-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Negative ads only make sense in the context of a traditional campaign. I'm not even sure how to parse this, all my criticizing of Sanders has been based on the assumption that he's running to accomplish things that have nothing to do with actually being nominated/elected. I thought I understood what those goals were and since I agreed with them I felt comfortable complaining about how he's trying to accomplish them as opposed to whether he should be doing it at all.
But negative ads don't do anything to sell the merits of yourself or your platform. If Sanders was a normal politician who actually used them regularly, then sure it's a different story. And he certainly can and should be more aggressive in trying to critique Hillary at debates and on the stump, but pithy 20 second ads aren't the appropriate way to draw meaningful contrasts, nor is this the ideal time to actually use them.
Sanders is polling well enough and getting enough money to stay in the race and in the public's eye for the foreseeable future. If the campaign's ultimately about getting Sanders as much exposure and air-time as possible and not causing undue harm by accident, then this seems like a bizarre change of direction.
But negative ads don't do anything to sell the merits of yourself or your platform. If Sanders was a normal politician who actually used them regularly, then sure it's a different story. And he certainly can and should be more aggressive in trying to critique Hillary at debates and on the stump, but pithy 20 second ads aren't the appropriate way to draw meaningful contrasts, nor is this the ideal time to actually use them.
Sanders is polling well enough and getting enough money to stay in the race and in the public's eye for the foreseeable future. If the campaign's ultimately about getting Sanders as much exposure and air-time as possible and not causing undue harm by accident, then this seems like a bizarre change of direction.
VendettaRed07
Member
I'd be incredibly disappointed in him if he does this and would challenge everything I've built up in believing as to what kind of politician he is.Sanders going negative?
brainchild
Banned
Well, to be fair, he didn't say he was running negative ads. Won't know what kind they are until we see them, but he's preparing media buys to respond to negative ads at the very least.
Umm
Jennifer Epstein ‏@jeneps 16m16 minutes ago
Sanders' wording a bit unclear but sounded like he was saying the neg ads he's never before done could be in offing
Jennifer EpsteinVerified account
‏@jeneps
Sanders says he's hired a pollster in part "to prepare us for some negative ads that may be coming down the road"
Sounds like he's preparing to go negative to me.
RustyNails
Member
Would it be apt to say, "Please proceed, Governor"?Oh lordy...
Aside from the hilarity of Jeb thinking of himself as the much superior imaginary president from the West Wing, the idea that a goober like him has been failing because he's been holding back is just too much.
shinra-bansho
Member
Eh. It kind of feels like now that Biden is out and Hillary had her comeback October, there's a need for a new story on the Democratic side. So the primary is now apparently going supernegative.
I mean the latest Clinton ad is highly positive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8h7V261UQg
And really strikes a nice note. That's really the sort of campaigns they should be running.
I think Clinton tried to both draw attention to the sexism she's faced, while simultaneously taking a dig at Sanders on guns, and it ended up sounding like she was calling him sexist in some quarters. But I don't really think that was the intent. Likewise, Sanders attacks are largely substantive.
EDIT: Although, I'm going to note here again that while I don't think the claim of sexism on Sanders himself would stick at all, the same cannot be said of some of his legion of internet denizens.
I don't really think the Dems on the whole want their nomination to become a freeforall like the farce on the Republican side.
Sanders' wife was interviewed on Bloomberg by Halperin/Heileman, she seems like a highly eloquent woman. They should try and use her more in the campaign.
I mean the latest Clinton ad is highly positive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8h7V261UQg
And really strikes a nice note. That's really the sort of campaigns they should be running.
I think Clinton tried to both draw attention to the sexism she's faced, while simultaneously taking a dig at Sanders on guns, and it ended up sounding like she was calling him sexist in some quarters. But I don't really think that was the intent. Likewise, Sanders attacks are largely substantive.
EDIT: Although, I'm going to note here again that while I don't think the claim of sexism on Sanders himself would stick at all, the same cannot be said of some of his legion of internet denizens.
I don't really think the Dems on the whole want their nomination to become a freeforall like the farce on the Republican side.
