Nah, people don't like out of touch dorks who pretend to be someone they're not. As for why that's more revolting than looney tunes MTGs or Palins, I guess narcissism does play into it. Mediocrity is less threatening? Not wanting to get suckered or looking the fool also factors in...Something like getting burned by the village idiot is probably less hurtful to the average voter's pride than some elitist or intellectual snob who swindled you for your own good.
I don't know and don't really care about the label Oreo... I think he's a real black guy who has lived an experience of a black guy in America. I just think he's politically ambitious and knows that if he walks a fine line, he can present a different side of conservative politics. I think he's walked the tight rope for 4 years, has stuck his neck slightly (not nearly enough) when Trump was overtly being racist, and seems to think he can rise to the top by being Mr Chick Fil A all American Conservative, and just ignoring that his parties #1 driving force is white grievance and NOT Conservative policy. I don't think Tim Scott thinks he's being used as much as he is for 99% of the party to claim they aren't racist because of Tim Scott, but he certainly is being used. If he knows he's being used, and is doing what he's doing just for power and money then there are lots of examples in pop culture and history to describe someone like Tim Scott, but I follow politics enough to think that he legit believes he can be his own man within a party that is 99% about White Nationalism at this point, and the 1% that is still Conservative he can pigeon hole himself into that wedge and look the other way on everything else.
"Democrats fret over Biden spending": https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/551838-democrats-fret-over-biden-spending
WOW! People in the same party can have disagreements on policy. Who would have thought such a thing was possible?
Just what I was thinking. However, I have a couple of issues with the poll. Number one is, who or what is Echelon Insights? Never heard of it. Where do you find this stuff, @Os Trigonum? Golly! The other is, why was "capitalism" even listed in the poll? Clearly it was a "fishing expedition" looking for something that could be used to criticize the Democratic Party. We (I'm a Democrat) don't spend time worrying about "capitalism." We're too busy worrying about how to make money using capitalism, or in my case, enjoying the fruits of capitalism in retirement.
People are whining because it isn't the most beautiful bill they've ever heard proposed in their lives. Believe me, I've heard better!
"Anti-Racist Messaging Is Failing With Voters. So Why Can't Liberals Quit It? | Opinion": https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...berals-quit-it-opinion/ar-BB1gxbxn?li=BBnbfcL excerpt: . . . English and Kalla took six different policies—increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour, forgiving $50,000 in student loan debt, the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, upzoning housing, and decriminalizing mar1juana and erasing prior convictions—and then asked people if they supported them. But they framed the issues differently to see which rationale was most compelling. To one group, they explicitly emphasized that the policy will benefit a specific racial group or promote racial equity (the "race" frame). To another they spoke about how a policy would promote economic justice or benefit a specific class group (the "class" frame). For a third group, they used both the race and class frame together. And for a final group, they used a neutral frame that explained the policy but made no mention of race or class. What they found is that the class frame was generally more effective than either the race frame or the race plus class frame. "Despite observed increases in support for racial justice and Democratic elites' use of race and class plus race frames in their public messaging, we find no evidence that Americans are persuaded by these policy frames," they conclude in their paper. "After this summer, everyone wanted to believe that you know we had this great awakening that everyone now is aware of racial equity and we need to fix it, but I think our results suggest kind of the opposite," English told me. *** But that's not the whole story here. It wasn't just that some white voters were turned off by race-oriented messaging. For African Americans, the only minority group surveyed in high enough numbers to draw a conclusion, the race frame seemed to have no advantage over the class frame. "Something really important that we found is that the race appeal and the class appeal are about just as effective for Black voters," English told me, speculating that these voters tend to be more pragmatic in their political approach. Interestingly, English and Kalla did find one group that was slightly receptive to the race framing, but it might not be the one why you expect: It was white Democrats. It's worth wondering why progressives, particularly white progressives, have become so fixated on racial messaging if there's so little evidence that it actually works to persuade voters to support their policies. Political parties spend mountains of money on survey and focus group work; English and Kalla's paper may be the latest showing how ineffective racial messaging can be, but it certainly isn't the first bit of research to demonstrate that finding. My guess is that the progressive movement is simply captured by an upper-class elite for whom anti-racism is now an all-dominating philosophy. Sure, it may not persuade your average voter—white or Black or anyone else—to support your political party to frame every message in terms of race, but it probably does impress your social cohort. There's a reason elite prep schools are now embracing critical race theory, while most working-class communities and public schools would find some of its tenets esoteric and unrelatable. And what this latest study shows is that this elite cohort that runs everything from the major news media to the universities to America's political parties is deeply out of touch, not only with average Americans but perhaps its own political interests. Self-defeating messaging is self-defeating, even if it makes you feel good and impresses people who already agree with you. more at the link
Wa Wait... for some reason you forgot to link to the part where Jonathan Turley gave his commentary on the situation. If you have that key information we are missing, and could post that I'd appreciate it... THANKS!! (Also Biden with a 63% approval rating just the other day. Maybe that helps describe the state of the party.. maybe not... who knows).
