Barack Obama says Democrats need to avoid being a 'buzzkill'

You have to go and find the stuff Biden talked about. They are not playing this up in campaign ads that people are watching during commercials of Last Man Standing or whatever the GOP is watching.

 

Big banks (and tech) have their hands in both parties and generally promote policies that trickle down to plebs.

For instance, the Fed's fascination with the Phillips Curve. More jerbs, less unemployment means economy good right? Does that justify bailing out companies with trash credit ratings by scooping it up hand over fist to evade price discovery? Well it saved millions of jerbs at the time... IMO, zombie corps are zombie corps for a reason. Bailing out **** leadership means the rot stays at the top.

And it also kicked off a wave of corporate share buybacks and juiced stock prices up even further.

The low to zero interest rates that enabled such a move (to finance interest payments of further corporate debt issuance) also deepened the divide of haves (stock and land owners) and have-nots (ride-share "contractors" and non-graduate degree holding "essential workers").

So yes, both parties still worship the fuzzy math of trickle down economics. One side is more honest about it and whether they care more for their bottom line, while the other side pretends to care, will openly lie or claim ignorance about it, despite nominating ex-Goldman, Blackrock, Investment Bankers, etc... in critical economic positions to pursue the same policies.

Biden should've started blaming and downplaying the economy, but he was handed a juiced economy, and that was an opportunity to pass another round of stimulus.

Better to cash that favor then then hold onto an empty promise where it's harder to pass now, I guess.

 

Obama is the first president in my lifetime (and Ike was president when I was born) that I can recall directly attacking voters, rather than just going after politicians, of the opposite party. now it's a standard trope of democratic politics (basket of deplorable, etc), but back in the bitter clinger days, it was new.

 

Hmmm interesting. Do you agree that he probably has the best combo of personal character and intellegence in a while?

Anyways Mad Dog disagrees. He said the first president he saw in his lifetime do what you describe is Trump and I'm assuming you aren't older than Mad Dog and he's old enough to live though the Obama presidency.

 

Obama did not directly attack voters. He was recorded covertly speaking the truth about voters, but it wasn't a campaign to attack voters.

 

I don’t know how old you are but I suspect you were alive when Nixon was. He went after voters. He stoked the culture wars of his time and painted the opposition as hippies and Black Panthers.

 

And California can directly tie its gun laws to St. Ronnie who demonized some black dudes for being armed

 

I don’t take it personally and as I’ve said many times one of the problems is that too many people take debate personally.

sorry i forgot it’s D&D. You’re a fat loser neckbeard!

As said I get your frustration and certainly appreciate the complexities and not wanting to dumb things down. The problem is the margins are very tight. Control of Congress could come down to a few thousand votes in 6 House districts. The Senate and several governor races are likely to be decided by a few thousand votes.

Last night during the Stros game I said let’s be greedy and get more runs. A win is a win but I would rather not go into the 9th with the other team just needing to get one base runner to win the game. In what we’re talking about here we have Sec of State And governor candidates running in that they won’t certify the next election if Biden wins their states. We have House and Senate candidates who also believe that if their side loses extra judicial means are justified to reverse it. I would like to see Democrats figure out how to reach as many voters as they can even if it takes a simplistic hokey message.

 

if memory serves, Obama was president before Trump.

Obama was an exceptional politician, a generational one, and on that criteria the equal of Reagan (who I did not vote for either time). He was certainly facile and articulate (and clean), but I'm not sure that equates with intelligence.

and playing his countrymen against one another is the antithesis of character.

 

his only fault was getting caught.

 

the first campaign I remember was '64, when my parents had the only Goldwater signs on our block. I remember '68 quite clearly, and got invited to the '72 inaugural, even though I was not yet old enough to drive, much less vote.

 

No I'm saying that Mad Dog disagrees and he has lived through both presidencies. I don't think Mad dog is a leftist either. He did say that Trump was the first president of his life time that purposefully divides the nation. Oh and I believe Trump specifically chose Mad Dog to be his defense sec.


I'm disagreeing with your premise that Obama was divisive because of things like rhetoric. I'm saying that is a stupid premise. He was divisive in the sense that he was black and awakened deep resentment from the the conservative white working class demo who got triggered and were inundated with junk food media telling them how the country around them is changing and not looking like them anymore. That Black man with Husaain as a middle name really was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I served all of my time in the military under the Obama presidency and I constantly remember so many of my peers whenever they **** talk Obama they always and I mean almost always have to say his middle name and with a certain inflection. So funny. I love how people like you know try to spin it as Obama being divisive because of words coming out of his mouth rather than being who he is.

 

So then you remember the Nixon campaign and things like the Silent Majority, the Southern Strategy or Nixon calling student protesters bums.

Playing countrymen off of each other to win an election has been around since the earlies days of this country

 

It wasn't a fault. Though it was something his opponents could use.

 

I only wish it was that simple and some of that stuff is already happening.

So where are you running these adds and why do you think anybody is going to watch them that is persuadable?

I don't know when the last time I watched a commercial, especially a political one.

I don't understand why you think anybody that does not know these things already are going to watch and then believe these adds will be persuaded to vote if they are inclined and that they are undecided.

 

Yes Democrats are and there are not many things that will swing voters, the fact that you think there are shows a bit of naïveté on your part.

They have been talking about inflation with the inflation reduction act, even though that act is not really about that.

You want Democrats to just campaign on blaming Trump and the Republicans for everything, that's not going to get anybody to swing since we are so polarized.

What wrong **** are they focused on its been about abortion and what has been accomplished in the last year.

 

You have to go a find what anybody is talking about, it all depends on what you watch.

I have no idea why you think Republicans are going to vote democrat just because a commercial was aired on Last Man Standing.

You really don't understand how all of this works.

Has a candidate ever gotten you to vote for them because you liked their commercial?

 

who is Mad Dog?

 

Trump's former hand picked defense sec

 

Then why do any campaign ads if they aren't to try and convince people? Have ads made me go and research things? Absolutely. You are missing the entire point. Democrats are pandering to their likely voters. They aren't giving anything for fence sitters to look at. I'm sorry, but the economy and crime are going to convince fence sitters more than abortion and school shootings. Here in Texas the Democrats are doing NOTHING in their ads to address the economy and crime. Throw some ads out there which make the fence sitters want to go do their own research.