The Democratic Party

[Biff Tannen 45,678]

5 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Back to brunch . . . 

 

While I am somewhat worried about this happening, you've got to give people a chance to not be hyper-aware anymore.  I will still follow politics more than I did prior to 2016, but I'm hoping it won't overtake my life like the dotard.  Adults at the helm means I can get back to more important things.  

[Hank Scorpio 17,729]

 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

While I am somewhat worried about this happening, you've got to give people a chance to not be hyper-aware anymore.  I will still follow politics more than I did prior to 2016, but I'm hoping it won't overtake my life like the dotard.  Adults at the helm means I can get back to more important things.  

That's fair. Working for progress is quite a bit less stressful than corralling a sociopath run amok, though. I am hoping we keep the majority of the brunchers alert.

[956 Worldwide 34,707]

16 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

While I am somewhat worried about this happening, you've got to give people a chance to not be hyper-aware anymore.  I will still follow politics more than I did prior to 2016, but I'm hoping it won't overtake my life like the dotard.  Adults at the helm means I can get back to more important things.  

One of the hallmarks of a totalitarian society is the continual expansion of the political sphere until no area of public or private life exists outside of politics and no problems can be resolved except through politics.  By contrast, representative government and the administrative state exist to allow citizens to express their general preferences while easing the demand to continually be engaged in active politics.

I am sensitive to the reality that many people feel that they can’t afford to disengage even a little bit— but the proper course is to work towards a point that the “privilege” of disengagement is expanded rather than angrily stripping it from the “privileged” class.  I really believe that we got Trumpism because an entire class of people became too politically engaged, because they were conned into believing they had to be. 

[bad_teammate 13,195]

It was always really easy to not obsess yourself with Trump.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

10 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

 I really believe that we got Trumpism because an entire class of people became too politically engaged, because they were conned into believing they had to be. 

And how do you suppose that happened?  
 

My theory is one party felt it’s power slipping away (possibly permanently) and then built a media machine to radicalize an entire class of people to the point of fanatical loyalty. 

[Biff Tannen 45,678]

22 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

 I really believe that we got Trumpism because an entire class of people became too politically engaged, because they were conned into believing they had to be. 

Overall great post, but I think they made them THINK they were politically engaged.  Most trumpkins have no idea how anything is actually supposed to work.  They engaged in partisan buffoonery, not politics. 

[HillaryFan420 121]

Nancy was pretty milfy 30 years ago. 

[956 Worldwide 34,707]

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Overall great post, but I think they made them THINK they were politically engaged.  Most trumpkins have no idea how anything is actually supposed to work.  They engaged in partisan buffoonery, not politics. 

Well, yeah.  Although I would caveat that to say that it is hard to tell where generalized jackassery stops and political engagement begins; its also hard to tell who is exploiting whom.  There are a lot of GOP politicos who are far too intelligent to buy into Trump’s personalized grievance politics either as a reflection of reality or a viable governing platform.  But they aren’t playing political theater with this shit anymore, at this point it’s simply GOP politics and what you see is what you get. 

[HillaryFan420 121]

6 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

One of the hallmarks of a totalitarian society is the continual expansion of the political sphere until no area of public or private life exists outside of politics and no problems can be resolved except through politics.  By contrast, representative government and the administrative state exist to allow citizens to express their general preferences while easing the demand to continually be engaged in active politics.

I am sensitive to the reality that many people feel that they can’t afford to disengage even a little bit— but the proper course is to work towards a point that the “privilege” of disengagement is expanded rather than angrily stripping it from the “privileged” class.  I really believe that we got Trumpism because an entire class of people became too politically engaged, because they were conned into believing they had to be. 

