General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI see that James Talarico is doing something that Kamala did not
During his interview with Lawrence last night, he defined his opponent with surgical precision. Incorporated in every answer was the term "the most corrupt politician in America" about Paxton. He also referred almost as often to Paxton enriching himself and doing nothing to lower prices. He was a master at pivoting to those two things no matter what the subject and still answering the question.
Ironically, this may be one good thing that comes out of the 2024 "autopsy" which found that Dems did not define their opponent. The simple fact is that you can have all the great ideas in the world (and Dems do) but first you need to "dirty up" your opponent. That way, voters will listen more critically to their lies and name-calling
Kamala did a great job and I am not trying to second guess her. She was in an impossible position in many ways and she did a great job with what she was handed. But if we can learn something from that race, let's do do. Defining your opponent AND presenting a positive vision for the future is unbelievably difficult. But from what I saw from Talarico last night, he understands that and is going to do it!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
leftieNanner
(16,176 posts)And he also needs to reach out to lifelong Republicans and convince them that they haven't gotten such a great deal under their "leadership".
senseandsensibility
(25,622 posts)but since I was a teacher for decades, and I know that Talarico also was a classroom teacher, I have faith that he can do it. In teaching, you have to stay focused and on message yet be able to react to behavior problems, lack of understanding from students, distractions of various kinds. You have to be flexible and switch up your approach in a calm, logical way but still maintain your focus on the material you are teaching. I recognize his teaching experience in his technique during interviews. 
peggysue2
(12,619 posts)But I agree, Talarico's teaching background gives him an edge, particularly when you know that Republicans are going to throw every weaponized cultural question his way to distract, deflect and shape the narrative to their advantage. Also, use all the name calling you'd expect of the Trump fluffer Paxton.
Talarico's vegan response was quick and good, humor at its most effective. The Republicans are already dubbing the man Talafreako because of former comments regarding gender. They're also suggesting he may be gay, he may be this, he may be that.
Talarico's challenge will be to deflect the smears with the same grace and humor Mamdani managed while highlighting Paxton's indisputable criminality then punching through with his own positive, working-class vision for the future.
Mamdani did this. Platner (whether you like him or not) is skilled in this sort of street fight. I'm hoping Talarico finds his own footing and brings his own passion to the fore without over-reacting to the garbage Republicans will undoubtedly throw at him.
If he does that, it will be the end of Paxton's slimy career.
dalton99a
(95,538 posts)
travelingthrulife
(5,636 posts)Only another Christian addressing this could possibly impact them because they are so rigid in their thinking. Catholicism and Mormonism do not count for MAGA christians since they do not believe they are true Christians.
senseandsensibility
(25,622 posts)but from what I've seen, Talarico is very good at doing just what you are suggesting.
pat_k
(13,940 posts)The difference is between having personal beliefs others may vehemently disagree with, and seeking to impose those beliefs as a matter of law.
And that is the simple definition of a Christian Nationalist: People who are committed to passing laws that impose their PERSONAL religious beliefs on Americans who DO NOT SHARE those beliefs. Seeking to pass such laws is both deeply Un-Christian and Un-American.
What is SERIOUSLY problematic is overgeneralizing or using the label "Christian" when what you are talking about and objecting to is Christian Nationalism.
Frankly, just being a racist does not cross a red line in America. Each of us has a right to hold hatreds, personal animosities, or other awful beliefs in our hearts. (Just as we have a right to hold more benevolent, compassionate beliefs). Where the red line is crossed is when people break the law to harm or discriminate, or they empoy the levers of governmental power, whether judicial, legislative, or executive, to implement those personal beliefs as a matter of enforceable public policy. Doing that is an intolerable violation of constitutional moral principles.
And I don't think there is anyone who does a better job of speaking out against Christian Nationalism -- speaking against the cancer on Christianity that Christian Nationalism represents -- than James Talarico.
Festivito
(13,929 posts)pat_k
(13,940 posts)I saw him as an incredibly effective voice desperately needed on the national stage at a time when the rise of Christian Nationalists and White Supremacists represents perhaps the biggest threat we face.
I was delighted to see his star on the rise as a leading voice in the walkout to break quorum on redistricting. And I was over the moon when he announced he was running for the U.S. Senate.