Sanders' wife was interviewed on Bloomberg by Halperin/Heileman, she seems like a highly eloquent woman. They should try and use her more in the campaign.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Hmm, really tough quiz here:
http://www.cafe.com/who-said-it-donald-trump-or-the-white-supremacist-from-american-history-x/
http://www.cafe.com/who-said-it-donald-trump-or-the-white-supremacist-from-american-history-x/
Umm
Sounds like he's preparing to go negative to me.
Context helps:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/...ch-to-african-americans--latinos-552441923694
Pretty clear he's talking about knowing what his numbers are when other people are running negative ads against him.
Also, let's not try to pretend that Bernie is some pioneer of gay rights who was advocated for gay marriage as a civil right in his campaign against DOMA. His critique o DOMA -- at the time -- was purely based on states rights and full faith and credit issues, not on the law being homophobic.
And let's not forget that he was against gay marriage in 2006, even when his Republican opponent was for civil unions. This is also Vermont, one of the most liberal states in the country. Being for gay marriage in 2006 in Vermont was not a politically dangerous position.
And this kicker:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...riage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html
At least Hillary is honest about her evolution. People change their minds. They did about gay marriage. If we're going to point fingers about rewriting history, describing himself as a gay rights pioneer is something Bernie shouldn't do.
And let's not forget that he was against gay marriage in 2006, even when his Republican opponent was for civil unions. This is also Vermont, one of the most liberal states in the country. Being for gay marriage in 2006 in Vermont was not a politically dangerous position.
And this kicker:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...riage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html
Earlier in his political career, Sanders was even more indifferent toward gay rights: As mayor of Burlington in 1990, Sanders told an interviewer that LGBT rights were not a major priority for him. Asked if he would support a bill to protect gays from job discrimination, Sanders responded,
At least Hillary is honest about her evolution. People change their minds. They did about gay marriage. If we're going to point fingers about rewriting history, describing himself as a gay rights pioneer is something Bernie shouldn't do.
Officerrob
Banned
Context helps:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/...ch-to-african-americans--latinos-552441923694
Pretty clear he's talking about knowing what his numbers are when other people are running negative ads against him.
Who's run a negative ad against Sanders?
Didn't Hillary's campaign already go negative on Bernie? She deserves what's coming if true.
Not really, she just hit him on his stance on guns. The media is sadly trying to make this whole thing more than it is, they want a contest and now that they won't have Biden to make it one they'll have to do it themselves.
Hmm, really tough quiz here:
http://www.cafe.com/who-said-it-donald-trump-or-the-white-supremacist-from-american-history-x/
That is one hard test, I usually ace them and I only got 2 right.
That was isolated to the debate, right?Not really, she just hit him on his stance on guns. The media is sadly trying to make this whole thing more than it is, they want a contest and now that they won't have Biden to make it one they'll have to do it themselves.
Re: "let Jeb be Jeb"
Please please pls pls pls pleeeeease
Please please pls pls pls pleeeeease
The US Hair Comb CartelWho's run a negative ad against Sanders?
That was isolated to the debate, right?
The thing about wanting a contest? No way, they want the whole run to the nomination to be competitive. That shit drives ratings, the hack-ier political reporters will absolutely look to create any narrative that paints the race as close.
70% 8)That is one hard test, I usually ace them and I only got 2 right.
Hardest one I've seen is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P4m7EiQlSQ
No, I meant Hillary complaining about Bernie's gun record. Just wondering if she went negative on him or not. I think she gets a pass if that was it.The thing about wanting a contest? No way, they want the whole run to the nomination to be competitive. That shit drives ratings, the hack-ier political reporters will absolutely look to create any narrative that paints the race as close.
Also, let's not try to pretend that Bernie is some pioneer of gay rights who was advocated for gay marriage as a civil right in his campaign against DOMA. His critique o DOMA -- at the time -- was purely based on states rights and full faith and credit issues, not on the law being homophobic.
And let's not forget that he was against gay marriage in 2006, even when his Republican opponent was for civil unions. This is also Vermont, one of the most liberal states in the country. Being for gay marriage in 2006 in Vermont was not a politically dangerous position.
Yeah, Maddow rightfully grilled him on this tonight:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders--corporate-greed-destroying-america-552440387620
Full DOMA talk here:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-draws-distinction-on-gay-rights-552439363798
Who's run a negative ad against Sanders?
