Edwin Edwards said "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy." The point, of course, is that scandals which shock the moral conscious, especially the sex scandals, move voters. The more Trump pushes back and tries to stem the tide and looks guilty, the more Dems should pile on the pressure.
And why not keep the pressure on the Epstein stuff *and* talk about affordability in contexts where it matters?
Also the two concepts can be linked - Donald Trump is only about himself and will do anything to cover up that he knew Epstein was peddling young girls to skeezy rich men. Meanwhile, you can't buy a house or eat out very often and Trump only cares about himself and his corrupt inner circle.
THIS RIGHT HERE --> "This is how Democrat Doug Jones became a senator in Alabama—not because he talked about affordability, but because Roy Moore was a child predator."
And not because of the prurience; it comes down to values: who has them and who does not. Are you Snidely Whiplash, or are you Dudley Do-Right? It's a distinction so clear a child[/the American voter] can understand it.
Good grief, there is none so blind as he who will not see. There is none so weak as he who will not pound wedges into the opposition.
Which issue has brought irredeemable MAGAs like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert into opposition to Donald Trump? Hint: it wasn’t affordability. Any Democratic officeholder who is getting advice from McKinnon should find themselves a new consultant.
If more elected democrats and their strategists were able to, as you said, “remember that they are the opposition party, and this is a multi-front war” I don’t think the country would be in the situation we’re in.
While I do hope that maybe they’ll finally figure their shit out and stop listening to their big money backed consultants and mealy mouthed pundits about what “real Americans” care about and start linking the gross corruption, cover ups and atrocities with the ‘affordability’ crisis I’m not gonna hold my breath.
It's slightly depressing that we even have to have this discussion. How much more obvious does it have to be, that politics has always been emotional, and in this era of ubiquitous screens and images and videos is even more so? Furthermore, the Republican approach to politics is ONLY emotional, since they hate government and have no ideas to present. What do they run on? Bigotry, fear, xenophobia, religion, homophobia, etc.
How much more viscerally "salient" an issue do you want, than to run against the party that seeks to hide or ignore elite men sexually abusing children? Please tell me Democrats don't have to be convinced of that. I'm beggin' ya.
I think this is a "both, and" situation. I personally didn't appreciate how much this divides MAGA until this summer because I honestly didn't recognize the lengths to which they go to convince themselves Trump is a saint. (My personal favorite argument is "if Trump were guilty of something, we'd all know about." With Merrick Garland in charge of DOJ? I doubt it!) But this sets up a real dilemma for Republicans: a vote to protect their guy will be seen as a vote to protect pedophiles. I'm guessing Dem electeds, who generally live in the real world with the rest of us, likely think, "It's obvious Trump is covering something up, probably his own involvement" but I don't think it's obvious to MAGA. I think some Dems are doing a good job keeping attention on this, but those who find it unseemly could fold it into a larger message about Trump's lawlessness and corruption, which even connects back to affordability. He bailed out Argentina, but cut SNAP and Medicaid. He's building a ballroom but not doing anything to bring down prices. He's protecting the rich and powerful but not you. Etc.
By the time midterms, and especially presidential elections happen, nobody will remember about Epstein, even if it turns out that Trump killed him personally. On the other hand, the healthcare question and affordability issue will still be important as ever, especially for the Midwest swing voters. By concentrating on Epstein, democrats tell these voters that they don't care about their problems, instead pursuing some esoteric crimes of a long dead man.
Agree with Jo, these are not separate issues. Epstein is abuse. Actions that are hurting affordability--chaotic tariffs, refusals on healthcare, mass fed layoffs, ICE sweeps, deportations, on and on--they're all abuse. Thinking about why so many Rs continue to say they want to see the files made public.. The only thing worse than knowing what really happened in my own political family is not knowing what really happened in my own political family. If I could know but cover my eyes, then the abuser retains power over me: I am subject to the abuse.