Virtually zero problems are resolved through politics in our society. Politics hardly even exists in this country. All that we really have is an empty culture war that serves to shield whatever politics that does occur in this country for the public eye.  It’s meant to simulate the type of public contestation that takes place in other countries where the public actually has a say in the structuring and functioning of society, but without any of the stakes. 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

1 hour ago, HillaryFan420 said:

Virtually zero problems are resolved through politics in our society. Politics hardly even exists in this country. All that we really have is an empty culture war that serves to shield whatever politics that does occur in this country for the public eye.  It’s meant to simulate the type of public contestation that takes place in other countries where the public actually has a say in the structuring and functioning of society, but without any of the stakes. 

I am not sure that fatalism is constructive in solving these problems, but your diagnosis of the problem is sound: we have a hollowed out political system.
 

Spoiler

 

I don't think all hope is lost. Look at this place - we see constructive engagement and a sense of community. IRL, we have all worked big groups of people where plans are drawn up and solutions are implemented. Most people find those experiences rewarding. I think most of us have also been in so-called group decision projects where the outcome was preordained and valuable time was wasted. As you identified, we have too many of those in the nation.

When the grassroots are excluded from the decision making, we see mistrust, conflict and failure.  I think people yearn for more democracy in this nation. Most of the angst I hear among those involved in public policy is the lack genuine engagement with the humans most impacted by a policy decision. That needs to change - and it will, with efficiency on the march and AI assisted decision making. If for no other reason, our economy is important to international capital and they recognize austerity is killing the American economy. 

All politics should be local - on the granular level - with all rowing in the same direction towards the best outcome for the human being whose life is at issue. As humans, we should settle for nothing less. And . . . it makes perfect economic sense because of the efficiency gains. 

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45,678]

11 hours ago, HillaryFan420 said:

Nancy was pretty milfy 30 years ago. 

Oh wonderful woman. 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

New Branding Option for the Democratic Party:

Democrats Have a Problem. Workers, Wages, Weed May Be the Answer. (It's a light article and worth a read)

There appears to be no alternative to winning over a lot of Trump voters. And that means getting Republican-leaning non-college-educated voters to see the Democratic Party in a different light.

What centralizing messaging should entail is reaching internal consensus around a small number of policies that are:

• broadly popular,
• difficult if not impossible for Republicans to support,
• especially resonant with non-college-educated voters, and
• of high substantive value (since centering these policies in messaging will mean putting them toward the top of the governing agenda upon victory)

“Workers, Wages, Weed” seems like a solid fit for the Democrats’ branding needs as 

"Despite winning an unusually high share of the vote by modern standards, the Democratic Party may be incapable of governing in 2021, and is extremely likely to lose control of Congress after the 2022 midterms. After all, if the party lost (at least) nine House seats in a national environment that favored Democrats by 4.5 points, in a midterm environment (that almost always advantages the opposition party), it’s likely to lose more.

This is especially true in light of the party’s poor showing in state legislative races: Following the 2020 census, states across the country will be redrawing their House maps, and Republicans will now have far more say over redistricting than Democrats. Given advances in precision-gerrymandering technology and the growing geographic concentration of Democratic voters (which makes it even easier to dilute their influence through biased map-making), we can expect the House playing field to be even more tilted toward Republicans over the coming decade than it was in 2020."

Spoiler

So, “Workers, Wages, Weed” seems like a solid fit for the Democrats’ branding needs. Though there are surely other policy combinations with similar — if not greater — potency, the impulse to pick a set of signature issues that can be condensed into a three-word slogan seems wise. And an alliterative one seems ideal. The goal is try to exercise some control over what words come into a voter’s mind when she thinks about Democrats. Just as “Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion” once worked against the party, so “Workers, Wages, Weed” could work in its favor.

Still, associating the party with a universal long-term care benefit for seniors might be even more electorally advantageous. And one could combine such a policy with Medicaid expansion, higher subsidies for the ACA marketplaces, and a child allowance under the rubric of “care” and run on “Care, Cannabis, Codetermination.”

Or, given the substantive imperative to prioritize climate policy, “Green Jobs, Ganja, Guaranteed Long-term Care.”

