The changing Democrat stratagy....

Just "yesterday" we had the mid-term elections. Well, it seems like just yesterday.

The left's mantra was 'race', the war on women, the 'evil' local police departments that required 'Federal intervention'.

The result? Yet another significant loss further increasing GOP gains at all levels of Gov't. The most common explanation for that loss? Low turn-out levels was the "reason". The truth of that explanation is actually further proof that the strategy used by the Democrats was a bust. After all, low turn-out is merely another indication that the left's supporters weren't motivated by that game plan.

(The also low turn-out by the right, if that was the case, was probably due to the rope-a-dope tactics of the GOP Establishment which, nationally, had no mandate to propose largely leaving the general dissatisfaction with the Obama Administration to provide further momentum.)

A change was needed.

The new, or rather, 'front burner' issue is the "billionaires". Increasing the minimum wage. An issue that is a sure bet to repeat, time after time. The extreme is the wage cap crowd. That of course will never happen, it does make the latest hope for the left-Bernie sanders- seem more 'moderate' when positioned beside that wage-cap crowd....slick.

Shoved back is the race war, bad cops, oppression of women, the extremist Christians....even gay marriage... A mere gurgle from the indignant left these days.....

While I'm not following Sanders campaigning, the few points I've seen are easily debunked. Merely putting lip-stick on a pig still leaves a pig.

To give an attempt at fairness, few of the rights candidates inspire either. Perhaps the lady on the right deserves more air-time...she is impressive.

The left? Bottom line, nothing new....yawn.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The recent Democrat strategy has been “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

Don't debate the content of the argument, attack the opponent's character.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Ain't that the truth. lol

The democrooks strategy is let the gop sink there own ship, pretty easy if you ask me. But dont let me get in the way of a good propaganda story.

Democrats wont stop getting away with pillaging the country until the gop figures out where in 2015

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Hmmm, plenty of threads on the right pointing out their 'short-comings'. No disagreement from me on that.

Calling my points propaganda, is a glib cop-out. It's pretty damn accurate, from what I can see...perhaps that's why you call it propaganda. No actual rebut.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
The democrooks strategy is let the gop sink there own ship, pretty easy if you ask me. But dont let me get in the way of a good propaganda story.

Democrats wont stop getting away with pillaging the country until the gop figures out where in 2015

Propaganda story?

Don't you see Dems running the opposite direction that Obama stands?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Both sides play the same game, the demacrooks just seem to have the edge with how the media spins the news, the gop needs to find a strong politician to help them out of there funk.

I was hoping that ron paul would have been nominated last time to get obama out of the office.

a reply to: Granite

I called them demacrooks, what else was i supposed to say, the left and right use the same propaganda tools.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The general feeling I've gotten from the massive losses of 2014 for the Democrats was a combination of not backing Democrat policies by way of total avoidance of the president and his policies, plus the low voter turnout. The Democratic candidates didn't give their voters any reason to be excited, to be riled up. Democrats fled from the president and turned into the typical Democrat of days past where they were apologetic and promised to do better next time. The spineless Democrats, what I like to call them. Running headlong towards the middle rather than standing on the left.

That's why I think Bernie Sanders has gained so much momentum, an unapologetic leftist. There is a 'left' in this country and it's not just the left-of-center people like Obama and Clinton. People need to know that it's not just about what the GOP wants and how Democrats can try and cater to them.

You want to know the real Democratic strategy? Not to splinter. Look at the right and the GOP, 17 candidates, all of which going in every different direction. The Democrats have five candidates, four left of center and one genuine leftist. That's the Democrat's strategy, let the GOP eat each other in the primaries and come full-force against them in the general.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: nwtrucker

Both sides play the same game, the demacrooks just seem to have the edge with how the media spins the news, the gop needs to find a strong politician to help them out of there funk.

I was hoping that ron paul would have been nominated last time to get obama out of the office.

100% truth. There is little actual difference between the 2 camps, the only difference is the media is far more liberal and spins things to favor Democrats.

Left, Right... doesn't matter. They're all incompetent and should be replaced. We keep electing the same thieves and liars, then expect them not to screw us this time around.

a reply to: links234

Well, I could take your post almost verbatim and replace Democrat with Republican. I see the establishment of the GOP as spineless and acquiescing to Obama and the Socialist agenda. The right has had the 'cross to bear' of fighting both the left and the GOP Establishment.