I'm not a Christian, but I pray to whatever powers may be that Ted Cruz is forced to welcome him to the Senate as the Jr. Senator from Texas on Jan 3 2027.
summer_in_TX
(4,299 posts)The man for the moment.
We can help by refusing to use the word Christian about them, not Christian Nationalist, Christian Evangelical, Christian Fascist, or Christian Taliban. That just confuses people into thinking they are yet another Christian denomination. The word to describe this is christopretensism (and its derivatives). They are christopretenders.
leftstreet
(41,276 posts)Nothing Harris said would make a MAGA say, "OMG I didn't realize that! I'm not voting for the guy"
Trump, like Paxton was a known corrupt entity. MAGAs vote for them BECAUSE of it.
Talarico needs to get back to his Jesus Wants National Healthcare and Cheaper Rent stuff
senseandsensibility
(25,622 posts)We agree about that.
Bluetus
(3,125 posts)This are another 50 million who are not so hard core, but they perceived the Harris campaign as being about abortion and not much else. I'm not saying that Harris talked only about abortion, but there really were no other memorable proposals. I agree she had a nearly impossible task because, if she took stronger positions, that invited a contrast with Biden who finished his career in a very unfortunate way.
We have to define the opponent, AND we must offer real alternatives, not just vague platitudes. Look at Mamdani. He was VERY specific about the tax policy he was going to pursue, the housing policy, day care programs, and transportation programs. Very, very specific. And as a consequence he ended up with a mandate which helped him enact these solutions quickly.
When was the last time a Democrat has been elected President with a set of mandates for specific programs he was going to implement. You may have to go all the way back to Kennedy or Johnson for that. Or Eisenhower with the interstate highway plan. I consider Eisenhower a Democrat. He certainly would be a Democrat in today's politics.
senseandsensibility
(25,622 posts)Now is the time to go big! 
questionseverything
(11,995 posts)Bluetus
(3,125 posts)And of course, there was no public option even considered. Obamacare is all private insurance, but it did include some other worthwhile reforms that aren't much discussed.
Mad_Machine76
(25,026 posts)There was a public option considered near passage of the act, but it got derailed by that era's Democratic turncoat, Joe Lieberman, who threatened to torpedo the whole thing if it wasn't taken out.
Bluetus
(3,125 posts)Obama took the public option off the table before there were any negotiations with Republicans. He decided he couldn't get enough votes for the public option, so he adopted a strategy of letting the for-profit private companies remain in control, and try to control some of their most abusive practices.
We will never know whether something better was possible because it was never allowed to be part of the debate.
Obama was definitely from the Clintonian "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" camp. I understand that argument, but when you don't take clear positions on anything, you don't have a mandate.
Mad_Machine76
(25,026 posts)Bluetus
(3,125 posts)We always seem to have one two assholes that are willing to ruin it for everyone else (SInema, Manchin, Fetterman).
But the WIki article says it accurately IMHO:
I would dispute that last bit about campaigning for it all the way to the end. Obama took it off the table early on. I guess he decided he couldn't get past Lieberman.
He certainly could have mentioned the public option while campaigning. There was gaslighting galore while the legislation was going through ("death panels" etc), so most people were totally unaware that "Obamacare" was in fact going to be largely a continuation of the same for-profit system we have always had. And now, 16 years later, we are still paying double what any other western country pays and UHC and everybody else is still trying to use the same abusive denial-of-care practices they always did.
I don't blame Obama for that last bit. The Republicans have been taking Obamacare apart, brick-by-brick. Systematically, every year.
I do wonder why there aren't more Dems very clear about at least having the option to expand traditional Medicare, or even taking the slightest steps to oppose the abuses of "Advantage".
Mad_Machine76
(25,026 posts)when Lieberman torpedoed it and Obama had to make the difficult decision of having Democrats in the Senate and House cut it out so at least the rest of the ACA could pass. It did pass the House. It ultimately died in the Senate. Obama (rightly IMHO) wasn't willing to lose the entire thing for it. How much he campaigned for it is debatable, however, he never personally demanded that it be removed until Lieberman threatened a filibuster on final passage and he would have signed ACA with it (or, as the case ultimately was, without it).
Bluetus
(3,125 posts)and politicians try to present a favorable picture to the public and their supporters.