No one yet, he said "down the road"
RustyNails
Member
Yep, this is just typical, baseless media speculation frenzy in an election season. It's like they purposefully create smoke and suggest to readers that there's fire. Probably drives the ratings, clicks, views, etc. Boring campaigns are bad for business. Remember the "multiple sources" saying Biden was going to jump in? Media wants to make fetch happen with the democratic campaign and turn this into a horse race between Sanders and Hillary.Eh. It kind of feels like now that Biden is out and Hillary had her comeback October, there's a need for a new story on the Democratic side. So the primary is now apparently going supernegative.
I mean the latest Clinton ad is highly positive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8h7V261UQg
And really strikes a nice note. That's really the sort of campaigns they should be running.
I think Clinton tried to both draw attention to the sexism she's faced, while simultaneously taking a dig at Sanders on guns, and it ended up sounding like she was calling him sexist in some quarters. But I don't really think that was the intent. Likewise, Sanders attacks are largely substantive.
EDIT: Although, I'm going to note here again that while I don't think the claim of sexism on Sanders himself would stick at all, the same cannot be said of some of his legion of internet denizens.
I don't really think the Dems on the whole want their nomination to become a freeforall like the farce on the Republican side.
Sanders' wife was interviewed on Bloomberg by Halperin/Heileman, she seems like a highly eloquent woman. They should try and use her more in the campaign.
Fact is, Sanders is smart. He knows he can't win, and that Hillary is the only answer that keeps a republican white house from happening. He is also principled. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by attacking Hillary. Same is true in Hillary's case. She will need the support of Sanders coalition in the general. And besides, you dont run negative ads against someone who's trailing you in double digits.
Its a big fat nothingburger.
And_Gignac
Member
No. She's absolutely incorrect, and it's exactly the type of 90s-esque gay rights revisionist history that's taken hold when it comes to the Clintons. "There was no threat of a FMA until 2004!" she screams, forgetting that the actual FMA was introduced into Congress in 2002. And what would've happened in DOMA didn't pass, or was never introduced? "Clinton must be lying because FMA wasn't introduced until20042002!" is a terrible argument, because that does absolutely nothing to refute the claims by both Hillary and Bill that there were talks of a FMA and that DOMA was used as a compromise. A FMA wasn't introduced until20042002. No one is denying this. The actual argument that Clinton is putting forth is that there was talk of introducing this legislation because of Baehr.
Also, if you want to see why "educating" the populace on his convictions would have been a terrible idea:
"True leadership is timeless" is a nice piece, but also is a fucking terrible piece of policy when it comes to gay rights in the 90s that forgets the context of the time, something that it's pretty standard when it comes to gay rights advocates of the era.
This is the type of arguments by Sanders supporters that drives me a fucking wall. No, Clinton should've vetoed DOMA, hugged the nearest queer person, and demanded that gay marriage is the law of the land and anyone who disagrees is a homophobe That would've worked.
I completely understand where you are coming from, and I understand the morality behind such a vote with a political situation like that. I still dont believe it was the right choice, and that LGBT people were let down for political convenience. The left could have done more instead of giving up, specially house dems and Bill Clinton.
Dems during DOMA passing days didnt predict the fast turn around gay rights would have. And thats makes the passing of DOMA even more reprehensible. Because they got their cake and ate it too.
I hope he is ready to be devoured.
He is not running negative ads, nothing about what he or his campaign manager said implied that. Jeez...hold your hunger to dragging him off his moral high-horse, Clinton-GAF.
No, I meant Hillary complaining about Bernie's gun record. Just wondering if she went negative on him or not. I think she gets a pass if that was it.
Lemme ask you this: Why would a candidate that is like 35-40 points up on their opponent go negative? At that margin all you need to do is cruise to victory and keep doing what you've been doing.
shinra-bansho
Member
Sanders went aggressive at the Jefferson-Jackson, hitting her on a variety of issues; trade, gay marriage, environmentalism, somewhat questioning her principles and character. And in fairness these are valid critiques that she has often taken stances that are palatable to the general electorate.If he's just responding to attacks, I can't blame him.
Clinton also hit him primarily on guns there, but in a way that can be taken as implying sexism/double standards. And in fairness, it does seem like the only issue where apparently shouting for change isn't useful.