The Dems, at least the way I see it, has far better control of it's membership than the Republicans the evidence is that 17 to 5 difference between the two parties.

Yes, there is a 'left' Sanders is probably the first unabashed Socialist, at least with this much popularity.

One really can't predict what a new President will do as the pre-election rhetoric never matches what we end up with.

The only other factor that, I believe, you omit is those recent election results, The Dems cannot ignore them without serious further consequence. The nature of the beast is to 'tone down' the rhetoric until things swing back down the road...

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: links234

Well, I could take your post almost verbatim and replace Democrat with Republican. I see the establishment of the GOP as spineless and acquiescing to Obama and the Socialist agenda. The right has had the 'cross to bear' of fighting both the left and the GOP Establishment.

I listen to a lot of talk radio. People who call in blame the last two presidential losses on the fact that Romney and McCain weren't conservative enough. I feel like Democrats don't win because they're not liberal enough and always apologizing.

Yes, there is a 'left' Sanders is probably the first unabashed Socialist, at least with this much popularity.

A hundred years ago there was a guy named Eugene Debs who received 3.4% of the vote via write-ins...while he was in prison. In 1912 he got 6% of the vote. Sanders is first modern, popular socialist.

The only other factor that, I believe, you omit is those recent election results, The Dems cannot ignore them without serious further consequence. The nature of the beast is to 'tone down' the rhetoric until things swing back down the road...

When more people vote, Democrats win. I think the Democrats can ignore those results so long as they can get people to vote. The message doesn't need to change, they just need to get out the vote.

a reply to: links234

I think your point that when more people vote democrats win isn't accurate. It isn't numbers, per say, it massive spending on ads and the much easier targeting of a single presidential candidate rather than 100s of local, state and Federal candidates as in the Mid-Terms.

The Obama 'message' was "change". Lord, he wasn't lying, LOL. Not much of a message though.

I agree with the 'talk radio' types and frankly they're saying the same thing you are "not enough 'message'".

Clearly the message of the Mid-terms wasn't energizing anyone and as I opined, adjustments have been made....

a reply to: links234

lus the low voter turnout. The Democratic candidates didn't give their voters any reason to be excited, to be riled up. Democrats fled from the president and turned into the typical Democrat of days past where they were apologetic and promised to do better next time. The spineless Democrats, what I like to call them. Running headlong towards the middle rather than standing on the left.

MB they realized the average American is just not that far left yet, even what with the manufactured "war on women" they slopped on to the GOP. I guess the Sandra Fluke thing stopped working midterm. Americans are getting sick of being told one thing and having something else done to them, which is what happened with the last Presidency. Except for the sacking of the coal industry he did that as promised. Are Americans still buying into that nonsense of AGW ? I've seen a lot of evidence that many are not. The coolness is just not there any more....

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The difference between the two camps is the true conservatives who wont budge on pro life, wont budge on free enterprise, wont budge on stopping illegal immigration and this admins tendency to give away free stuff on the backs of taxpayers, wont budge on things like stopping Common Core and the ACA disaster. The Establishment GOP is still figuring out how to go around conservatives....they thought they could just humiliate everyone who didn't cater to the Progressive agenda.

low turn-out is merely another indication that the left's supporters weren't motivated by that game plan.

NO, it's because young people and minorities usually don't vote in minor elections, and they are both democratic voting groups.

And who cares if they say something new or not? I vote for who supports my interests, or at least is less opposed to them. Who cares about gimmicks?

a reply to: links234

Sanders is too left even for moderates. When people realize his socialist stance, he won't get the pass that current Occupier did.

a reply to: CB328

Who cares about gimmicks?

The whole gimmick of 'Yes We Can" sure worked on a lot of people who thought they were finally going to get a real advocate in, only to find that he was in the back pocket of globalist interests after all. What people need to understand is how deeply entrenched globalism is. The Skull and Bones people go into CFR, the CFR rules our government and industry, banking, energy and the media. Just google who is CFR and see what control they have. The BIlderbergs, the Club of Rome(thank them for Agenda 21) CFR etc are running things.

a reply to: nwtrucker

1. You are spot on correct; and
2. The biggest problem I see for any politician of any party is going to be total lack of any interest on the part of any portion of the voting public.

Put another way...."What if they held and election and......no one showed up to vote?"