The bigger point, however, is about mandates. We can debate just how passionate Obama was about getting the profit motive out of our HC system. I am willing to believe that he wanted to do that, but concluded it wasn't possible, so he tried to get what he could. I am not trying to second-guess that part of the ordeal.
My interest is WAAAAY upstream of that. If you want a strong mandate, then you have to sell the idea hard, and long in advance of the moment of truth. That did not happen. Obama played it safe. McCain was imploding and Obama didn't want to give McCain and Palin any ammo to work with. That is the nature of politics. If Obama had run hard on the public option, then there would have been loads of Big Pharma and Big Insurance flooding the zone against Obama.
For the mandate thing to work, you must latch on to a very popular idea that the public feels so strongly about that the corporate money cannot overcome. Another way of saying that is our system is now totally slanted toward what the biggest corporations want. That works for Trump because he was always going to give the richest and most powerful everything they wanted anyway, so they aren't going to oppose him ever.
questionseverything
(11,995 posts)
PatrickforB
(15,539 posts)would have lost another election.
spooky3
(38,900 posts)Working lives, without receiving a benefit until age 65 or later, and some people pay extra premiums even after age 65 (IRMAA). If that’s necessary to afford Medicare only for retirees, where is the $ going to come from to cover Medicare for all?
We currently pay more than TWICE (per capita) what the second highest paying country spends on healthcare, and much more than other developed countries. So I think we have to address the obscene profits and in a few cases extremely high salaries being made by multiple parties (eg medical device manufacturers, Big Pharma, some private hospitals) in the health care systems, and bring costs down. (Many other problems in our systems must also be addressed). Then we maybe can afford a Medicare for all type of system. We have to learn from other countries’ successes and limitations.
lame54
(40,190 posts)Speech after speech she talked about economic incentives, going after corps and their price gouging, small business loans, plans to make rent and housing more affordable
The media narrative is she only bashed Trump and avoided kitchen table issues
Complete horseshit
spooky3
(38,900 posts)
PatSeg
(53,625 posts)and Trump came up quite often. Meanwhile, I think it was assumed that any reasonable voters already knew what a totally corrupt piece of shit that he was. His first four years supposedly confirmed that and his next four years out of office reaffirmed what we witnessed when he was in the White House.
I think comparing a senate campaign between Talarico and Paxton is quite different than a national presidential campaign. I remember Kamala going after Trump frequently and Hillary before her. The opposition just used their criticisms against them. People on the right are still complaining about their many accurate and devastating attacks. And yes, those deplorables are still deplorable.
senseandsensibility
(25,622 posts)and I never criticized her during the campaign. I still don't. She was truly in a no win situation. And we're not even talking about the gender thing, which I think may have been decisive.
PatSeg
(53,625 posts)Voter suppression and other republican tricks didn't help, but in the end, it is easier for them to defeat a highly qualified woman than any man with fewer qualifications.
Quite honestly, I was actually surprised at how good Kamala was on the campaign trail and Tim Waltz was a brilliant choice for a running mate. Together they were amazing, quite unlike Trump's weird and disjointed campaign. He was running as if he already knew he was going to win.
Bluetus
(3,125 posts)If we want to run against Trump's corruption, then give examples of his corruption and then offer a clear, tangible solution, such as
Have you heard any specifics like that from any of the recent Presidential candidates?
PatrickforB
(15,539 posts)of ads that go according to this formula:
The Republicans just did X. Are you as mad as we are about X? We want to do the right thing! We will FIGHT for you! Pleeeeeeeeeeze give us money!
And I don't give. I gave our candidates hundreds of dollars in the 2024 election cycle only to see Elon, Thiel, SpaceX and Palentir hack into the voting machines, create phantom counties and flood the swing states with so-called 'bullet ballots.'
A bullet ballot is a ballot marked only with Trump/Vance, and nothing else.
Every time I point this out, and I mean EVERY TIME, people on here say that 'denial isn't good strategy.'
OK, how about FAIR PLAY? Basic morality? Not CHEATING in elections?
This upcoming midterm election will be America's last for awhile unless people crawl out of the woodwork and shimmy across broken glass to vote in numbers that foil any attempts at cheating.
And on the off chance this actually happens, the Democratic party had better come in slugging to hold these fucks accountable for CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, WAR CRIMES, and human trafficking, child rape, and a bunch of other stuff in the Epstein files.