Neither referred to each other by name.
Hillary has the unskewed polls.Lemme ask you this: Why would a candidate that is like 35-40 points up on their opponent go negative? At that margin all you need to do is cruise to victory and keep doing what you've been doing.
Vox has more on the budget deal.
$40 billion for non-defense ($25 in 2016), $40 billion for defense ($25 in 2016), and $32 billion to overseas contingency (i.e. the war fund).
Payfors: the sequester cuts to Medicare aren't lifted, sell a bunch of oil from the reserve, telecom spectrum auctions, cuts to farm subsidies.
Changes to SSDI that claim to save a lot of money, not really clear how, but not privatization.
I want more detail about the Medicare and SSDI stuff.
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9619214/budget-deal-congress
$40 billion for non-defense ($25 in 2016), $40 billion for defense ($25 in 2016), and $32 billion to overseas contingency (i.e. the war fund).
Payfors: the sequester cuts to Medicare aren't lifted, sell a bunch of oil from the reserve, telecom spectrum auctions, cuts to farm subsidies.
Changes to SSDI that claim to save a lot of money, not really clear how, but not privatization.
I want more detail about the Medicare and SSDI stuff.
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9619214/budget-deal-congress
And_Gignac
Member
If he's just responding to attacks, I can't blame him.
Clinton implied Sanders saying gun control debate is all about shouting at each other was a sexist remark against her womanhood, when Sanders was clearly talking about both sides antagonizing each other, not about Hillary screaming.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Vox has more on the budget deal.
$40 billion for non-defense ($25 in 2016), $40 billion for defense ($25 in 2016), and $32 billion to overseas contingency (i.e. the war fund).
Payfors: the sequester cuts to Medicare aren't lifted, sell a bunch of oil from the reserve, telecom spectrum auctions, cuts to farm subsidies.
Changes to SSDI that claim to save a lot of money, not really clear how, but not privatization.
I want more detail about the Medicare and SSDI stuff.
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9619214/budget-deal-congress
Blerg, I hope they didn't take too much away from Disability.
I completely understand where you are coming from, and I understand the morality behind such a vote with a political situation like that. I still dont believe it was the right choice, and that LGBT people were let down for political convenience. The left could have done more instead of giving up, specially house dems and Bill Clinton.
Dems during DOMA passing days didnt predict the fast turn around gay rights would have. And thats makes the passing of DOMA even more reprehensible. Because they got their cake and ate it too.
He is not running negative ads, nothing about what he or his campaign manager said implied that. Jeez...hold your hunger to dragging him off his moral high-horse, Clinton-GAF.
Democrats have a more complicated relationship with their gay constituents than they'd probably like to admit. That's for sure.
Vox has more on the budget deal.
$40 billion for non-defense ($25 in 2016), $40 billion for defense ($25 in 2016), and $32 billion to overseas contingency (i.e. the war fund).
Payfors: the sequester cuts to Medicare aren't lifted, sell a bunch of oil from the reserve, telecom spectrum auctions, cuts to farm subsidies.
Changes to SSDI that claim to save a lot of money, not really clear how, but not privatization.
I want more detail about the Medicare and SSDI stuff.
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9619214/budget-deal-congress
Huffpo has this.
The deal being negotiated this week is offset with cuts elsewhere. According to sources, Congress would cover some of the costs by selling additional broadcast spectrum bandwidth and oil from the strategic petroleum reserve, as well as by making changes to crop insurance programs. A host of lesser known items also would likely find the chopping block.
But the real pay-for would be felt on two major entitlement programs. The deal would extend the sequester's cuts to mandatory spending through 2025, which mostly involves a 2 percent cut in reimbursements to Medicare doctors. That reduction was scheduled to expire in 2021 under the 2011 Budget Control Act, which put sequestration into place. It was extended to 2023 under Murray-Ryan deal.
The new agreement also would prevent a 20 percent cut in benefits next year to the 11 million Americans enrolled in the Social Security Disability Insurance program. The cut would be avoided by diverting some of the incoming payroll tax money from Social Security's much bigger retirement insurance program for six years, something Republicans previously said they wouldn't do without cuts to benefits.
