It may be cathartic to say this, but I don't think it's the right approach.

It's West Virginia. Trump got 68.5% of the vote there. For the next six years, we're either getting Manchin or Morrisey. That's our choice.

I'm not joining the Joe Manchin Fan Club or anything, but I don't think that he's "clearly the worst Democrat in the Senate", or even that close to the top.

I'd say that title easily belongs to Bob Menendez, for putting what should be a slam dunk D win for New Jersey in question. I'd say Feinstein and Schumer are #2 and #3 in some order.

I agree Manchin isn't *that* bad. I mean he's bad, but you can sympathize with his plight, at least. He generally tries to keep a low profile and is trying to navigate being a Democrat in Trump country. How much can you really expect? The ROI on simply keeping him in the caucus and (potentially) giving the Democrats a majority, control of committees, etc. is large.

Worse Democrats were people like Joe Lieberman who had more liberal voting records but jumped the fence and became high profile fifth column types at high stakes moments, trying to get John McCain elected and that sort of ****. Also bad are leadership that kowtows to donors and zillionaires despite being in safe states. Also bad are Mark Warner types that suffer from West Wing style brain rot and whose only seeming political goal is to create bipartisan emblems and are constantly searching for some Republican Senator to sponsor a new military spending bill with.

Manchin's obviously not great but he's got better excuses than a lot of the others.

Feistein in CA is tilting to no end. And Obama and almost the entire D machine keeps on endorsing her to no end, even currently, when she is running against someone much more progressive than her. Hyachachachacha.

If anything Manchin is likely one of the few senators that is actually 100% honest in his positions. He is exactly who he says he is, a pro-labor, pro-healthcare, pro-gun, anti-choice politician who runs as a dem. I dont like it, and would prefer a more party line dem in that seat, but getting a vote for OCare in WV was pretty critical.

lol

Speaking of which

http://theweek.com/articles/799408/h...medium=twitter

There's a big problem though: scandal-stained Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and his long history of outrageous corruption.

Democrats could have ditched this turkey for virtually any other person in the state and cruised to victory. Instead, top Democrats like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) protected and enabled him.

Polling is now nearly tied between Menendez and his Republican challenger Bob Hugin. Some 59 percent of New Jersey voters say Menendez's corruption scandal is "extremely important" or "significant" in their vote. It's an object lesson in the political dangers of letting moral rot slide.

Whether or not a progressive can win in a place like West Virginia depends on what you mean by progressive. If you mean on class issues, things like worker's rights, monopoly/trust busting, Wall Street/Bank reform, minimum wages, universal health care, inheritance and corporate taxes etc, there's no reason you can't have a progressive candidate.

If you mean progressive on social issues, I don't know. You might be surprised, but maybe not. Going hard after religion (drowning priests and nuns) was what killed the French Revolution's popularity in non-cosmopolitan France.

Also depending on what you mean by progressive and it can be hard for a progressive to win in New York or California, especially New York (New Jersey/Connecticut too).

Another extremely undemocratic aspect to our government is the amount of power that high-ranking members of congress have. WTF? They shouldn't have ranks. The whole committee system and control over what gets debated on and voted on is BS. McConnell not allowing votes that Rs would lose is, I dunno, tyrannical.

Maybe a labor-style progressive can win in WV, but that's not the reality right now.

It's either Manchin or a certified deplorable for the next 6 years. I know which side I am rooting for.

Agreed that Senate Majority Leader has WAY too much power.

It's so nuts Dems are potentially going to lose this seat, an utter fail. There were some highly qualified candidates that could have replaced Menendez, but of course they don't get on their knees when a corporate donor walks in the door so guys like Schumer and Booker aren't willing to even consider them. Another disqualifier for Booker when it comes to being Pres.

Awesome ad. Annnnd on the tragic death of the Dems angle... The ad is five months old, and WE'RE just seeing it now... and we're a group of highly engaged people when it comes to politics.

