Strong suggestion for Democrats

I have a strong suggestion for Democrats who are not happy with the Roe v Wade verdict, watered down gun governance and restrictions on civil rights and are fearful of climate change inaction, environmental degradation and health care attacks, they need to vote. Know the rules that have been altered to keep you from voting and get out and vote. You could throw a few million people marches to get their attention as well.

There is a canary in the coal mine that is saying more voters are switching to the GOP (I read 1+ million), including the suburban educated women voters. To me, this tells me that people are listening to messaging coming out of more conservative channels that rakes Dems over the coals. I am not saying that messaging is correct, but people are listening to it.

Dems better crystalize key talking points that will appeal to all Americans and hammer them home. If they appeal to only progressive Dems, they will need to look up what happened to George McGovern in 1972. Watergate was in part related to Nixon wanting to run against McGovern and not Edmund Muskie. He knew he could beat McGovern but knew Muskie would be a tougher challenge. He ran against McGovern and won 49 states to 1.

Note, I am not saying progressive ideas are not good, but they need to be ideas that are saleable to all Americans and not offensive because of poor word choice. For example, “Defund the police” may have not meant exactly what it said, but the term was a gift to Republicans. My old party is bereft of good ideas in my view which is one reason conservative pundit Michael Gerson says the GOP is in “decay.” But, the GOP spin doctors do a better job, aided and abetted by Fox News, QAnon, and Infowars, et al, to focus on over-exaggerated issues where a label can be slapped on it and a bumper sticker created.

And, Dems please note, they are winning at this and expect to take the House and Senate majority. I have said before we need a viable Republican party, but this is not it. The best way to rid the country of this extreme party is not to vote for them.

15 thoughts on “Strong suggestion for Democrats

  1. Never underestimate the folly of the voter. Despite blatant corruption and money pocketing of our former premier in Ontario, people voted him in again.

    • VJ, very true. Nixon turned out to be a crook and a traitor, but was opportunistic. He may have won re-election in 1972, but it should not have been by such a wide margin. What is interesting LBJ had a recording before the 1968 election of Nixon’s treasonous phone call with the South Vietnamese leader to NOT do a peace deal, but chose to say nothing. Nixon won. Obama had evidence of Trump conversing with the Russians before the 2016 election and said nothing. Neither wanted to be accused of tipping the scales, but both chose poorly to be silent.


  2. I think too late, Keith. The die is cast. Whereas the country’s institutions offered some measure of protection against populist narcissistic authoritarians like Trump, these same institutions have been captured now by extremists both Left and Right and so the rot to liberal principles that once guided them and protected all of us against extremes is now I think too far gone to be restored.

    Authoritarianism of the Right – like in pre-war Germany – I think will prove preferable to the majority of middle America than the reality-denying insanity of the Left. There is currently no third option.

    • Tildeb, I hope you are wrong. What Dems who get the notoriety online fail to understand is most Dems do not feel the way they do. That is why Biden won. For the Dems to keep their position, they must remember the last three Dems that won the White House have been moderates. The GOP wants AOC to be the spokesperson for the Dems. I am not saying her ideas are poor, but she is an easy foil for the GOP.

      Thanks for your comment. Keith

      • The vast majority that constitutes the middle electorate (about 80% of the population) has no political voice. The Democratic leadership (and so its policies) from city, state, and federal levels are captured by the extreme (AOC is but one voice) and so we have repeated extreme positions coming at us as a barrage (too many recount here) that are then imposed on everyone. This is the never-ending fuel supply for Republicans to point out the insanity from ‘liberals’ (and thus sway enough voters from the center to ensure electoral victory for Republicans) and it is only increasing (a mandated return of Title IX kangaroo courts just last week, for one simple example). I think that’s the death knell for e plurebus unum. And that’s why there is no hope; there is no political alternative to the Republican take-over. The Democrats clearly are not a solution but a essential part of the anti-democratic, anti-liberal problem that is killing US liberal democracy. Unless that changes (and I don’t see that happening when all I see and read is a doubling down on the anti-reality insanity from the institutions of the left, namely, from legacy news media to universities to Hollywood to social media).

      • Your first sentence speaks volumes. If we set up a moderate party, it would be the death knell of the more extreme leftovers in the two parties. As a former member of both parties, I do not see the Democrat party as poorly as you do, but they are far from perfect. Let me just leave at that. Thanks for your comment. Keith

  3. You are indefatigably correct in your judgement Keith.
    Democrats who truly care for the wellbeing of the USA should look to the UK’s experiences at the end of the last decade.
    Corbyn’s Momentum movement seized the Labour Party and then proceeded to descend into an inward looking group with policies not fitting to the 21st century coupled with a mindset whose response was not to convince voters but to lash out if anyone disagreed with them. And the result is history.
    By good fortune the pragmatists won back control and Johnson’s government proceeded to prove…well no surprises there.
    We have the luxury of the British stumbling, bumbling and fudging through approach which may work out yet.
    You do not.

    • Thanks Roger. We certainly need more pragmatists. I was just reading about one of my favorite Republicans, retired Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson who had co-led with Democrat Erskine Bowles the Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Committee that came up with some workable ideas. Simpson just filmed a commercial advocating for Congresswoman Liz Cheney calling the former president a “spoiled brat” and urging him to “stop the squeal.” Keith

    • Janis, true. What many do not realize is the economy is doing pretty good after he was handed a recession and the stock market continued to grow until of late. Inflation remains a concern which is due to supply chain issues. I would add presidents get too much credit and too much blame for the economy. Yet, those who want to laud Trump should note he was handed the keys on an economy in its 91st consecutive month of economic growth, a more than doubled stock market and six straight years of annual 2+ million jobs growth. And, what he left us with was a recession. So, for those who laud Trump for the continuing growth until the pandemic, they must also laud Obama more. Keith

  4. Good post. Also readying for November: Republicans have remained quiet on two possible emotional boobytraps which undoubtedly they will spring just before elections: who and what Ms.Roe was and the conflicting stories on that, . and that foetal cells are in most or all vaccines nowadays. It would pay to address them now rather than try later.

    • Straight up misinformation about fetal cells in vaccines. There are no fetal cells in vaccines.

      Vaccines are tested on what are called fetal cell lines that have been developed in the lab for decades to verify vaccine efficacy. These cells from these lines have multiplied, creating generations of fetal cell lines. This means that the cells scientists use today for this testing no longer contain any fetal tissue whatsoever.

      To reiterate: vaccines themselves contain no fetal cells. To suggest otherwise is misinformation.

      • Correct. Seee what I mean? Sloppy speaking. I now recognize that there is a difference between “foetal cells” and “foetal cell lines” that originated with a woman’s abortion a half century ago.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.