only source of televised news, for a large percentage of their viewers it is the only channel that they watch!

Unless you ween a person off of their drug of choice, it is tough to get them to quit unless something major occurs to rock their world. This is the one thing that I pray the Mueller investigation might be able to accomplish. There is little doubt in my mind, just knowing what is public knowledge concerning the details of Trump’s past, that Mueller’s investigation is going to result in serious money laundering charges and possible charges of treason against many of his family and administration — charges FoxNews won’t be able to ignore or dismiss as “no big deal”. If there is evidence that Trump knowingly worked with Russia in order to secure votes, that will shock the majority of GOP supporters into opening their eyes to what they have been missing, I believe.

The other thing that we must do as a nation is to find a way to combat the propaganda machines that try to use our First Amendment as a cover! While I have a ton of respect for Shep Smith and his commitment to the truth in journalism, it’s the programs that follow him that pervert the truth by hosts pretending to be journalists.

Programs shown on a “news channel” should have to alert viewers if they contain content that is knowingly false. It’s your first amendment right to lie to someone, but the people have an expectation of the truth being reported from their news sources that should not be overlooked.

Just like hearing the same lie told enough times can alter a person’s opinion on what is true, warning someone that what they are being told is not necessarily based in fact enough times will effect their opinion as well.

Elections are about votes cast and counted resulting in one person winning office over others. Period. If you want to change conditions in West Virginia such that you get a better Dem than Manchin next time around, you work on conditions. You work on party-building and persuasion and finding/supporting better candidates. I spent years being furious a blue dogs but most of them are now gone. And there's a lot of hunger on the ground for genuinely "representative" representatives. Write-in votes are empty and lazy gestures and the kind of people who espouse them are people who care about abstractions more than results.

She says: “By standing there as a D, Manchin is preventing West Virginians from coming together to re-imagine what a populist party that really cares for the people ought to look like. He’s doing a greater favor to the Republicans by preventing the development of a real people oriented party.”

Well we can "imagine" all day long - but after the imagining comes the implementation. She (or the article) offers nothing about that. Manchin isn't "preventing the development of a real people-oriented party." We've seen multiple examples on both sides of the aisle of political work/activism within the parties succeeding in replacing incumbents as well as internal party leaders.

I am furious with Joe Manchin for his Kavanaugh vote. He is someone who needs to be replaced, but not by a rabid Republican like his opponent. West Virginians need to hold their noses and vote for Manchin NOW, and then get to work on replacing him. And they can work on strategies to force his compliance in the meantime, but they will get ZERO cooperation from his opponent. They don't need to vote FOR Manchin, but they need to vote AGAINST Mitch McConnell.

Write-in votes are stupid stupid gestures made by idiots who will not suffer from the results the way others will.

How the hell is my father who still fully trusts the GOP and watches FoxNews 24/7 supposed to change his opinion of Hillary or the Democrats?

I have described the GOP as akin to batterers - abusers. And batterers batter as long as they can get away with it - abusers abuse until forced to stop. In abuse situations the victims always need to part from the abusers. Sometimes they can simply separate; sometimes the woman/kids have to go into hiding, get restraining orders, etc. Abusers will sometimes stalk the victim and kill them, kids and pets. Point is, abusers don't stop on their own.

We can't "leave" the Repubs but we MUST remove them from power and no one should count, in any way, on Repubs cooperating. They don't/they won't. They have to be overpowered.

But with respect to the rank-and-file Repubs who sit in their houses watching FOX and believing lies they are fed: they are more akin to addicts than abusers. (Russ' father.) And this is where my belief springs from that treating them as if things are normal, that they just have a "difference of opinion", is enabling in the same way people enable addicts. We enable because it's easier for US. Because we don't like conflict, because we want to protect the addict from consequences, because we have a history with them, etc. And depending on how genuinely damaging their behaviors are, we may enable for a lifetime or the day may come when we stop because some limit of tolerance has been reached.

Meanwhile, the addict continues their addiction unless/until they "hit bottom" - they lose jobs, lose homes, lose family, lose all - whatever it is that gets to them. I have a friend who's son and his wife got addicted to opioids. The daughter overdosed and died. At that point my friend stepped in and got custody of her granddaughter - that combination of events - death of wife and loss of child is what got her son to finally seek treatment.

In the case of America's FOX News/Rightwing Media addicts, the addiction doesn't seem all that harmful because people around the addicts don't do anything drastic in response. And the addicts are by and large protected people who's addiction empowers the deplorables, but who themselves don't actively partake in nazi rallies and all the rest. The FOX addicts supply the money & votes; the deplorables supply the muscle.

Sometimes people who love addicts stage interventions. Sometimes the interventions succeed. Sometimes having friends/families reject them speeds their descent. I think a combination is what will impact Rightwing hate-addicts. They need to feel people withdrawing from them while a few offer interventionist behaviors.