You guys are out of your minds if you think that's a good political ad. The overall tone is a self-congratulatory high five to all the people that are already on their own side. That is, who, exactly, is this ad going to appeal to:

1. Voters who will vote and will vote D?
2. Voters who may vote but would vote D?
3. Voters who may vote and may vote D or R?
4. Voters who may vote but would vote R?
5. Voters who will vote and will vote R?

Obviously this is an ad for and by group 1 voters. Also known as - those voters for whom any ad is completely worthless from the perspective of actually winning elections. The only purpose of this ad is to make group 1 voters feel more engaged with the party and send more money.

The number of people in group 2 above is massive and is where ads need to be focused if they actually want to win elections. Going after group 3 is an expensive dog fight with limited upside. Making ads for group 1 is only good for enhancing the insular, elitist culture of the party. The ad portrays the "victims" of Republican policy as suit-wearing corporate types! The US full of people dying without health care, flailing hopelessly in a minimum wage job, getting shot by police because of the color of their skin, being locked up without due process at the border, etc. But, by all means, let's ridicule the upper middle class people that support Trump because of their small tax cut, because that makes us feel better about ourselves. High fives all around!

The jobs created by the "job creators" are a table and coat hanger. Do you think those are the types of jobs that are going to seem too high falooting for the average voter? Jr. car salesman wear suits, waiters at the Olive Garden almost wear suits. And even if the Table was a corporate type, far above the voters status, his tax break was 6 bucks a month. If you misunderstood the ad this poorly it's probably not as good an ad as is being portrayed, but your criticism of it seems pretty off.

I think it's a bad ad because it fundamentally letting bad faith GOP rhetoric drive a response.

So, no one -- not a single deplorable, not a single moderate voter, not a single persuadable voter -- not really one of them were motivated by the GOP's "job creator" rhetoric. OK, maybe like a few dumb people. But it was just some bull**** the GOP said to shuffle money up to their millionaires and billionaire supporters, and then get through an interview with a normal person journalist who might question them why they are handing so much money to millionaires.

So instead of Democrats spending their time telling voters how you're going to give them stuff, or solve their problems, you're responding to nonsense GOP talking points that most people realize is total phony baloney bull**** anyway.

Most deplorables and persuadable voters never bought or internalized the "job creator" ****, they just sort of lived with it and signed into Republican Party because they were getting the tax cuts themselves or they really liked the GOP's talking points about 'welfare reform' which they saw as punitive against black people or other undesirables they don't like, and they simply tolerated the hand outs to millionaires.

To me, the ad fails because it refutes farcical GOP bull**** that everyone knows are expressed in bad-faith. The result is that it doesn't really motivate anyone meaningfully; I think it's sort of like late night comedy in that it reinforces, for the left, how dumb and parasitical the right-wing is, but it's really only reaching snarky high-information types and fulfills no meaningful ideological goals.

Just ****ing talk about pre-existing conditions you dumb**** jizzmoppers how hard is this.

“Let’s point out that Trump is a meanie in the next ad, that’ll work!”

Is there a single product out there that advertises itself purely by dissing its competitors? I know sometimes Wendy’s gets salty, but they still talk about their ****ing burgers in their ads. Dems need to ****ing talk about their ****ing burgers this isn’t rocket psychology. People like your burgers, make ads about how good your burgers are.

I think this is a bit unfair because the Republicans do exactly that, but they have a huge base of angry mouthbreathers whose only political goal is inflicting pain on their political enemies.

The Democrats are dependent on voters with a more diverse set of interests, with more varied requirements from the political system, so you have to sell them on why it's worth their time to give a **** at all.

And I'll go one step further still. The Democrats TRY to sell themselves, sometimes! The problem is that it's often wonky, technocratic, and totally inscrutable.

