Yes, in the long run liberal democracy won, but there was always a cost. Still, at this juncture in the US' liberaI history, I think the Dems can both dial down the violence in their rhetoric and show the voters how Trump is a threat to liberal democracy, in terms that are personal to the voters. It's just a matter of messaging (Axelrod …
Yes, in the long run liberal democracy won, but there was always a cost. Still, at this juncture in the US' liberaI history, I think the Dems can both dial down the violence in their rhetoric and show the voters how Trump is a threat to liberal democracy, in terms that are personal to the voters. It's just a matter of messaging (Axelrod and Carville are the best at this. So is Sarah Longwell.)
So before we start talking about arming ourselves, let's give the Dems a chance to meet this moment.
Please supply one example of violence in Democratic rhetoric. If there is one, I can’t think of it. Calling Trump and MAGA out for who and what they are isn’t violent rhetoric.
I heard a right-wing pundit on CNN last night say Biden's rhetoric was violent. I don't remember what examples he gave, and no one on the panel pushed back on that. I tried a quick search. All I found was him saying Trump was unhinged. I don't think that qualifies as violent.
It's the violence in the rhetoric that needs to be turned down. Is there violence in your rhetoric?
I'm sure the swing voters who will decide the election want the violent rhetoric to stopo. By definition, they are not the extremes. It's the extremes who have the violent rhetoric.
There's no violence in my rhetoric, but as to the swing voters, battleground polls seem to indicate that they'd prefer the violent rhetoric to the old/weak guy who whisper-talks.
Yes, in the long run liberal democracy won, but there was always a cost. Still, at this juncture in the US' liberaI history, I think the Dems can both dial down the violence in their rhetoric and show the voters how Trump is a threat to liberal democracy, in terms that are personal to the voters. It's just a matter of messaging (Axelrod and Carville are the best at this. So is Sarah Longwell.)
So before we start talking about arming ourselves, let's give the Dems a chance to meet this moment.
Please supply one example of violence in Democratic rhetoric. If there is one, I can’t think of it. Calling Trump and MAGA out for who and what they are isn’t violent rhetoric.
This just in: "Biden says ‘it was a mistake’ to use ‘bullseye’ in rhetorical Trump attack" (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/biden-says-was-mistake-use-bullseye-rhetorical-trump-attack-rcna161998).
I heard a right-wing pundit on CNN last night say Biden's rhetoric was violent. I don't remember what examples he gave, and no one on the panel pushed back on that. I tried a quick search. All I found was him saying Trump was unhinged. I don't think that qualifies as violent.
When the GOP starts toning down their rhetoric I'll *think* about toning my much-milder-by-comparison rhetoric.
It's the violence in the rhetoric that needs to be turned down. Is there violence in your rhetoric?
I'm sure the swing voters who will decide the election want the violent rhetoric to stopo. By definition, they are not the extremes. It's the extremes who have the violent rhetoric.
There's no violence in my rhetoric, but as to the swing voters, battleground polls seem to indicate that they'd prefer the violent rhetoric to the old/weak guy who whisper-talks.
OK, then you have no rhetoric to turn down.
Yes, the voters prefer strong and wrong to weak and right. Which is all the more reason for the Dems to get a strong candidate.