FWIW, I've seen articles about people weaning parents/grandparents off FOX News and seeing wonderful results. Usually they have to trick the addicts - secretly adjusting their cable settings or ending their cable access. It doesn't take long for the addicts to begin relaxing and letting go of their anger and hostilities. That's where it starts.

I hadn't heard about the DNA test....Sweet!!!!

I really suggest folks here make a point of visiting DailyKos every day. You can also check out VOX.com and fivethirtyeight.com and I can recommend others. There's been lots of reporting about how Dems are running races with a local focus all around the country. That Dems are mostly NOT running against Blotus in that they don't need to be explicit because everything boils down to being against Blotus and against what Repubs have been enabling.

There's been a pretty good understanding by most Dems that the tenor of campaign rhetoric is going to vary depending on the "redness" of the area - witness Doug Jones an Alabama. On the ground most Dems are rock-bottom-pragmatic - we want to beat Repubs and we aren't focusing on "purity" tests or all-or-nothing requirements. There is also a very clear understanding by Dem candidates that healthcare is the BIG issue - Repubs are entirely on the defensive on healthcare and that crosses all boundaries.

What the Resistance understands is that nothing means anything unless we get control again. What we've grasped is that Repubs are abusers who will continue to abuse until forced to stop - iow removed from power. They won't relinquish power voluntarily and will cheat as long as they can get away with it. (To me, running for Gov while holding power over the machinery of elections as the Repub candidate in Georgia is doing is cheating. He's purging black voters from the rolls who would likely vote against him. Etc.)

20/20 isn't on the radar for most of us because too much is at stake NOW. And the contenders for 20/20 are going to become clear in the next year and it ain't going to be about "messaging" -- it's going to be about tactics.

Liz Warren took a DNA test to prove her claims of Native American Ancestry in response to Blotus' saying he'd give $1million to charity. She proved it and now he's claiming he never made that offer. She's gone on the offensive, in other words. That's what I'm looking for. Not saying I'm settled on her - it's too early. But I'll be looking for fighters not appeasers and not for people who think we can go back to anything.

"He did it all without accepting any PAC money at all -- it's all small donations. He reported he raised an average of $47 from a whopping 802,000 people last quarter."

According to opensecrets.org, O'Rourke received, in the first 3 quarters of accounting,roughly 40% of his donations from small donors giving <$200, 60% in amounts of $200 or more. Fourth quarter reports are supposed to be up today - but not of as Monday 9:00 am. Do you know if O'Rourke set a <$200 personal donation limit in the last quarter? What was the final average donation of the small donors, compared to the average donation of the big donors?

A distribution curve of donations would answer the question (and more), but Opensecrets doesn't provide this level of detail (for all I know candidates may not be legally required to provide this information). Also how much of Beto money came from instate sources, and how much was out of state? Out of state money kind of subverts the notion of local representation. Yet another bug in our Rube Goldberg political system.

Depends on the consistency of the ocean floor and the capabilities of the vessels. Not to mention just whose navel it's being compared with

A lot of issues are going to be more local or need a local take, and Democrats need to make up ground on the notion that they 'only' represent the seaboards and big cities.

An excellent point - and one that Democrats must consider when doing their, ah, rallies.

There's a new grandchild on the way, and the company my daughter works for has replaced its health plan with a less good one, leaving daughter and husband with bigger co-pays. And what about my young adult nephew, still recovering from a catastrophic illness a few years ago? Health care is an issue that touches nearly everyone, directly or indirectly, and is a, maybe the, GOP weak point.

A lot of issues are going to be more local or need a local take, and Democrats need to make up ground on the notion that they 'only' represent the seaboards and big cities. (Although as we know, the places with the most people are actually numerically under-represented.)

Wages, from the minimum wage and up, should be an issue most places, although the framing probably needs to be local. It can be instructive to compare the income of a specific politician who voted/spoke against raising the minimum wage with the income of someone doing a useful job at the minimum wage and with people like paramedics. What does Congressman Bloggs get in hourly terms, including campaign contributions? And how does that compare to the local average, or to a teacher, or to a senior nurse, or another 'good' local job? You could find national averages, but I'm inclined to think local would be more effective. And local and state-wide offices matter, too.

Now, THAT is what I call a good start!

Maybe Mexico Beach will rise again with fewer homes and more of a beach park.

Because, the storms will be coming more often and stronger - even if political leaders get serious about mitigating climate change.

In fact, anyone living in coastal areas should probably think about moving.

I'm hoping Michale doesn't live in the path of Michael ...

I think Hillary was wrong about the half and half part. The percentage of "deplorables" is probably quite a lot less than half.

What amazed me was/is the number of Trump supporters who like to refer to themselves as that when debating someone who supports the Democrats. I have stopped people and asked them if they truly support white nationalism, homophobia, and bigotry, and they actually seem shocked to learn that was how “deplorables” was defined by Hillary!

They weren’t “deplorable” simply for supporting Trump (that is debatable for some, I realize), it was supporting the hatred that some of his followers support that made a person “deplorable”. Holding them to the definition Hillary set for the word has been one way to force some of my family members to recognize how important it is to have accurate information to base your opinions on.