Like:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/poverty/

Is that my community? 10% doesn't sound like a lot; 10% of what? "Federal resources?" Like, all of them? Am I part of the 20%? Do I have to be poor for 30 years to get something here? And what's a "commitment of a resource?" Is that like a check for me? Are you building a playground? What?! Do I get anything here?!?!

The Democrats STILL spend so much time brewing up policy papers in centrist think tanks and then roll them out like the lamest, nerdiest ****ing wonks, talking seemingly only to people with graduate degrees who are clued into Neera Tendan's Twitter feed or some ****. Look, I'm busy, I don't like my rich bosses, they make me work, I'd rather be doing something else. Will you give me some **** that helps me, or not? Too often the Democrats just have vague technocratic nothingness to fill that space, and at least the Republicans seem like they're going to hurt some people who annoy them, which is better than being a boring prat. But most normal people just assume none of this applies to them and go about their day. But the Democrats need all those people, it's who the party is supposed to sell themselves too, not wonky suburbanites with graduate degrees and who read policy papers.

You can clean all this **** up in like ~30 seconds or less: we're gonna soak the rich and give you money and health care, the end.

No need for a zippy, pattern quip that rolls off the tongue like 10% of the 20% for greater than 30 years, not a single normal person even knows if they're being told anything with that ****, get the **** outta here.

Dems have a winning message on every bread-and-butter issue and instead they blow 30 seconds of ad time telling us how mean Republicans are. Like, Trump is mocking sexual assault victims on Twitter and the Dems think they need to remind people Republicans are terrible. This is why we deserve the Trump administration.

I mean

https://www.npr.org/2016/01/30/46476...rts-with-plans
I too center my political activism around reviewing briefing binders and providing feedback to my staff on my menu of policy prescriptions, that's a normal person way to talk, I am very relatable and I can help you.

People are all like oh she didn't visit Wisconsin. True enough, but hot damn if Democrats don't seemingly just WANT to sound like the worst, most effete, distant, unreachable eggheads. This guy is trying to SELL you on Hillary Clinton, that her passion in life is reviewing a menu of policy prescriptions. THE **** BRO, DO YOU HAVE MONEY FOR ME OR NOT, I'M SICK, my kids are sick, I'm worried about how I'm going to pay to keep myself alive, WILL YOU HELP ME GET MEDICINE AND SEE A DOCTOR, GET TO THE POINT.

Well, sure the wonks don’t know how to pitch messages. That’s why you hire professional ad men to turn inscrutable 10-20-30 white papers into simple messages for slobs like me. For some reason the Dems keep hiring clowndick ad men who are afraid to mention their own product.

Like, this ad definitely had a slick, polished message I can understand. It wasn’t made by unreachable eggheads. The problem is it didn’t give me any reason not to sit at home on Election Day.

Just get a hot girl to talk about healthcare, gun control, $15 min wage, student loans, etc. It’s so ****ing easy. Get me a pretty girl and a camera and I’ll have a better ad for you before lunch.

I imagine DNC advertising meetings working like the Phil Collins video where it's a non-stop stream of high-concept pitches that have nothing to do with the song.

This is consistent with what I was getting at. I also note that the implication of that ad is that tax cuts are implicitly a good thing, the debate should be about who gets the benefit of the tax cut and the very rich got too much. This is a terrible battle ground for the Ds to pick because the Rs have a brand as the party of lower taxes. This has no appeal to the people that would benefit the most from D policies, and as we've seen in this forum the R supporters that got a $500 tax cut are happier than pigs in **** and are completely impossible to persuade to vote D instead of R. They defend child internment camps at the border to protect their $500 tax cut! They're not going to be moved by these ads.

It's also a big problem that these incredibly complicated "market-based solutions" usually end up crushing working people in debt, low wages, and massively skyrocketing rent. If they had some results it would be a lot easier to sell ala FDR's New Deal, but the only results they have to show are for the 1% and the big corporations. But they're doing a damn good job of looking out for those guys.