Or a “Public Option, Pot, Paid Family Leave.”

Whatever. Moderates and progressives can get together around a table, look at a list of popular policies and a thesaurus and let a thousand pitches bloom. They just need to achieve consensus, and then uniformly exert Bernie Sanders–esque levels of message discipline, such that any time any Democrat is interviewed on television, you know you’re going to hear at least once about, say, “Jobs, Joints, and Just Pay.”

It is not realistic (nor desirable) to have Democrats forswear discussion of all other issues. When a pandemic hits, you’re going to talk about public health; when a white cop tortures an unarmed Black man to death on video, you’re going to talk about race and police violence, and put forward policies for redressing the latter. But building party unity around an affirmative, non-polarizing agenda — and promoting that agenda incessantly, whenever the moment allows — is compatible with those imperatives.

To be sure, messaging around popular things is of limited use if you do not actually deliver them once in power. And just about all of the aforementioned policies are currently opposed by some Democrats in Washington (the president-elect is himself an opponent of marijuana legalization). What’s more, most policies with party-wide support will be impossible to pass unless a future Democratic Senate majority votes to abolish the filibuster. Which is to say: Moderate Democrats are arguably a bigger obstacle to the party positioning itself pragmatically than progressives are.

Pundits have put forward a lot of theories for why Trump retained his 2016 level of support among non-college-educated whites, and made big gains with working-class Latinos. But polls and reporting both suggest a big reason was the fact that he had presided over the tightest labor market in modern memory — and then, thanks to the CARES Act, the largest fiscal transfer in modern history. Good messaging wins some votes; good policy outcomes win more. If Democrats sweep the runoff elections in Georgia next month, they must use their lease on federal power for all it’s worth. “Full Employment, Family Leave, 420” may be a politically promising summary of what Democrats want to legislate; but come 2024, it would be even more potent as a list of what Democrats already delivered.

 

Edited December 18, 2020 by washparkhorn
Key Concept: The goal is try to exercise some control over what words come into a voter’s mind when she thinks about Democrats.

[Biff Tannen 45,678]

7 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

New Branding Option for the Democratic Party:

Democrats Have a Problem. Workers, Wages, Weed May Be the Answer. (It's a light article and worth a read)

There appears to be no alternative to winning over a lot of Trump voters. And that means getting Republican-leaning non-college-educated voters to see the Democratic Party in a different light.

What centralizing messaging should entail is reaching internal consensus around a small number of policies that are:

• broadly popular,
• difficult if not impossible for Republicans to support,
• especially resonant with non-college-educated voters, and
• of high substantive value (since centering these policies in messaging will mean putting them toward the top of the governing agenda upon victory)

“Workers, Wages, Weed” seems like a solid fit for the Democrats’ branding needs as 

"Despite winning an unusually high share of the vote by modern standards, the Democratic Party may be incapable of governing in 2021, and is extremely likely to lose control of Congress after the 2022 midterms. After all, if the party lost (at least) nine House seats in a national environment that favored Democrats by 4.5 points, in a midterm environment (that almost always advantages the opposition party), it’s likely to lose more.

This is especially true in light of the party’s poor showing in state legislative races: Following the 2020 census, states across the country will be redrawing their House maps, and Republicans will now have far more say over redistricting than Democrats. Given advances in precision-gerrymandering technology and the growing geographic concentration of Democratic voters (which makes it even easier to dilute their influence through biased map-making), we can expect the House playing field to be even more tilted toward Republicans over the coming decade than it was in 2020."

  Reveal hidden contents

So, “Workers, Wages, Weed” seems like a solid fit for the Democrats’ branding needs. Though there are surely other policy combinations with similar — if not greater — potency, the impulse to pick a set of signature issues that can be condensed into a three-word slogan seems wise. And an alliterative one seems ideal. The goal is try to exercise some control over what words come into a voter’s mind when she thinks about Democrats. Just as “Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion” once worked against the party, so “Workers, Wages, Weed” could work in its favor.