Hill sources said the disability changes would save roughly $4 billion to $5 billion over 10 years by requiring all states to have doctors review initial disability applications, which in some states are now checked by Social Security Administration officials and not medical professionals.
One source said the deal would also set up demonstration projects in which some people who receive disability benefits could earn money from working with less fear of triggering a review that can result in benefits being cut off. Instead, people participating in the projects could see their benefits gradually curtailed as their income rises -- an idea Ryan seemed to favor at a hearing earlier this year.
Democrats are unlikely to be overly offended by a demonstration project if the deal prevents the looming 20 percent benefit cut. Demonstration projects also served as a consolation prize for conservatives after they failed to get bigger cuts to food stamps in a farm bill last year.
One source questioned why Republicans would like the disability part of the bargain, since it's unlikely to be too upsetting to Democrats. "It's not bad enough to buy Freedom Caucus votes," said the source, referencing the band of House conservatives who have demanded continued austerity in such negotiations.
Retromelon
Member
Dinesh Desouza is a ziploc bag of jism masquerading as an intellectHonestly, the worst strategy I've heard of.
Jeb: "I love books about how race influences intelligence... And I really hate Social Security."
QuiteWhittle
Member
What if Comey says Hillary should go to jail for the way she handled her e-mail server and Democrats literally have no one? Oh man that would be pure lunacy
Budget deal seems... okay but I'm not feeling the cuts to disability insurance. Shit's just not right.
I'm sure conservatives would go crazy, but is there anything preventing Obama from pardoning Clinton if she actually got indicted? Just curious.
I think she'd have a hard time winning election under those circumstances.I'm sure conservatives would go crazy, but is there anything preventing Obama from pardoning Clinton if she actually got indicted? Just curious.
What if Comey says Hillary should go to jail for the way she handled her e-mail server and Democrats literally have no one? Oh man that would be pure lunacy
Budget deal seems... okay but I'm not feeling the cuts to disability insurance. Shit's just not right.
Huffpo says they are avoiding the cuts.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I can't tell if the young left is good or garbage at political strategy.
There's got to be tactics from the right that can be taken and used against Greer instead of new tactics which the media dislikes being used. Greer is getting way too much defense for a horrid bigot, is there any way to better marginalize people like Greer without getting in the media?
There's got to be tactics from the right that can be taken and used against Greer instead of new tactics which the media dislikes being used. Greer is getting way too much defense for a horrid bigot, is there any way to better marginalize people like Greer without getting in the media?
Huffpo says they are avoiding the cuts.
Well, kind of. They are avoiding automatic cuts that would kick in if the trust fund became exhausted. Which is basically the SSDI version of the doc fix -- nobody really wants the automatic cuts to kick in, so they did the minimum necessary, which is to redirect money from the other trust fund. Doesn't do anything for or against SS in the long-term, it's just budgetary illusion.
The Medicare cuts are also meaningless. Any bill that makes cuts in 2024 and 2025 is obviously irrelevant, it'll get changed long before then. So that's an ideal payfor.
The disability eligibility stuff is the iffy bit. I guess it was inevitable that getting eligibility was going to get harder, but I don't actually think it's great policy. Poor disabled people aren't, on the whole, great at navigating bureaucracy. Not sure how bad it will be.
Huffpo also says there's a tiny Obamacare repeal in the deal (it's the requirement for a large employer to automatically enroll people in plans instead of having them be opt-in, which I also think is good but minor policy). I'm surprised it's not the medical device tax. That sucker is invincible.
No idea, but holy shit.I'm sure conservatives would go crazy, but is there anything preventing Obama from pardoning Clinton if she actually got indicted? Just curious.
How long is it going to take for the FBI to complete their investigation? What if it's finished in the month leading up to the election and it turns out to be really bad for Hillary? Can you imagine? HAHA
I can't tell if the young left is good or garbage at political strategy.
Political strategy is for politicians, demanding policies is the purview of the electorate. The young left is damn good at getting out into the streets and making demands, but they're shit at following through with votes, making their demands less influential on politicians' political strategies.
They better not make it more difficult for disabled folks to figure out how the hell they can get on/stay on it...The disability eligibility stuff is the iffy bit. I guess it was inevitable that getting eligibility was going to get harder, but I don't actually think it's great policy. Poor disabled people aren't, on the whole, great at navigating bureaucracy. Not sure how bad it will be.
