The gatekeeper function failed
Well, sometimes a big flameout happens when a party throws its support to a candidate the party did not properly vet. I recall the same thing happening in San Diego years ago when the Dem Party supported Dem congressman and sex predator Bob Filner for mayor. He got elected and then had to resign over sex scandals that went on for years. What a colossal mess. Apparently the Dems are either just too damned stupid or too damned incompetent to learn from their messes. Arguably too damned arrogant too.
I know, I know, the people should choose, not the party. I get it. But do most voters do serious opposition research on candidates? Hell no they don't. They can't. The bad stuff people need to know is hidden as much as possible. Did most Trump voters know he was a failure as a businessman because he was forced to file for bankruptcy 5 or 6 times? No. Most probably still don't know that. The ones that have heard that fact either say it's either a big fat lie or no big deal if it is true.
Where gatekeeping matters
It's useful to know that the two parties are very different about sex scandals. The Dems usually sacrifice their own . . . . . eventually. We all remember Eric Swalwell's recent flameout in California.
A NYT article (not paywalled), Does a Sex Assault Claim Kill a Political Career? It Depends., points out the huge difference. Dems sacrifice their sex scandal perps, but the Repubs usually defend theirs and lie and deny their bad guys did anything wrong. Trump is the poster boy for sleazy sex scandals that most Repubs forgive and/or forget. Their bad sex stuff tends to be denied or downplayed. Trump won in 2016 after the accusations of at least a half-dozen women who said he groped or forcibly kissed them. He denied every one allegation. And, he then denied all sexual improprieties alleged against Brett Kavanaugh, RFK Jr. and Pete Hegseth. A vast majority of his party did the same. Each accused Republican sleazebag denied the accusations and got rewarded with real power.
And, the Epstein files. Epstein files, Epstein files, Epstein files, . . . . . .
Messaging matters too
A NYT editorial board opinion (not paywalled), The Democrats Can’t Go On Like This, raises a common criticism about the Dem Party: "Democrats do need fresh, charismatic, younger contenders, and they should stop treating the next name in line as an entitlement. .... What is the party’s answer on immigration, moving beyond its proper outrage at President Trump’s methods to include an affirmative account of who should be allowed in and how? What would it do about the cost of housing, beyond lamenting it and suggesting inadequate fixes? What does it want from the public education system?"
In other words, the editors are arguing that Dem messaging sucks. Well, duh. That has been true and obvious for years.
Apparently, the Dem party correctly thinks that Washington is broken, but incorrectly believes that nothing can be done. Why stage a fight over specifics that will exposes divisions? But that's backward. Democrats still believe government can work. They just haven't yet clearly and concretely articulated exactly what they would try to do. Vagueness in messaging to say doesn’t make the Dems look unified. It makes it look as if they have nothing to say. They surrender policy debate to authoritarian MAGA propaganda.
The NYT editors argue that Platner’s appeal was that he seemed to stand for something. Maybe he did. He was angry on voters’ behalf about an economy that is rigged for the powerful. He was blunt about saying so. Voters in Maine responded to that. Now he's gone, and the idiot dinosaur Susan Collins will be very likely re-elected for another 6 years of incompetence and support for MAGA tyranny and corruption.
What a mess.
No comments:
Post a Comment