I see that James Talarico is doing something that Kamala did not

[senseandsensibility]

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!

[leftieNanner]

1. Yes!

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]

3. Yes, he must do many things at once

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]

41. It's a big ask of anyone

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]

2. Kick

[travelingthrulife]

4. It is also important he confronts MAGA christianity about their bastardization of Christianity.

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]

5. I'm not particularly religious so maybe I'm not a good judge

but from what I've seen, Talarico is very good at doing just what you are suggesting.

[pat_k]

30. The distinction is between Christian Nationalism and Christianity.

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.

[summer_in_TX]

42. My thoughts exactly. That's why I've thought that Talarico was particularly needed at this time.

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]

6. Trump needed no defining

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]

7. Magas are and were a lost cause

We agree about that.

[Bluetus]

11. No. "MAGA" is mainly about 30 million

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]

12. Good points

Now is the time to go big!

[questionseverything]

22. I would say Obama was elected to bring us a public option in healthcare

[Bluetus]

33. But he hedged so much about it that he had no mandate.

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.

[PatrickforB]

36. I still genuinely believe if the Dems had RAMMED Medicare for all Americans through in 2009, we never

would have lost another election.

[leftstreet]

23. +1

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.

[PatSeg]

8. I thought Kamala ran an excellent campaign

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]

10. I remember marveling at how good Kamala was during the debates

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.

[Bluetus]

35. You have to draw contrasts

If we want to run against Trump's corruption, then give examples of his corruption and then offer a clear, tangible solution, such as

"I will fight hard to ban all stock trading by every member of Congress and every senior official of the Executive branch. Yes, that will be a sacrifice for some people. But that is why we call it 'Public Service'. "

Have you heard any specifics like that from any of the recent Presidential candidates?

[PatrickforB]

40. Except I would get rid of the 'fight hard' clause. My email box and mobile text fills up every day with dozens

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.

[Lemon Lyman]

9. IDK

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]

24. They needed to speak more about what what people needed

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.

[Skittles]

13. do not forget the double standard

the difference between what is tolerated from a white man and a black woman is, like, well, night and day

[senseandsensibility]

14. Yes, in many ways that is the elephant in the room

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]

17. she always had to avoid looking like the "angry black woman"

even though, to be fair, black women have the right to be very angry indeed

[Bluetus]

38. It is a fact. Do we want to have our principles or do we want to win some elections so we can make these things right?

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.

[pat_k]

15. Three key failures that were incredibly frustrating to watch.

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]

16. Kamala's problem was she was a woman. Just saying, people.

[NNadir]

18. Like it or not, negative ads and action works. Good for him.

Thank you for the post.

[Rhiagel]

19. Kamala should have challenged TSF to a polygraph test in the debates.

[The Wizard]

34. I worked for an attorney

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 .

[orangecrush]

20. Nailed it

[ananda]

21. The only reason Harris lost is that she isn't a white male.

Period

[spudspud]

26. Thank you. /nt

[Zelda_Orchid]

27. Yeah. I can hear the complaints from the always anti-Democrat morons:

"Why does she have to be such an uppity b*tch?"

[MineralMan]

25. Running for the Senate

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]

28. He is also being a white male...

[KS Toronado]

29. Every Democrat running for office needs to blast the republicOn party

as only caring about the super wealthy, while we believe in feeding the hungry and helping the sick, etc etc.

[Politicub]

31. Can we please not do this?

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]

32. In LBJ's first run for Congress he

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]

37. Wow

Never heard that one before.

[lame54]

39. More corrupt than Trump?