Sounds very good to me!

Good idea - we could have the top three issues that Democrats should run on and a pithy elevator pitch that anybody can recite.

I think Democrats have to find a new way to talk about taxes and inequality that tends to unite rather than divide.

The Democratic platform should be easily recited by any engaged voter.

Chris should hold a contest after the midterms to see what Weigantians think a winning Democratic message for 2020 looks like ...

In one way this is a good thing - what drives us together is an outside attack, and that usually isn't good for somebody in the U.S.

I think that inequality is stoking the flames, and the corporate takeover of politics that Eisenhower warned us of is another factor.

We need to spend money on our people (healthcare, especially mental healthcare - looking after the people who can't advocate for themselves instead of dumping them on the streets) with taxes imposed on the people who are getting the most out of the U.S. would start to turn the tide.

But who ever won an election on a "Raise Taxes" platform.

nate cohn at the times says the difference wasn't attributable to weak dem turnout.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/upshot/a-2016-review-turnout-wasnt-the-driver-of-clintons-defeat.html

No, I was only referring to the character in the Foundation books, but don't read too much into that, since I'm fairly sure a direct comparison wouldn't stand up to close scrutiny. I was only trying to use it as a metaphor for 'political singularity'.

It was much, much worse just west of here. About 50 to 100 miles west of Tallahassee, in places like Marianna, Panama City, and Mexico Beach, Florida, power is not expected to be restored for 3 weeks or more. The devastation was so severe. People are missing and needing food. Only now are workers even able to get into those areas. (And we're not even an island like Puerto Rico.) One has to wonder how those areas, which were heavily Trump supporters before the storm, are going to react.

1) The electoral college is skewed to give white, rural voters in small states an outsize influence over minority, urban voters concentrated in large states.

2) About 1 in 4 of Obama's white working class voters in 2012 either switched and voted for Trump or a third party in 2016.

3) Trump, in places like white, rural southern Pennsylvania, was able to motivate people to come out and vote for him who had never voted at all before. For every one voter who switched from Obama to Trump in such a crucial area, at least 5 more people who had never voted before came out to vote for Trump.

Overall on a national level, this had no impact as far as national vote totals went. But in key states, like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio (along with perhaps North Carolina and Florida) it was the whole ballgame. Clinton, for example, did better than Obama's margin in a state like Texas, but in terms of the electoral college, it meant nothing.

Even still, it was CLOSE. Trump won Pennsylvania by only 0.7 of a percentage point.

I think Hillary was wrong about the half and half part. The percentage of "deplorables" is probably quite a lot less than half.

Thanks for posting that very personal story. I would really like to delve into the important issues you raise and, hopefully, Chris will write about the gut-wrenching political issues that are being dealt with at the personal and family level.

As an outsider looking in, it is hard to watch what is happening in your country because it's impacts are felt the world over.

That's a lot of stuff to cover ...

It wasn’t easy for me to view Hillary Clinton positively at first during the 2016 election. I preferred Bernie, but she was the candidate that won the primary. I remember going to her campaign website and just reading everything they had to offer, but reading it through glasses left over from my 25 years as a card-carrying Republican.

Sometimes I have to remind myself that my opinion on many political topics was heavily influenced by people who lied to me every opportunity they got. Propaganda is far more effective than I would have ever thought possible. Most of us don’t want to admit that we can fall prey to such mental manipulation — believing instead that we are too sharp to fall victim of such trickery — but I realized that I thought Hillary was crooked even though I could not name a single law that she’d been found to have broken. Could 35 years of hearing that she was crooked have influenced my opinion of her???
Definitely!

I am someone who now fully supports the Democratic Party, and these things tainted my opinion of her. How the hell is my father who still fully trusts the GOP and watches FoxNews 24/7 supposed to change his opinion of Hillary or the Democrats?

Speaking at the LGBT for Hillary Gala in New York City on Sept. 9, 2016, Hillary Clinton said exactly this:

In too many places still, LGBT Americans are singled out for harassment and violence. You can get married on Saturday, post your pictures on Sunday and get fired on Monday. That's why we've got to continue the forward march of progress.

And we cannot do it alone. I cannot do it alone. I'm not like Donald Trump, who says, "I alone can fix it." I've never quite figured out what it is he alone can fix. But that's not what you'll hear from me. I think we have to do this together. So, together we're gonna pass the Equality Act to guarantee full equality. We're going to put comprehensive quality affordable healthcare within reach for more people, including for mental health and addiction. We're going to take on youth homelessness, and as my wonderful, extraordinary, great daughter said, we are going to end the cruel and dangerous practice of conversion therapy. We're going to keep working toward an AIDS-free generation, a goal that I set as secretary of state, and with your help we're going to pass comprehensive gun laws. …

I know there are only 60 days left to make our case -- and don't get complacent, don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, well, he's done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

And what I hope is that in addition to your extraordinary generosity, you will go to our website, Hillary Clinton dot com, or text to join at 47246 to see how else you can get involved.