Still, associating the party with a universal long-term care benefit for seniors might be even more electorally advantageous. And one could combine such a policy with Medicaid expansion, higher subsidies for the ACA marketplaces, and a child allowance under the rubric of “care” and run on “Care, Cannabis, Codetermination.”

Or, given the substantive imperative to prioritize climate policy, “Green Jobs, Ganja, Guaranteed Long-term Care.”

Or a “Public Option, Pot, Paid Family Leave.”

Whatever. Moderates and progressives can get together around a table, look at a list of popular policies and a thesaurus and let a thousand pitches bloom. They just need to achieve consensus, and then uniformly exert Bernie Sanders–esque levels of message discipline, such that any time any Democrat is interviewed on television, you know you’re going to hear at least once about, say, “Jobs, Joints, and Just Pay.”

It is not realistic (nor desirable) to have Democrats forswear discussion of all other issues. When a pandemic hits, you’re going to talk about public health; when a white cop tortures an unarmed Black man to death on video, you’re going to talk about race and police violence, and put forward policies for redressing the latter. But building party unity around an affirmative, non-polarizing agenda — and promoting that agenda incessantly, whenever the moment allows — is compatible with those imperatives.

To be sure, messaging around popular things is of limited use if you do not actually deliver them once in power. And just about all of the aforementioned policies are currently opposed by some Democrats in Washington (the president-elect is himself an opponent of marijuana legalization). What’s more, most policies with party-wide support will be impossible to pass unless a future Democratic Senate majority votes to abolish the filibuster. Which is to say: Moderate Democrats are arguably a bigger obstacle to the party positioning itself pragmatically than progressives are.

Pundits have put forward a lot of theories for why Trump retained his 2016 level of support among non-college-educated whites, and made big gains with working-class Latinos. But polls and reporting both suggest a big reason was the fact that he had presided over the tightest labor market in modern memory — and then, thanks to the CARES Act, the largest fiscal transfer in modern history. Good messaging wins some votes; good policy outcomes win more. If Democrats sweep the runoff elections in Georgia next month, they must use their lease on federal power for all it’s worth. “Full Employment, Family Leave, 420” may be a politically promising summary of what Democrats want to legislate; but come 2024, it would be even more potent as a list of what Democrats already delivered.

 

Counterpoint: we are fucked

[washparkhorn 9,939]

8 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Counterpoint: we are fucked

The midterms are shaping up poorly - as always for the party that controls the White House.

[Biff Tannen 45,678]

7 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The midterms are shaping up poorly - as always for the party that controls the White House.

And then they cheat and cult their way back into the presidency in 2024, controlling the executive, house, and senate, this time with someone who knows how to actually work the system and the true downfall of the republic commences.  I'm feeling like brisket for lunch.

[HillaryFan420 121]

10 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

And then they cheat and cult their way back into the presidency in 2024, controlling the executive, house, and senate, this time with someone who knows how to actually work the system and the true downfall of the republic commences.  I'm feeling like brisket for lunch.

I think this is why Mitch hung Trump out to dry and wasn’t interested in a second stimulus even though it would have helped Trump. They got most of what they wanted from Trump’s first term and things are likely to go disastrously for the Dems in 2022 and maybe even 2024. Biden’s win looks like a replay of Carter’s. 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

17 minutes ago, HillaryFan420 said:

Biden’s win looks like a replay of Carter’s. 

Ford's. 

or possibly LBJ if he bows out. 

Carter was swallowed by a movement candidate, imho.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Say what you will about Jimmy Carter’s presidency - and a lot of the “failures” of his administration were out of his control - but I don’t believe we’ve ever had a finer, decent, or more honorable man ever sit in the Oval Office during modern history.

[henrygandorf 29,190]

14 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

this time with someone who knows how to actually work the system

lulz it’s gonna be trump again. 

[henrygandorf 29,190]

3 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Ford's. 

or possibly LBJ if he bows out. 