Because if our establishment Democrats start making lip noises about 'looking forward' and not prosecuting these immoral Kluxers to the fullest extent of the law, they will have lost all mandate. God help us then, because of what that leads inevitably to - we are already seeing 1789 and guillotine tropes in social media, coming much more often now. I'm too old for that shit.
So we need to play hardball with these parasitical fucks.
I want nothing more than a government that is actually of, by and for the people instead of Wall Street, corporations and billionaires.
Bluetus
(3,125 posts)It really shouldn't be too much to ask for the candidate to present SAMPLE LEGISLATION that they are prepared to introduce the first day on the job.
In a more perfect world, we would have a PARTY OPERATION that already had sample legislation ready to go for at least the top 10 issues. In a democracy, it is expected that some give and take will be required to push legislation beyond the finish line, but we should be demanding that they show us what they intend to fight for.
reACTIONary
(7,320 posts).... 'denial isn't good strategy.'
Soul_of_Wit
(157 posts)Step two is heal the Extreme Court (please, no grifting on the bench.)
Step three is restore the system of checks and balances inherent in the Constitution (there is a reason why Congress is mentioned first in the Constitution.)
PatSeg
(53,625 posts)and not as crude and tacky as Trump's ridiculous attacks on his opponents. Most of them aren't true and the name-calling is like something from a 4th grader.
Yes, I believe our candidates need to present simple, honest criticisms and less political doublespeak (both sides do it). People often tune out when it feels like the rhetoric is just more political spin. Politicians need to talk more like real people, not overly managed candidates who have to measure every single word and often give evasive answers.
Lemon Lyman
(1,627 posts)I remember Vice President Harris (& President Biden & Hillary) talking about who tfg is and laying out exactly what was at stake. The media went after them for it (think Norah O'Donnell with VP Harris re: Project 2025). Voters didn't listen, to their own detriment.
wnylib
(26,528 posts)and how they could provide it. Defining Trump only made some voters more determined to choose a maverick blustering character because they thought that traditional politicians were not listening to them.
Soul_of_Wit
(157 posts)wnylib
(26,528 posts)For decades, the RW politicians told people that their problems were due to liberal ideas. While the right was shifting money towards to themselves on tax breaks, busting unions, and catering to stockholders the financial costs of governing fell to the middle and working classes. Then RW pols told people that their lower incomes and higher costs were caused by immigrants, and by the govt costs of desegregation, regulatory laws on businesses, people receiving SS and Medicare, and poor people getting SNAP benefits.
We needed to listen to the complaints of people whose incomes were not rising while costs were. Then share their concerns and show them what was really behind their problems and what we would do to make things better for them.
We stood up for the rights of the people that they had learned to blame, and that was the right thing to do. But I think that we did not go far enough in showing them how the RW pols were causing the problems. We criticized RW pols for racism, xenophobia about immigrants, and the lack of character in people like Trump, but did not show clearly enough how the right was blaming certain groups for what the right was actually doing.
I remember bringing that up at a local Dem headquarters while phone banking for Obama in 2008. A couple volunteers did not understand what I said about wealthy tax breaks shifting costs to people on the economic ladder below them. I had to give examples and was surprised that Dem volunteers had not been aware of it. Imagine what RW voters did not know and needed to hear.
wnylib
(26,528 posts)Liberals will see this video. We need Dem politicians to be talking like this to ALL voters, loud and often.
Stephen Miller CRAWLS OUT OF TRUMP'S COLON to Hate Poor People - Democratic Underground Forums https://share.google/oii4i4zDt328g4sYi
Skittles
(173,039 posts)the difference between what is tolerated from a white man and a black woman is, like, well, night and day
senseandsensibility
(25,622 posts)Both race and gender played a role, and in my opinion the fact that she was a woman may have been decisive. We've seen it now with both Hillary and Kamala. A lot of work needs to be done on that front.
Skittles
(173,039 posts)even though, to be fair, black women have the right to be very angry indeed 
Bluetus
(3,125 posts)It should not be such a choice. It is not fair. But we really have to do battle on the basis of the de facto rules.
A black man could never have gotten LBJ's Civil Rights laws passed. And likewise, LBJ could never have accomplished that without all the work, pain and suffering by so many black folks. The system is set up to block progress. We have to be smart and ruthless in fighting that system, even when that means setting aside our biggest principles and goals in order to take the next step toward justice.