Huffpo also says there's a tiny Obamacare repeal in the deal (it's the requirement for a large employer to automatically enroll people in plans instead of having them be opt-in, which I also think is good but minor policy). I'm surprised it's not the medical device tax. That sucker is invincible.
The ACA repeal regarding the opt-in is for >200 employees I believe.
JesseEwiak
Member
I can't tell if the young left is good or garbage at political strategy.
There's got to be tactics from the right that can be taken and used against Greer instead of new tactics which the media dislikes being used. Greer is getting way too much defense for a horrid bigot, is there any way to better marginalize people like Greer without getting in the media?
Old people have always complained about young people not listening to old people with dumb ideas. I'm sure there were plenty of articles bashing hippies for taking over campuses all over the country and that's far more radical than some people saying they don't want their tuition money going to a bigot.
User 463088
Banned
I am definitely anything but a Sander's defender, but I highly doubt he would go negative. I disagree with him on a few things, but I do think he is principled and believes in what he says. He says he won't go negative, and I'll take him at his word.
Having said that, I think a lot of it will depend on what he or his campaign considers an "attack." In someone online quarters, saying you're not voting for Bernie is immediately an attack against Bernie, liberalism, and progressive values. Pointing out differences is not a negative attack.
Having said that, I think a lot of it will depend on what he or his campaign considers an "attack." In someone online quarters, saying you're not voting for Bernie is immediately an attack against Bernie, liberalism, and progressive values. Pointing out differences is not a negative attack.
brainchild
Banned
Context helps:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/...ch-to-african-americans--latinos-552441923694
Pretty clear he's talking about knowing what his numbers are when other people are running negative ads against him.
I understand the context, but if that quote from that tweet about negative ads no longer considered to be off the table is actually true, then that implies more than simply strategizing his message around poll numbers. If the quote is true, it would imply a response in kind regarding negative ads, which is very uncharacteristic of Bernie.
And speaking of context, look at his recent behavior, he's completely shifted gears since the debate! He's is now criticizing Hillary's leadership potential and he has never publicly went on record to say that before. Considering his new approach, it seems like things could be pointing in the direction of negative ads, even without that tweet.
curlyfriski
Banned
"Progress should be as fast and as easy as posting on Twitter/Facebook." - 18 to 29 year old Sanders supporters.
Yes but that is why "we need a revolution"
#feelthebern
#shillary
#specialinterest
#youngwhitemalecollegestudent
Just stopping by to call out these posts for their incredible corniness.
Fenderputty
Banned
I don't really see it that way, because in the best case scenario we gave up nothing and the GOP capitulated on everything. So, I mean, that's not really negotiating over the threat of default. It actually used to be extremely common to roll the debt ceiling increase into other budgetary bills to make it easier to vote for -- that's part of why it didn't come up as much before Obama's tenure. So this is kind of a return to "regular order."
If there are meaningful cuts to entitlements then I agree we fucked up, but, again, I think that would mainly be a consequence of Obama's intense desire to cut entitlements regardless of the GOP's constant efforts to stymie him doing anything.
This is a fair point. I'm probably being overly cynical regarding the best case.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Just stopping by to call out these posts for their incredible corniness.
Just calling it like I see it bud.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Political strategy is for politicians, demanding policies is the purview of the electorate. The young left is damn good at getting out into the streets and making demands, but they're shit at following through with votes, making their demands less influential on politicians' political strategies.
Events like Greer's lecture don't fit well into possible policy decisions by the state and need to be handled by the people though.
rocketknight
Member
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/theres-brand-new-david-vitter-scandal-doesnt-involve-hookers/
The same day that the coffee shop incident happened, David Vitter was in the area and was a passenger in a Mercedes-Benz which was involved in a minor car accident. According to local sources, David Vitter was quickly whisked away in another vehicle by a staffer and the driver of the Mercedes was cited for improper lane usage. The driver was 36-year-old Courtney Gaustella Callihan, the wife of Bill Callihan, a director at Capital One Bank. Their home address is also listed as the address for Fund for Louisiana, the Super PAC backing Vitter, according to documents filed with the FEC.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.