She then introduced Barbra Streisand.

The next day, after facing criticism from the Trump campaign and others, Clinton issued this statement:

Last night I was "grossly generalistic," and that's never a good idea. I regret saying "half" -- that was wrong. But let's be clear, what's really "deplorable" is that Donald Trump hired a major advocate for the so-called "alt-right" movement to run his campaign and that David Duke and other white supremacists see him as a champion of their values. It's deplorable that Trump has built his campaign largely on prejudice and paranoia and given a national platform to hateful views and voices, including by retweeting fringe bigots with a few dozen followers and spreading their message to 11 million people. It's deplorable that he's attacked a federal judge for his "Mexican heritage," bullied a Gold Star family because of their Muslim faith, and promoted the lie that our first black president is not a true American. So I won't stop calling out bigotry and racist rhetoric in this campaign. I also meant what I said last night about empathy, and the very real challenges we face as a country where so many people have been left out and left behind. As I said, many of Trump's supporters are hard-working Americans who just don’t feel like the economy or our political system are working for them. I'm determined to bring our country together and make our economy work for everyone, not just those at the top. Because we really are "stronger together."

I think she would have won that election if she had just spoke about the other half and included references to them in all of her campaign events.

She did... even in the very same speech people can't seem to keep mischaracterizing and whining about as if it was yesterday and we're all still living in 2016. I don't know about "all" of her campaign events, but she frequently spoke about "the other half" while reporters rushed to cover the Trump scandal of the day and felt compelled to spend equal amounts of time whining about "her emails" in an exercise we refer to as "false equivalency" reporting.

But, I also think she really doesn't get what that other half is all about. Which is why she never had an effective counterpoint to Trump's message to these voters.

Says the Canadian who seemingly believes she knows better regarding "what that other half is all about" better than the person who was First Lady of the State of Arkansas for over a decade, First Lady of the United States of America for 8 years, Senator of the State of New York for 8 years who only left that role to serve as Secretary of State of the United States for 4 years under Barack Obama. Hillary gets it, and Paula does too when she says "your failure (or refusal) to process what actually went on in the 2016 election renders the opinions you offer on the topic useless."

Do you think you could find it in yourself to move past the 2016 election now, EM, or are you going to keep reliving it over and over like our mentally challenged BLOTUS?

You win some... you lose some, and regardless of which side you find yourself on, you either move forward or stay mired in the past and... to borrow your words... "wallow in it." If Hillary can find it in herself to move on, surely you can as well. There are a lot more shoes to drop, and she knows things you don't know and never will know and has managed to remain civil until she's had all she can stand and can't stand no more. :)

I've seen Hillary in action and she can be quite impressive - whether it be sitting in front of a misguided congressional committee for 11 hours or on the campaign trail or doing an event at Brookings as Secretary of State. I always learned something from listening to her at these events.

I think she was more than capable of overcoming any obstacle in her way but the critical mistakes she made during that unprecedented race for the White House prevented her from winning enough votes to be president.

i knew the mule as a character in the foundation series, but i didn't know asimov discussed the phenomenon outside of his works. any more to add?

JL

i disagree with you about hillary. although her message may not have been exactly on point at all times, it wasn't for lack of a message that she failed to connect with voters. the emotional connection wasn't there because she isn't a very good natural salesperson. she's a brilliant mind, a great political operative, and based on her policy priorities i think her heart has always been in the right place. however, she doesn't have that smooth interpersonal connection that the most successful politicians tend to have. bill has it, barack has it, and donald... well, that's just about the only thing he has. hillary doesn't, and that isn't really her fault, just a shortcoming that prevented her from overcoming all the rightwing attacks and misinformation.

JL

That's oversimplifying it. By that standard, ONLY Trump 'gets' Trump people, since no one else, including seventeen other Republican rivals came even close to inspiring the Trump-level adoration of the Alt-Right and Republican faithful that Trump himself has. It's so centered on him and him alone that it has a down-side: he has no coattails, and his 'magic' rubs off on no one. Isaac Asimov once called a singular cultural phenomenon such as he is a 'mule', since it cannot reproduce.

Hillary was once the first lady of Arkansas, and had that job for several terms. She's probably come into contact with more 'Trump people' than Trump ever has. I'd lay you odds that she's 100% more likely to be able to tell you what a gallon of milk costs right now.

Paradox of tolerance. The paradox of tolerance was described by Karl Popper in 1945. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant.

Hmmmmm… this Popper's "paradox of tolerance" sounds a lot like the "Popeye Paradox," and he far predates 1945. During each cartoon when the "sailor man" has finally reached the point where he's had quite enough of Blotus… I mean Brutus:

*
* That's all I can stands, I can't stands no more. ~ Popeye
*

She said that she knew that most of Trump's supporters were decent folk looking for a fair deal, but that some of his supporters could be assigned to that 'basket of deplorables'.

If you check the transcript of her speech, she clearly said that half of Trump's supporters could be put in the basket of deplorables.