Of course it's not just a question of past-tense what really happened, it's what's continuing to happen: my vulnerability to these particular, safe to say noxious, elites. Reminding us that there are way many more of us than there are of them. Way many more people who are "real Americans," including all my neighbors and not just eligible voters, than there are people in these particular, noxious, elites.
I still cannot see why they haven't deep sixed the files. They have had months to go through and delete stuff. If you're saying that Trump ordered that, and Bondi and Patel refused, I question that. They sure wouldn't do it out of a high moral standard. SO, tell me what could cause them to fear jail if the act. I mean, maybe someone has a full copy apart from DOJ. It's all very confusing to me.
I wouldn't discount former insiders like McKinnon, et al. They were in the belly of the beast we now fight, though it has changed there are fundamental behaviors they have unique insight into fighting. It's not so much the politician they're analyzing - it's the VOTER. They know how to reach the Republican VOTER, which is also important. Today, to heed their advice might actually improve the success for the Democratic party. They DO know how to fight, they also know WHICH fights are the ones to take on. You can win the battle and lose the war...
Thanks for continuing to beat this drum.! I would probably stress Trump’s fear of oversight in general… over the laws he is breaking, the people’s lives he has destroyed, his distain for free speech, etc, etc., with Epstein being but one element of a vastly corrupt endeavor.
One correction: “They denied hundreds of thousands of New Mexico citizens due representation for 50 days to elongate their Epstein coverup.” Adelina Grijalva is an Arizona representative.
"What would it mean, in practice, for Democrats to “get [Republicans] on their heels, but get back to affordability”?"
This reminds me of how boxing matches used to be fixed. Pretend to out up a good fight until about round 6 or 7, then back off , and then "get back" to falling to the canvas.
Edwin Edwards said "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy." The point, of course, is that scandals which shock the moral conscious, especially the sex scandals, move voters. The more Trump pushes back and tries to stem the tide and looks guilty, the more Dems should pile on the pressure.
And why not keep the pressure on the Epstein stuff *and* talk about affordability in contexts where it matters?
Also the two concepts can be linked - Donald Trump is only about himself and will do anything to cover up that he knew Epstein was peddling young girls to skeezy rich men. Meanwhile, you can't buy a house or eat out very often and Trump only cares about himself and his corrupt inner circle.
I've seen it out in the wild:
Trump is for ME/me.
Democrats are for YOU.
THIS RIGHT HERE --> "This is how Democrat Doug Jones became a senator in Alabama—not because he talked about affordability, but because Roy Moore was a child predator."
And not because of the prurience; it comes down to values: who has them and who does not. Are you Snidely Whiplash, or are you Dudley Do-Right? It's a distinction so clear a child[/the American voter] can understand it.
Good grief, there is none so blind as he who will not see. There is none so weak as he who will not pound wedges into the opposition.
Which issue has brought irredeemable MAGAs like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert into opposition to Donald Trump? Hint: it wasn’t affordability. Any Democratic officeholder who is getting advice from McKinnon should find themselves a new consultant.
Democrats' biggest failure -- well, second biggest -- is thinking that issues are immutable. It's part of their biggest failure: lack of imagination.
"Voters don't care about ..." Oh, I'm sorry; is baby going to have to persuade?
Lack of imagination is most definitely their biggest failure!
“ They denied hundreds of thousands of New Mexico citizens due representation for 50 days to elongate their Epstein coverup.”
Yes walk and chew gum at the same time but at least get the state correct - it’s Arizona not New Mexico.
If more elected democrats and their strategists were able to, as you said, “remember that they are the opposition party, and this is a multi-front war” I don’t think the country would be in the situation we’re in.
While I do hope that maybe they’ll finally figure their shit out and stop listening to their big money backed consultants and mealy mouthed pundits about what “real Americans” care about and start linking the gross corruption, cover ups and atrocities with the ‘affordability’ crisis I’m not gonna hold my breath.
It's slightly depressing that we even have to have this discussion. How much more obvious does it have to be, that politics has always been emotional, and in this era of ubiquitous screens and images and videos is even more so? Furthermore, the Republican approach to politics is ONLY emotional, since they hate government and have no ideas to present. What do they run on? Bigotry, fear, xenophobia, religion, homophobia, etc.