"HAMAS ATTACKS ON ISRAEL DIVIDE DEMOCRATS": https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/05/hamas-attacks-on-israel-divide-democrats.php excerpt: What do Chuck Schumer, Robert Menendez, and Stenny Hoyer have in common? At least two things. First, all three are Democrats who support Israel’s right to defend itself against the missile attacks launched by Hamas. Second, all three are at least 67 years old. Schumer is 70, Menendez 67, and Hoyer 81. Israel’s support from Democratic lawmakers is largely confined to old-timers. The new generation of congressional Dems is either ambivalent about Israel or, like the Squad, openly hostile to the Jewish State. The Washington Post reports that “a new crop of younger lawmakers willing to challenge the party’s pro-Israel orthodoxy has put pressure on the Biden administration and congressional leaders amid polling showing growing skepticism among Democrats about Israeli actions.” more at the link
"Tensions Among Democrats Grow Over Israel as the Left Defends Palestinians": https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/15/...&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=Politics excerpt: With President Biden in the White House, traditional U.S. support for Israel is hardly in question from a policy perspective; he has made his support for the country clear throughout his nearly 50 years in public life. Still, the terms of the debate are shifting in Democratic circles. On Thursday, a group of leading progressive members of Congress offered a rare break from party unity, giving fiery speeches on the House floor that accused Mr. Biden of ignoring the plight of Palestinians and “taking the side of the occupation.” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York directly challenged the president, who had asserted that Israel had a right to defend itself. “Do Palestinians have a right to survive?” she asked in an impassioned address. “Do we believe that? And if so, we have a responsibility to that as well.” Less than 24 hours later, on Friday, nearly 150 prominent liberal advocacy organizations issued a joint statement calling for “solidarity with the Palestinian residents” and condemning “Israeli state violence” and “supremacy” in Jerusalem. The statement was signed not just by groups focused on Middle Eastern and Jewish issues but by groups dedicated to causes like climate change, immigration, feminism and racial justice — a sign that for the party’s liberal faction, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has moved far beyond the realm of foreign policy. “The base of the party is moving in a very different direction than where the party establishment is,” Mr. Zogby said. “If you support Black Lives Matter, it was not a difficult leap to saying Palestinian lives matter, too.” Leaders of the country’s biggest pro-Israel lobby, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, say they are confident of their support from the White House and Capitol Hill, pointing to continued congressional backing of several billion dollars in aid to Israel annually. Before Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and other liberals took the House floor on Thursday, other Democratic lawmakers offered their “unwavering and steadfast support” for Israel. “Please don’t be fooled by false choices: Israel or Hamas,” Representative Ted Deutch, a Democrat from Florida, said in a floor speech. “If I am asked to choose between a terrorist organization and our democratic ally, I will stand with Israel.” The Biden administration did not respond to a request for comment about the criticism from the left. more at the link
Almost Biden's entire Cabinet top-level (true decision-makers) are Jewish. As was the case with Trump, by the way.
You need to understand H.D. He is not like the rest of us. Whatever you do, don't ask him about Enron or Ken Lay. It's taken a decade+ for him to calm down this much and make a reappearance.