I think she would have won that election if she had just spoke about the other half and included references to them in all of her campaign events.

But, I also think she really doesn't get what that other half is all about. Which is why she never had an effective counterpoint to Trump's message to these voters.

Apparently it is much harder to acknowledge a fact than I thought it was.

Apparently, if someone put words in my mouth and then claims I acknowledged something when I did no such thing, then they aren't thinking at all.

You could have just acknowledged that Mejia was closer than O'Rourke to being a small contribution candidate, even if you didn't specifically say Mejia was closer than O'Rourke.

Once again, Don, I didn't mention Beto O'Rourke in any way nor did I check his statistics to confirm whether or not Mejia was "closer than O'Rourke." I don't care who is closer. My point was that Mejia isn't one because there's no such thing as a "small contribution candidate" who meets your criteria... unless and until you provide a name that meets your criteria.

Fortunately, voting is not a lottery. Instead of one jackpot winner in a lottery each individual vote accumulates with other similar votes.

I believe you are under the mistaken impression that I was comparing the lottery to voting. *laughs* Wrong again, Don. I was comparing your "One Demand" to the lottery... throwing away my vote for nothing just like throwing away my money for nothing. I'm doing neither of those things because no one has... so far... convinced me why I should do either of them.

JL is dead on accurate too that this is exactly what CW meant when he wrote that no candidate could possibly live up to your standard for purity... even the ones you keep claiming are doing it... not a single person you've ever named or claimed has met your criteria, and that's on you and not CW or anybody else. :)

There's your problem Liz: Hillary never said that. She said that she knew that most of Trump's supporters were decent folk looking for a fair deal, but that some of his supporters could be assigned to that 'basket of deplorables'.

And at the time, we all knew who she was talking about: the bigots, the white supremacists, the nationalists and other alt-righties who thought that they'd found a fellow traveler in Trump, one that would promote their own gutter politics.

It was the right wing spin machine that conflated that statement into an indictment of everyone on the right.

And here we are two years later, and the Republican establishment appears to be still coddling the deplorables who advocate that we lock up latina babies in cages after deliberately separating those children from their mothers. That's still going on.

They abolish regulations that protect the environment, run up gargantuan deficits to pay off wealthy donors, crush unions, raid Hispanic neighborhoods in the middle of the night, loot and corrupt government agencies, and party with tyrants of every stripe while insulting and humiliating our allies and friends overseas.

So she wasn't right? Don't Trump supporters have ANY responsibility for the daily outrages that have been delivered in their names? Their continued support for Trump's behavior is deplorable, that's for sure.

my parents-in-law are not nazis or racists. i love them like my own in spite of our political differences. yes, i share my opinion on donald and the shortsightedness of republicans who ignore his transgressions because he helps them achieve their policy agenda. but always respectfully and with affection.

you quote dr. king but fundamentally misinterpret the tone of his message. yes, we actively resist injustice, but as dr. king did we also warmly encourage those who have not yet accepted a better path to recognize that they too would benefit from a more just society. we don't reject them as if they were one with the evil they tacitly support, we recognize the good in them and invite them to join us.

JL

I can't say that I understand exactly what point she is trying to make but, it sounds an awful lot like the old 'I'm not going to do it until everyone else does it' strategy, not an unfamiliar sentiment advocated by some Weigantians.

It seems you really don't get it, EM. Metaphorically speaking, she's talking about Democrats sitting in the backseat of the vehicles while someone else drives the cars while ignoring the speed limit, the traffic signs, and all the other drivers on the road. Trumplicans/Republicans control the wheels to the Executive, Senate, House, and Judicial vehicles and will continue to do so until voters elect Democrats to take the wheel of one or more of them. When Democrats are behind the wheels of power, they can dictate the speed, follow the rules, and show respect for others on the road. Until then, they're passengers in someone else's vehicle.

To be clear, I am directing the call for maintaining civility in the fight for what is right towards Democrats - politicians and voters - and, of course, commenters of all political stripes here at CW.com.

To be clear -- metaphorically speaking -- you're trying to dictate the terms of all the vehicles versus driving your own car and allowing others to drive theirs.

Also, my definition of civility allows for - no, demands the use of muscular and cogent arguments in an effort to engage in the almost lost art of persuasion.

Good luck with your "demands," but I can assure you I won't be commenting to suit you or your "demands" and will forever remain the driving force behind my own comments.

As the granddaughter of Justice Ginsburg said she learned from her grandmother, arguments made loudly and without civility are not persuasive while people are more likely to listen to arguments made calmly and intelligently.

The way to win an argument is not to yell, because often that will turn people away more so than bringing them to your table. ~ Clara Spera

Actually, I believe you misunderstood what Clara Spera meant by her statement. What she learned from RBG was that one needn't always have the loudest voice. Your arguments and "demands" on this board are generally exactly the opposite of this sentiment since you're generally seeking to control everyone's voice by being the loudest voice dictating the terms of the comments of everyone. Stop me if you've heard this, but you should allow yourself to stop doing that and "demanding" that.