How much more viscerally "salient" an issue do you want, than to run against the party that seeks to hide or ignore elite men sexually abusing children? Please tell me Democrats don't have to be convinced of that. I'm beggin' ya.
I think this is a "both, and" situation. I personally didn't appreciate how much this divides MAGA until this summer because I honestly didn't recognize the lengths to which they go to convince themselves Trump is a saint. (My personal favorite argument is "if Trump were guilty of something, we'd all know about." With Merrick Garland in charge of DOJ? I doubt it!) But this sets up a real dilemma for Republicans: a vote to protect their guy will be seen as a vote to protect pedophiles. I'm guessing Dem electeds, who generally live in the real world with the rest of us, likely think, "It's obvious Trump is covering something up, probably his own involvement" but I don't think it's obvious to MAGA. I think some Dems are doing a good job keeping attention on this, but those who find it unseemly could fold it into a larger message about Trump's lawlessness and corruption, which even connects back to affordability. He bailed out Argentina, but cut SNAP and Medicaid. He's building a ballroom but not doing anything to bring down prices. He's protecting the rich and powerful but not you. Etc.
By the time midterms, and especially presidential elections happen, nobody will remember about Epstein, even if it turns out that Trump killed him personally. On the other hand, the healthcare question and affordability issue will still be important as ever, especially for the Midwest swing voters. By concentrating on Epstein, democrats tell these voters that they don't care about their problems, instead pursuing some esoteric crimes of a long dead man.
Agree with Jo, these are not separate issues. Epstein is abuse. Actions that are hurting affordability--chaotic tariffs, refusals on healthcare, mass fed layoffs, ICE sweeps, deportations, on and on--they're all abuse. Thinking about why so many Rs continue to say they want to see the files made public.. The only thing worse than knowing what really happened in my own political family is not knowing what really happened in my own political family. If I could know but cover my eyes, then the abuser retains power over me: I am subject to the abuse.
Of course it's not just a question of past-tense what really happened, it's what's continuing to happen: my vulnerability to these particular, safe to say noxious, elites. Reminding us that there are way many more of us than there are of them. Way many more people who are "real Americans," including all my neighbors and not just eligible voters, than there are people in these particular, noxious, elites.
I still cannot see why they haven't deep sixed the files. They have had months to go through and delete stuff. If you're saying that Trump ordered that, and Bondi and Patel refused, I question that. They sure wouldn't do it out of a high moral standard. SO, tell me what could cause them to fear jail if the act. I mean, maybe someone has a full copy apart from DOJ. It's all very confusing to me.
I wouldn't discount former insiders like McKinnon, et al. They were in the belly of the beast we now fight, though it has changed there are fundamental behaviors they have unique insight into fighting. It's not so much the politician they're analyzing - it's the VOTER. They know how to reach the Republican VOTER, which is also important. Today, to heed their advice might actually improve the success for the Democratic party. They DO know how to fight, they also know WHICH fights are the ones to take on. You can win the battle and lose the war...
Thanks for continuing to beat this drum.! I would probably stress Trump’s fear of oversight in general… over the laws he is breaking, the people’s lives he has destroyed, his distain for free speech, etc, etc., with Epstein being but one element of a vastly corrupt endeavor.
One correction: “They denied hundreds of thousands of New Mexico citizens due representation for 50 days to elongate their Epstein coverup.” Adelina Grijalva is an Arizona representative.
It's so blatantly obvious that
"Donald Trump spent hours alone at Epstein's house with an underage girl"
Is something that we want every American to hear 1000 times
https://open.substack.com/pub/defiance13/p/on-what-we-should-be-protecting?r=qbe8j&utm_medium=ios
"What would it mean, in practice, for Democrats to “get [Republicans] on their heels, but get back to affordability”?"
This reminds me of how boxing matches used to be fixed. Pretend to out up a good fight until about round 6 or 7, then back off , and then "get back" to falling to the canvas.