Torchlight
(7,096 posts)It does not follow.
Bluetus
(3,125 posts)pat_k
(13,940 posts)She got soo much right: Focusing on inspiring hope and action , defending core values, on and on.
Nevertheless, I often found myself screaming at the TV "WTF about xxx?"
Here are the three key failures that drove me insane.
1. Failure to relentlessly condemn the felon's corruption, sexual abuse of women, association with Epstein, January 6, Un-American determination to take away our freedoms, insane determination to overturn the last election (not just as an object of ridicule, but as an intolerable corruption of America's most fundamental moral principles), determination to elevate those who seek to corrupt our elections. There was so much they seemed to tiptoe around.
2. Failure to unequivocally denounce the disgusting attacks on trans people. Failure to give a full-throated defense of LGBTQ as in the Freedom Over Fascism Toolkit.
3. Failure to take Her Own stance against the genocide in Gaza and call for conditional military support.
On edit: I have no idea if all of these things are addressed in the so-called "autopsy," but if they are not, I think the report will completely fail to provide needed direction.
Joinfortmill
(21,738 posts)
NNadir
(38,617 posts)Thank you for the post.
Rhiagel
(1,869 posts)
The Wizard
(13,872 posts)who asked a client to take a polygraph. When the client refused he knew the client was a liar, and proceeded with the case knowing the client was lying. He worked our a plea bargain .
spooky3
(38,900 posts)orangecrush
(31,220 posts)
ananda
(35,545 posts)Period
spudspud
(672 posts)Zelda_Orchid
(108 posts)"Why does she have to be such an uppity b*tch?"
MineralMan
(151,636 posts)Is very different from running for President. Kamala lost because too many people stayed home on election day. Shame on them. Not on her! We failed her and ourselves
displacedvermoter
(5,030 posts)
KS Toronado
(23,904 posts)as only caring about the super wealthy, while we believe in feeding the hungry and helping the sick, etc etc.
Politicub
(12,336 posts)By this I mean compare Talarico to Harris?
Harris was competing on the national stage and had her gender and race used against her. She explained exactly what the republicans would do and was criticized for not giving enough details about her policy proposals (I can tell you her policy proposals so that was a bullshit accusation). Meanwhile, Trump was able to do whatever he wanted and still garner favorable coverage no matter his level of depravity.
Talarico does not have to contend with any of those things, except maybe some of the media bias.
He is an impressive candidate in a tough race, but there is no basis for comparing his experience to the vice president’s. At all.
The Wizard
(13,872 posts)handed his campaign manager a picture of a pig telling him to accuse his opponent of having carnal knowledge with this pig. The campaign manager said he couldn't do it because it was false. LBJ said "make him talk about it."
senseandsensibility
(25,622 posts)Never heard that one before.
lame54
(40,190 posts)
RandySF
(86,504 posts)
efhmc
(17,033 posts)
yobrault1
(209 posts)she did not campaign as a white man. She had one on the ticket but it was not enough.
Soul_of_Wit
(157 posts)Maga breaks so many things. Democrats must move fast and un-break things.
gay texan
(3,258 posts)I have been screaming this since Dukakis in 1988
ificandream
(11,856 posts)I especially noticed the one about how electing Talarico was a danger to everything his supporters believed in, using the trans and children endangered lies that Trump did. Which is funny considering Trump was a close friend of Epstein. Talarico needs to do what Democrats are usually hesitant to do -- kick him back just as hard. But the good thing here is he won't have to lie to do it.
sheshe2
(98,554 posts)doing
And she is not just a woman, she is a BLACK WOMAN.
Unca Jim
(581 posts)Why is everyone forgetting how much continuing to support Israel even though they are committing a genocide hurt her?
Talarico is calling what Israel is doing in the region war crimes a moral disaster, and an atrocity. The Democratic party as a whole needs to say that loud and proud.
betsuni
(29,325 posts)Invisible Democrats -- they didn't say this, they didn't do that, they're not going to do the other, where are they -- 
.
By the way, Democrats are always accused of spending too much time on going negative on the opposition and mocked for supposedly having no message but "I'm not as bad as the Republican, vote for me!"