Justice Ginsburg is a quiet force, and according to her granddaughter, Clara Spera, it makes her a model for how to effectively deal with people.

When you become a lawyer like Ms. Spera or become a Justice on the highest court in the land like RBG and deal with others who are quite literally sitting in judgment of you, your client by extension, and your comments, that is very good advice. As you're neither of those things and have no reason whatsoever to sit in judgment of anyone on this comments section in any way, shape, or fashion, you're merely repetitive and "demanding" for no particular reason. :)

Bad run-on sentence.

I repeat, "your failure (or refusal) to process what actually went on in the 2016 election renders the opinions you offer on the topic useless."

[53] Evidently you missed the point. "Civility" is what people who aren't hurting demand of people who are being hurt, so that that the people who aren't hurting can avoid the discomfort of confronting those who are doing the hurting to the hurt.

Say that 10 times in a row real fast!

Paula, do you think there are people here on this blog who don't give a damn about civility or law or decency?

I think we deserve politeness and civility from our fellow Weigantians, don't you?

I think what happened in 2016 - to put it in a nutshell - is that Hillary failed to inspire enough Democrats (in the right places) to get out and vote. It was kind of like lukewarm acceptance. And, yes, the whole campaign was as frustrating as it gets.

Hopefully, a lack of inspiration won't be a problem for the Democrats again or there will be another term for you know who.

Do you think that Trump is trying to will a left-wing mob into existence? It seems he'll have a lot of help. :(

Paradox of tolerance. The paradox of tolerance was described by Karl Popper in 1945. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant.

That's the road we've been on in this country and reversing course ain't gonna happen by people being polite to people who don't give a damn about civility or law or decency.

i'm not cutting my wife's parents out of my life just because they believe deeply in a political philosophy that i think is horribly wrong. yes, they're republicans, but they're also people. it's perfectly possible to hate the action but still care about the person. if we lose sight of our mutual humanity, we're no better than judge kavanaugh.

Rejecting a traitor and/or racist and/or selfish enabler of an abusive party isn't "losing sight of their humanity."

However, pretending nothing has changed since Blotus; allowing Republicans to not face up to what they have helped happen isn't moral or pious or principled, it's just conflict-avoidance.

If they aren't aware of a difference in feeling about them, from you, you are part of the problem. Although perhaps you HAVE confronted them and continue to do so. That would be good.

Martin Luther King put it perfectly:
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.

I took that quote from this article, which adds:

He said that a white moderate is someone "who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom." Such a person is, according to King, someone "who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a 'more convenient season.'"

Ultimately, King wrote that "shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

https://www.bustle.com/p/this-martin-luther-king-jr-quote-on-white-moderates-is-seriously-striking-a-chord-7913411

Yep!

[45] Balthasar: I think that what she understands is that she did all of that and lost. Her opponent threw all of that out the window and won. We're not fighting by Marquess of Queensberry Rules anymore - Trump advisors like Bannon and Stephen Miller are channeling Machiavelli.

And don't forget that she lost despite a five million vote edge.

Actually, channeling Goebbels, Hitler and the rest. But yes, when Liz opines about HRC and the 2016 campaign she always makes her pronouncements as though it was a normal campaign. It wasn't.

Liz: your failure (or refusal) to process what actually went on in the 2016 election renders the opinions you offer on the topic useless.

That is, you've got to win the ground game, to think strategically, and be unafraid to call a Dunce a dunce.

I think you have two thirds of that right. But, that last bit may counteract and nullify the rest of it.

I wonder how the 2016 presidential election outcome might have changed if Hillary had said that she understands why Donald Trump's message was resonating with so many Americans (and then go on to explain why the Democratic option and solutions are better) instead of equating Trump supporters with a basket of deplorables.

By the way, Hillary went with the 'run-out-the-clock strategy because she (and most of the country) was sure she was going to win.

Her "ground game" left quite a lot to be desired.

I'm hoping beyond hope that Democrats have learned lessons from that disappointing campaign.

I think that what she understands is that she did all of that and lost. Her opponent threw all of that out the window and won. We're not fighting by Marquess of Queensberry Rules anymore - Trump advisors like Bannon and Stephen Miller are channeling Machiavelli.

And don't forget that she lost despite a five million vote edge. Convincing people to vote for her wasn't her problem - electoral math was. Hence:

"...you can't overcome what they intend to do unless you win elections."

That is, you've got to win the ground game, to think strategically, and be unafraid to call a Dunce a dunce.

You quoted Hillary Clinton re. civility in politics:

"You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That's why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that's when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength."

I can't say that I understand exactly what point she is trying to make but, it sounds an awful lot like the old 'I'm not going to do it until everyone else does it' strategy, not an unfamiliar sentiment advocated by some Weigantians.

To be clear, I am directing the call for maintaining civility in the fight for what is right towards Democrats - politicians and voters - and, of course, commenters of all political stripes here at CW.com.

