The description between Centrism and Moderation was, by far, the best explanation I’ve ever seen.
Do you think it would be helpful to provide talking points to voters represented by these 9 people?
For example, we could draft a script that talks about how, as a voter, they are worried this stance impacts their chances for re-election within the congressional district. And in the letter, sympathize with their desire for centrism, but push them towards moderation because that’s the true path to Democratic success in 2022?
OK, you finally did it: I subscribed. I've been reading pretty regularly, but (considering my income) I'm seriously over-subscribed to all sorts of useful media, including several Substacks. But your distinction between "centrist" and "moderate" is so useful that I pulled out my credit card . . .
I'll echo the praise of your distinction between moderates and centrists. This is especially relevant because the center has been pulled so far right over the last 40 years that it's almost meaningless as an actual "center." So, I think it's important for all the folks out there to know (which they should by now after Manchin's shenanigans) that the Rs are not negotiating, discussing, arguing, speaking in good faith. They want nothing more than power. So discussing "bipartisanship" is the very definition of stupid shit right now when the second party is trying to destroy the country. We've all got to be talking about the Dems as the only party focused on our freedoms to vote, create a sustainable future, control our own bodies (notwithstanding the remarkably stupid anti-vaxx crap), etc. I'm a committed devotee of Anat Shenker-Osorio, who along with Dan, can lead the way with messaging so that we shift this damn conversation so we know who the heroes and villains are. And, spoiler alert, the R villains are really villainous. There are a number of organizations out there helping with grassroots messaging, and I encourage everyone to follow them: Demcast, More Perfect Democracy (this is mine), Voters of Tomorrow, and definitely follow Anat Shenker-Osorio (who is reupping her podcast).
The only party that is standing up to take action on the Critical sissies of: Climate Crisis Emergency , Protecting Our Democracy, & voting @ civil rights. The Republicans have made it clear they will not only fight against all these aforementioned issues , they will attack all Democrats who are fighting to realize: Environmental, Social, Economic , Racial & Moral Justice in America. We are in a moment of Crisis & can not afford to have these 9 Democrats fight the will of the people !
Thanks, Dan, for explaining the inexplicable. I couldn't get my mind around what their motivations might be as is was clearly dumb as "sh*t" to do this. I was originally thinking maybe they were looking for "fame" in their stupid quest. Also thanks for clarifying moderation and centrism. Your examples were excellent.
I have long been baffled by the Democrats’ penchant for playing their internal arguments out in public. It is never an advantage. It simply makes them look disorganized, naive, and ego-driven. These nine are more likely to be judged as hacks by their own voters as they as they are to be judged as high-minded.
Democrats often do the same maddening thing with their internal strategy. Discuss it in the open. To me, both of these behaviors are like sitting down at a poker table with your cards facing the other players. Or bringing a megaphone into the huddle.
I am old enough to have seen the Turkey Giveaway episode on WKRP in Cincinnati. I expect these nine master strategists a few weeks from now to turn to each other and say, “As God is my witness, I thought Turkeys could fly.” Watch it on YouTube.
The Republicans almost never do either of these things. Just thinking about politics, Republicans seem to be better politicians (not more ethical, high-minded or worthy, just slicker game-players).
A word about triangulation. I know it’s a naughty word now, but I once heard Clinton himself describe it as picking the best ideas from the R column and the D column to try to reach consensus. It seems to me that the politically manipulative meaning came later and was applied to everything he got done. Am I wrong? It seems like Clinton got an awful lot done in his time, even after the advent of Gingrich.
I also realize Clinton’s personal behavior deserves criticism, but he seems to have been hurled into the Carter wing of the dustbin of history by the high-minded. Foolish. He was the best pure politician we’ve had since FDR. But we have done that with all our former presidents. Kennedy? That wandering eye. And other body parts. Johnson? That war. Carter? Ennui. And the crashed helicopter in the desert. Clinton? (see Kennedy). So far we haven’t done that to Obama. We will.
Some questions: Who are the 9? What would be some key messages constituents of these 9 could relay in phone calls and emails, to their offices? And are there any announced primary candidates the rest of us could amplify -- to brush back against this selfish behavior?
Do you think the progressive wing (or the 90+members of the progressive caucus) should answer with a similar letter? Or is that just upping the possibility of mutually assured destruction? (I also assume the progressive wing actually is pragmatic and wants to get both these things done)
The description between Centrism and Moderation was, by far, the best explanation I’ve ever seen.
