Media Meltdown and also Media Bias 101

[gehringer_2]

15 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Tell that to voters in Wisconsin who went ahead and ensured that the GOP will not control their state Supreme Court until 2030 at the earliest. 

I understand the desire to be skeptical of anything changing under the hood, but when an epochal shift happens in a statewide race in arguably the most important swing state in the country seven months prior to a midterm, it shouldn't just be dismissed out of hand.

I'm not dismissing it, but the I strongly believe the Dems have been whistling past the graveyard for several cycles about their approval with the wider public. Anti-Trumpism is great to see, but if that is all we are seeing, and right now there is no way to know the difference,  it doesn't really represent the Democratic party's ability the take control of the basic political agenda from the right wing, and while that may put a brake on Trump's power in at the end of the year, it doesn't create the conditions for the change needed to prevent another Trump from emerging from one side or the other.

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

I'm not dismissing it, but the I strongly believe the Dems have been whistling past the graveyard for several cycles about their approval with the wider public. Anti-Trumpism is great to see, but if that is all we are seeing, and right now there is no way to know the difference,  it doesn't really represent the Democratic party's ability the take control of the basic political agenda from the right wing, and while that may put a brake on Trump's power in at the end of the year, it doesn't create the conditions for the change needed to prevent another Trump from emerging from one side or the other.

In 2018 Dems ran on health care and not anti Trump. In 2022 they ran on abortion and not anti Trump. In 2020 Biden ran on infrastructure and COVID. 

[gehringer_2]

5 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

In 2018 Dems ran on health care and not anti Trump. In 2022 they ran on abortion and not anti Trump. In 2020 Biden ran on infrastructure and COVID. 

what you run on and what the voters are voting about may or may not have anything in common.

Edited 2 hours ago by gehringer_2

[mtutiger]

6 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

If you want to keep calling not having power wining, go for it. They lost the House in 22, then lost the  Senate in 24. Control of no parts of the government on Jan 2025 is zero momentum from the opportunity of having gotten Trump out of the presidency for 4 yrs.

In 2022, the Democrats did better than any party in modern history in a Presidential midterm outside of  Bush (post 9/11) and Clinton (post impeachment).

The stakes are higher because of Trump so I understand your point... But Bombers isn't wrong here in a historical context either. The base case for incumbent parties in our ****ed up system of government is to eat it during the Midterms. Just holding the Senate alone under those circumstances made it a win IMO

[mtutiger]

9 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I'm not dismissing it, but the I strongly believe the Dems have been whistling past the graveyard for several cycles about their approval with the wider public. Anti-Trumpism is great to see, but if that is all we are seeing, and right now there is no way to know the difference,  it doesn't really represent the Democratic party's ability the take control of the basic political agenda from the right wing, and while that may put a brake on Trump's power in at the end of the year, it doesn't create the conditions for the change needed to prevent another Trump from emerging from one side or the other.

Not even sure I agree with your premise given that a lot of the messaging I am seeing centers around economics and cost of living along with anti-Trump messaging.

But even taking it at face value, they are a party competing in a midterm against a wildly unpopular President who is in the red on just about every issue and who, within the two months, dragged the country into a war that Americans don't want to be in and one that is raising gas prices for everyone. Are you suggesting they *shouldn't* have messaging that exploits that?

If it's April 2028 and it's all about Trump, maybe that's a different story... But it's a Midterm cycle. Not engaging in anti-incumbent messaging against a wildly unpopular President would be malpractice 

[gehringer_2]

Just now, mtutiger said:

In 2022, the Democrats did better than any party in modern history in a Presidential midterm outside of  Bush (post 9/11) and Clinton (post impeachment).

LOL - so other party's have done better recently. This thread reminds me of the Wings thread. When you are faced with the need to do better - really better, as in better than the other guy, that's the metric that matters. We just had an example this Sunday of what doing better actually looks like. Skin of the teeth margins gained against some of the worse policy and corruption in 125 years should be embarrassing. Wisconsin looks wonderful, but Wisconsin was always going to be in play. Progress will be winning in places where it's actually a surprise.

[gehringer_2]

3 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Not engaging in anti-incumbent messaging against a wildly unpopular President would be malpractice 

not what I'm saying - of course you make it about Trump if people are moving away from Trump and that's going to work for you. That's what I mean about '28 - after anti-trump do you have a story to tell Iowa, Tx, Fla, even Maine - states that should be flippable but that have failed to flip over several cycles, that can win without an unpopular incumbent there to run against?

[mtutiger]

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

LOL - so other party's have done better recently. 

At least when blue dresses and terrorist attacks were involved anyway.

It's not the historical norm. The stakes are higher because of Trump, but I stand by what I said. The base case for incumbent parties in our ****ed up system of government is to eat it during the Midterms. Just holding the Senate alone under those circumstances made it a win IMO

[gehringer_2]

4 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

At least when blue dresses and terrorist attacks were involved anyway.

It's not the historical norm. The stakes are higher because of Trump, but I stand by what I said. The base case for incumbent parties in our ****ed up system of government is to eat it during the Midterms. Just holding the Senate alone under those circumstances made it a win IMO

that's why you have to win big enough in the quadrennials to be able to take the 'inevitable' mid-term attrition. 😉

Edited 2 hours ago by gehringer_2

[mtutiger]

Just now, gehringer_2 said:

not what I'm saying - of course you make it about Trump if people are moving away from Trump and that's going to work for you. That's what I mean about '28 - after anti-trump do you have a story to tell Iowa, Tx, Fla, even Maine - states that should be flippable but that have failed to flip over several cycles, that can win without an unpopular incumbent there to run against?

Certainly think they will need to have a more focused message in a Presidential election, but I'm not sure any of us have a clue what 2028 will be like at this point. Even to the point that because of his age and infirmities, there's a nonzero chance Trump will be around as it's happening.

They need to worry about the election before them and do what they need to do to try to win as many races as they can in this cycle. I'm not thinking about 2028 right now

[gehringer_2]

6 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

They need to worry about the election before them and do what they need to do to try to win as many races as they can in this cycle. I'm not thinking about 2028 right now

you and I don't have to, but if TPTB in the Democratic party leadership are not doing the party building to prep for '28, we're in trouble. Maybe my biggest knock on Obama was exactly that once he had his win, he didn't put much effort into making sure he left the DNC stronger than where he found it.

Edited 2 hours ago by gehringer_2