Also, my definition of civility allows for - no, demands the use of muscular and cogent arguments in an effort to engage in the almost lost art of persuasion. As the granddaughter of Justice Ginsburg said she learned from her grandmother, arguments made loudly and without civility are not persuasive while people are more likely to listen to arguments made calmly and intelligently.

In further quoting Clinton,

"So when you're dealing with an ideological party that is driven by the lust for power, that is funded by corporate interests who want a government that does its bidding, it's -- you can be civil, but you can't overcome what they intend to do unless you win elections."

I suppose if Hillary had understood that you win elections by making strong arguments in a civil manner in an honest effort to persuade voters of all political stripes that you have their best interests at heart, then she and we might be in a different political situation today.

"United we stand, divided we fall" has whole new meaning now.

Yes! :)

When I was in the middle of a seemingly endless divorce, my recently departed step-mother gave me some advice. A year into the debacle, with the ex-wife going through lawyer after lawyer and throwing frivolous motions around like confetti...she said wisely, "don't ever get in the mud to wrestle with a pig"

And this begs the question: Was your step-mother referring to your ex-wife or the lawyer? ;) *kidding* Point being that pigs indeed exist and persist, and you have choices in how you're going to deal with them: (a) you handle them yourself and get a little mud on you in the process, (b) you hire your own lawyer/pig to take care of the mud for you, or (c) you remain civilized and allow their pig stench to overtake you and your entire way of life. In ways you may never know about, somebody somewhere is getting at least a little muddy. That's just how it is with mammals who root in soil. :)

Decency and decorum are their own reward, and good manners cost nothing.

If you hired a lawyer to deal with her and/or her lawyer, that was money well spent and thus allowed you to remain decent and civilized while your lawyer dealt with the inevitable mud. While I understand your sentiment completely, please keep in mind that there's always somebody who has to deal with the pigs of the world while the others clutch their pearls and whine incessantly about "civility."

I saw some Republican candidate in an ad saying he was going to stomp on his rival's head with cleated golf shoes! Anyone stupid enough to vote for an idiot like that deserves him to govern over them.

How is it any different than those who voted for the candidate who wished to lock up his opponent? Not by much. Unfortunately, there are enough stupid people in this country to vote for an idiot like this, and then we all have to suffer the "fools in cleats" until somebody steps up to stop them. You may or may not ever know the things that were done to stop these fools, but I can assure you that there's likely somebody somewhere who had to suffer the cleats so others wouldn't have to. :)

"United we stand, divided we fall" has whole new meaning now.

Great! So long as you remain civil, Kick, especially when trying to persuade your fellow citizens.

I can equally assure you that somebody is always fighting for our country …

Indeed. The heroic defenders of your country and mine along with others are sacrificing mightily for our collective freedom.

Our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, CIA, and FBI among many others are not trained to defend ourselves using tactics in civility.

Absolutely, positively, unequivocally. Of course, my references to the importance of civility apply to political leaders and citizenry, at large.

As good as we are, Canada will never be the leader of the free world. But, you're right, we should be trying harder to begin to fill the vacuum.

I would wager it's going to take civility and all kinds of other nouns to save it.

Oh, it's going to take quite a lot more than civility in discourse to save your republic but, without the requisite civility, your country is destined to be hopelessly divided as world chaos grows exponentially in the absence of American leadership.

Decency and decorum are their own reward, and good manners cost nothing.

I saw some Republican candidate in an ad saying he was going to stomp on his rival's head with cleated golf shoes! Anyone stupid enough to vote for an idiot like that deserves him to govern over them.

LL&P

But you have acknowledged he is much closer than O'Rourke.

No, Don, I didn't say anything about Beto O'Rourke one way or another. I just said Mejia comes closer than many but still isn't one.

But it is possible that if there were a national organization with participants providing direct support to true small contribution candidates that candidates such as Mejia that are almost there would take the next step and move to a true small contribution campaign.

It's also possible I could win the lottery one day if someone could talk me into throwing away my money in exchange for nothing. I believe I'm winning by not playing. :)

I fear for your republic if many Americans understand what will save it in the same way that you do.

Yes, ma'am. You needn't explain to anyone who reads the comments section on a regular basis that you fear for our republic based on what Paula and I post; it's what you do here constantly and seemingly without end.

I have long believed in the promise of America and in America's global leadership role. With the devastating impacts of climate change and growing world chaos and the ever present threat of nuclear weapons (not to mention Trump and Trumpism), the time has never been more right for both.

Well, the Mad King in the White House disagrees at the present time so why don't our friends to the North get busy working on your Canadian government to fill the void we're all presently experiencing? I mean, we can either sit around waxing nostalgic about bygone eras or get mad and get moving. I'm going with mad and moving.

Civility and the motivation that anger brings can work hand in hand to achieve that.

Yes!

Without civility, your republic cannot be saved. Which doesn't bode well for the rest of the planet.

I would wager it's going to take civility and all kinds of other nouns to save it. It takes all kinds of motivators to call a diverse citizenry to action. I am sure some of us will be gracious while others not so much; indeed, it takes all kinds.