Do you think it would be helpful to provide talking points to voters represented by these 9 people?
For example, we could draft a script that talks about how, as a voter, they are worried this stance impacts their chances for re-election within the congressional district. And in the letter, sympathize with their desire for centrism, but push them towards moderation because that’s the true path to Democratic success in 2022?
OK, you finally did it: I subscribed. I've been reading pretty regularly, but (considering my income) I'm seriously over-subscribed to all sorts of useful media, including several Substacks. But your distinction between "centrist" and "moderate" is so useful that I pulled out my credit card . . .
I'll echo the praise of your distinction between moderates and centrists. This is especially relevant because the center has been pulled so far right over the last 40 years that it's almost meaningless as an actual "center." So, I think it's important for all the folks out there to know (which they should by now after Manchin's shenanigans) that the Rs are not negotiating, discussing, arguing, speaking in good faith. They want nothing more than power. So discussing "bipartisanship" is the very definition of stupid shit right now when the second party is trying to destroy the country. We've all got to be talking about the Dems as the only party focused on our freedoms to vote, create a sustainable future, control our own bodies (notwithstanding the remarkably stupid anti-vaxx crap), etc. I'm a committed devotee of Anat Shenker-Osorio, who along with Dan, can lead the way with messaging so that we shift this damn conversation so we know who the heroes and villains are. And, spoiler alert, the R villains are really villainous. There are a number of organizations out there helping with grassroots messaging, and I encourage everyone to follow them: Demcast, More Perfect Democracy (this is mine), Voters of Tomorrow, and definitely follow Anat Shenker-Osorio (who is reupping her podcast).
The only party that is standing up to take action on the Critical sissies of: Climate Crisis Emergency , Protecting Our Democracy, & voting @ civil rights. The Republicans have made it clear they will not only fight against all these aforementioned issues , they will attack all Democrats who are fighting to realize: Environmental, Social, Economic , Racial & Moral Justice in America. We are in a moment of Crisis & can not afford to have these 9 Democrats fight the will of the people !
Thanks, Dan, for explaining the inexplicable. I couldn't get my mind around what their motivations might be as is was clearly dumb as "sh*t" to do this. I was originally thinking maybe they were looking for "fame" in their stupid quest. Also thanks for clarifying moderation and centrism. Your examples were excellent.
I have long been baffled by the Democrats’ penchant for playing their internal arguments out in public. It is never an advantage. It simply makes them look disorganized, naive, and ego-driven. These nine are more likely to be judged as hacks by their own voters as they as they are to be judged as high-minded.
Democrats often do the same maddening thing with their internal strategy. Discuss it in the open. To me, both of these behaviors are like sitting down at a poker table with your cards facing the other players. Or bringing a megaphone into the huddle.
I am old enough to have seen the Turkey Giveaway episode on WKRP in Cincinnati. I expect these nine master strategists a few weeks from now to turn to each other and say, “As God is my witness, I thought Turkeys could fly.” Watch it on YouTube.
The Republicans almost never do either of these things. Just thinking about politics, Republicans seem to be better politicians (not more ethical, high-minded or worthy, just slicker game-players).
A word about triangulation. I know it’s a naughty word now, but I once heard Clinton himself describe it as picking the best ideas from the R column and the D column to try to reach consensus. It seems to me that the politically manipulative meaning came later and was applied to everything he got done. Am I wrong? It seems like Clinton got an awful lot done in his time, even after the advent of Gingrich.
I also realize Clinton’s personal behavior deserves criticism, but he seems to have been hurled into the Carter wing of the dustbin of history by the high-minded. Foolish. He was the best pure politician we’ve had since FDR. But we have done that with all our former presidents. Kennedy? That wandering eye. And other body parts. Johnson? That war. Carter? Ennui. And the crashed helicopter in the desert. Clinton? (see Kennedy). So far we haven’t done that to Obama. We will.
Some questions: Who are the 9? What would be some key messages constituents of these 9 could relay in phone calls and emails, to their offices? And are there any announced primary candidates the rest of us could amplify -- to brush back against this selfish behavior?
Ah, the Mark Penn influence. Leading the charge against democratic success yet again.
Do you think the progressive wing (or the 90+members of the progressive caucus) should answer with a similar letter? Or is that just upping the possibility of mutually assured destruction? (I also assume the progressive wing actually is pragmatic and wants to get both these things done)