Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) urged her Democratic colleagues to stop attacking the "oligarchy," arguing that the word did not resonate with most Americans.
Clearly you think it’s a perception problem, since all you’re doing is talking about perception. Why haven’t you been talking about policy this entire time?
Um because that’s what the lady in the article talked about the whole time.
Making a statement about messaging isn’t the same as saying the only thing that matters is messaging.
Again:
Detailing her plan, Slotkin – a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) – argued that the Democratic Party needed to lose its “weak and woke” reputation and “fucking retake the flag,” adopting a “goddamn Alpha energy” inspired by Detroit Lions coach Dan Campbell.
It’s not just a statement… it’s the “plan”. A messaging adjustment is the plan.
They’re perceived as all talk because that’s all most of them do. Their plans are to talk some more. I’d rather them get caught trying to do something…basically anything at all at this point.
That’s why I’m pro AOC, pro Corey Booker, pro David Hogg primarying safe district Blue dogs, and pro Van Hollen. Talking head centrist Democrats can get fucked as far as I’m concerned.
There’s some statement or another from one of them every time a Democrat attempts anything. With friends like these you don’t even need enemies.
One of the main talking heads of the DNC was saying that Democrats should roll over and play dead, and on the CR they did exactly that.
that’s what the lady in the article talked about the whole time.
No, that’s what this article quoted her about for their entire article.
Clearly my first statement didn’t land the way intended, since you missed me calling it “silly” immediately afterwards.
Criticizing you for failing to talk about policy in a conversation that isn’t about that is silly. Much like I think it’s silly to criticize someone for not talking about policy because in a particular context they’re talking about something else.
Did she call it “the plan”, or was that the article, which is an article about an article about an interview about an upcoming speech?
From the actual interview, she refers to a set of speeches directed at party volunteers and organizers as a “war plan”, and indicated they will cover many topics, including messaging. Not quite the same as “the plan” being a change in messaging.
They’re perceived as all talk because that’s all most of them do
That’s what politicians do. Most of the politicians you went on to say you liked just … Talk. They talk until people do what they’re talking about.
I feel like the thread of this conversation has been lost. I don’t actually care to have a referendum on the Democrats or their strategy, and I’m relatively neutral towards slotkin.
I still disagree that saying Democrats have a perception problem they need to work on is being a “Republican lite”, and think it’s odd to criticize both for being passive and not doing anything, but also for saying they should stop being passive and do something.
It really feels like you’re just looking for a reason to be angry, and it doesn’t actually matter if it’s here or not, since you already have a notion of what you’re angry about.
It really feels like you’re just looking for a reason to be angry, and it doesn’t actually matter if it’s here or not, since you already have a notion of what you’re angry about.
This really feels like projection, bud. I’m with Democrats that want to do shit. To the point where I just donated to hoggs cause and skipped kamala’s.
Sure, politicians mostly talk, but some also put their skin in the game while others sit on the sidelines and say what they’re doing wrong.
Maybe the focus groups say it would be 10% more effective for AOC to use the word King rather than oligarch, but you know what matters more? The movement showing the fuck up in the first place.
Cool. We’ve entirely stopped talking about what I cared about, which was “man, this article sure has a misleading headline”, so you can keep sharing your feelings about different Democrats if you want but I honestly don’t really care.
Um because that’s what the lady in the article talked about the whole time.
Again:
It’s not just a statement… it’s the “plan”. A messaging adjustment is the plan.
They’re perceived as all talk because that’s all most of them do. Their plans are to talk some more. I’d rather them get caught trying to do something…basically anything at all at this point.
That’s why I’m pro AOC, pro Corey Booker, pro David Hogg primarying safe district Blue dogs, and pro Van Hollen. Talking head centrist Democrats can get fucked as far as I’m concerned.
There’s some statement or another from one of them every time a Democrat attempts anything. With friends like these you don’t even need enemies.
One of the main talking heads of the DNC was saying that Democrats should roll over and play dead, and on the CR they did exactly that.
No, that’s what this article quoted her about for their entire article.
Clearly my first statement didn’t land the way intended, since you missed me calling it “silly” immediately afterwards.
Criticizing you for failing to talk about policy in a conversation that isn’t about that is silly. Much like I think it’s silly to criticize someone for not talking about policy because in a particular context they’re talking about something else.
Did she call it “the plan”, or was that the article, which is an article about an article about an interview about an upcoming speech?
From the actual interview, she refers to a set of speeches directed at party volunteers and organizers as a “war plan”, and indicated they will cover many topics, including messaging. Not quite the same as “the plan” being a change in messaging.
That’s what politicians do. Most of the politicians you went on to say you liked just … Talk. They talk until people do what they’re talking about.
I feel like the thread of this conversation has been lost. I don’t actually care to have a referendum on the Democrats or their strategy, and I’m relatively neutral towards slotkin.
I still disagree that saying Democrats have a perception problem they need to work on is being a “Republican lite”, and think it’s odd to criticize both for being passive and not doing anything, but also for saying they should stop being passive and do something.
It really feels like you’re just looking for a reason to be angry, and it doesn’t actually matter if it’s here or not, since you already have a notion of what you’re angry about.
This really feels like projection, bud. I’m with Democrats that want to do shit. To the point where I just donated to hoggs cause and skipped kamala’s.
Sure, politicians mostly talk, but some also put their skin in the game while others sit on the sidelines and say what they’re doing wrong.
Maybe the focus groups say it would be 10% more effective for AOC to use the word King rather than oligarch, but you know what matters more? The movement showing the fuck up in the first place.
Cool. We’ve entirely stopped talking about what I cared about, which was “man, this article sure has a misleading headline”, so you can keep sharing your feelings about different Democrats if you want but I honestly don’t really care.
👍 the headline ain’t that misleading either but you do you