Our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, CIA, and FBI among many others are not trained to defend ourselves using tactics in civility. While I can assure you that I understand that the peaceful part is the most desirable, I can equally assure you that somebody is always fighting for our freedom in ways you'll never know and never see. So has it ever been since inception of this great nation and so shall it remain ever thus. :)

that's what CW meant when he wrote that no candidate could possibly live up to don's standard for purity. i'm sure the inventor of the arc lamp believed there would soon be one in every home, but a hundred years later they were still burning kerosene. campaign finance needs to find its carbon filament, and maybe don's the one to invent it - but only if he spends less time pestering CW and more time perfecting his idea.

@paula,

republicans are not a monolith. some believe in personal freedom even at the cost of their own physical safety. others believe they're being practical by following donald into the abyss. either way, they're just as human as the rest of us. i'm not cutting my wife's parents out of my life just because they believe deeply in a political philosophy that i think is horribly wrong. yes, they're republicans, but they're also people. it's perfectly possible to hate the action but still care about the person. if we lose sight of our mutual humanity, we're no better than judge kavanaugh.

JL

This would explain why you write aboot Beto O'Rourke and not Kenneth Mejia the Green Party small contribution candidate that made the top two in California's 34th.

Sorry Don, but an easy 2-second search reveals that Kenneth Mejia is not a small contribution candidate. Oh sure, he comes closer than many, but he's still not one.

https://www.opensecrets.org/races/candidates?cycle=2018&id=CA34&spec=N

[25] Kick: Yep to all!

Republicans don't want "civility" they want "servility." When they stand up in public and tell obvious and provable lies they think it's "uncivil" to be labeled liars.

Far from deserving "civility" Republicans are increasingly lucky not to be on the receiving end of savagery.

Not at all.

I fear for your republic if many Americans understand what will save it in the same way that you do.

I have long believed in the promise of America and in America's global leadership role. With the devastating impacts of climate change and growing world chaos and the ever present threat of nuclear weapons (not to mention Trump and Trumpism), the time has never been more right for both.

Civility and the motivation that anger brings can work hand in hand to achieve that.

Without civility, your republic cannot be saved. Which doesn't bode well for the rest of the planet.

Truth is, I think that this topic arises now because Progressives have stomached just about all that they can take of this Trumpian crowd.

Exactly right.

There's just no reserve of good will left. We've been systematically lied to, slandered, misled, dismissed and bullied, not to mention hacked, extorted and undermined. We've seen this country's reputation tarnished, our President laughed at, our institutions dismantled and our noble democracy reduced by a high rolling Pimp.

And Con Artist who sold out our country for money. Sad.

Why is civility being equated with weakness?

I have a better question. Who decided civility is being equated with weakness? I don't think it is. This country was founded on some very uncivilized behavior and angry people alongside some very civilized ones with beautiful words set to paper. It takes all kinds.

So, if the Democrats engage in a race to the bottom with respect to civility, America loses.

Perhaps you're equating anger with incivility. Why must anger be equated with a "race to the bottom"? Anger is a powerful motivator. Our Declaration of Independence is largely an angry rant combined with a few inspirational words... sometimes progress takes both.

Democrats don't need to lose civility and who they are.

"Who they are" is a Party of people that are notorious for sitting out midterm elections. If it takes a little anger to motivate people to the polls... then so be it. Get mad and get moving. Civility to the point of inaction and apathy isn't working. Whatever it takes... within reason. Time to get mad, people. If our forefathers hadn't gotten mad, our country as we currently know it wouldn't exist.

In short, if Democrats choose to enter the race to the bottom rather than find a way that will actually beat Trump and Trumpism, then it may be too late to save your Republic.

Our Republic wasn't founded on civility, Elizabeth, and it likely won't be saved by it either. Until Democrats take back a branch or some part of government from the Trumplicans and Republicans who have acceded their authority to the Mad King currently occupying the White House, all bets are off. :)

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/10/13/cuomo-closing-argument-race-to-the-bottom-cpt-vpx.cnn

It wasn't a matter of updating but rather perfecting. A difference with a distinction, as they say.

as a fellow new jersey-ite, you may already know that edison did not actually invent the light bulb, he just came up with the first version that was the right brightness and lasted long enough to be considered practical for regular use. perhaps there will soon be an "edison" of small donation campaigns, but unless you quit being so defensive, adjust your initial concept and put some serious work into your website, it's not going to be you.

i read the same talking point you did, and was fairly certain you'd wax apoplectic about it while still failing to understand the difference. my prediction has now been confirmed, and my interest in your opinion of how it reflects on me is not high. perhaps being polite got you nothing, but being rude got you ignored by our host and mocked by a majority of the rest, so perhaps it's time to find a third option.

JL

I'm waiting for Democrats and progressives to consistently show some substance to counter Trump and trumpism instead of constantly complaining about the situation they find themselves wallowing in.

Wouldn't that be refreshing?