Carter was swallowed by a movement candidate, imho.

when did ford win?

[bad_teammate 13,195]

5 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

lulz it’s gonna be trump again. 

Wouldn't be surprised.

Democrats 2022: "Give us the House and Senate SO WE CAN GIVE YOU THINGS!"

They won't do it, though.

[HillaryFan420 121]

9 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Say what you will about Jimmy Carter’s presidency - and a lot of the “failures” of his administration were out of his control - but I don’t believe we’ve ever had a finer, decent, or more honorable man ever sit in the Oval Office during modern history.

He’s been a fine man following his presidency but he was undoubtedly one of the worst presidents of the 20th century. He did a lot of evil in that office.  

[bolverk 29,671]

Newsom has announced Alex Padilla, California's Secretary of State, to serve out the remaining 2 years of Harris's term. Any of you Surly Californians care to weigh in on the track record of this guy?  

[Js1 85,319]

It’ll be interesting. The black and some Latino orgs wanted a black woman to replace Harris. It’s now a missing voice in the Senate 

[bolverk 29,671]

The blurb I read said he'd be the state's first Latino senator and so I can see how there could've been some pressure to go that route since they comprise something like 40% of California's population.

But that doesn't interest me so much as what this dude's political track record or general outlook is.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

54 minutes ago, bolverk said:

The blurb I read said he'd be the state's first Latino senator and so I can see how there could've been some pressure to go that route since they comprise something like 40% of California's population.

But that doesn't interest me so much as what this dude's political track record or general outlook is.

He's an effective defender of progressive policies, even though he is an Establishment leader.  Repugs in California are a miserable bunch - he kept them in check. He was the frontrunner for the seat, so this is no surprise. 

TLDR: He's a fighter for good; we will see if the Senate changes him. 

[morehornsepower 887]

Over a few beers last night, one of our neighborhood Trumpians filled me in on the Democrats' diabolical master plan.  Apparently, they have all the information they need from Hunter's dealings, so they can kick ole' Joe out soon after the inauguration.  But they've been delaying until then, so that they can install "super commie Kamala" as our President.  Once that is done, we are on the fast track to a communist dictatorship, at least, we will be if the Patriots can't hold on to those 2 seats in Georgia...

[Biff Tannen 45,678]

8 minutes ago, morehornsepower said:

Once that is done, we are on the fast track to a communist dictatorship

God willing.  A little concerning that brain trust has already figured out the plan though.  Might have to accelerate things.

[thrillhammer 683]

7 minutes ago, morehornsepower said:

Over a few beers last night, one of our neighborhood Trumpians filled me in on the Democrats' diabolical master plan.  Apparently, they have all the information they need from Hunter's dealings, so they can kick ole' Joe out soon after the inauguration.  But they've been delaying until then, so that they can install "super commie Kamala" as our President.  Once that is done, we are on the fast track to a communist dictatorship, at least, we will be if the Patriots can't hold on to those 2 seats in Georgia...

 blah blah radical liberal blah blah blah radical liberal blah radical liberal

[washparkhorn 9,939]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

God willing.  A little concerning that brain trust has already figured out the plan though.  Might have to accelerate things.

We definitely need to increase the amount of fluoride in the water.

 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

12 minutes ago, morehornsepower said:

Over a few beers last night, one of our neighborhood Trumpians filled me in on the Democrats' diabolical master plan.  Apparently, they have all the information they need from Hunter's dealings, so they can kick ole' Joe out soon after the inauguration.  But they've been delaying until then, so that they can install "super commie Kamala" as our President.  Once that is done, we are on the fast track to a communist dictatorship, at least, we will be if the Patriots can't hold on to those 2 seats in Georgia...

Crazy isn't it.  I have heard the same story. And if the Dems win Georgia seats - they threaten civil war.

Anyone saying "Kamala the Cop"  is a Communist Agent is detached from reality. 

 

[Satchel 6,938]

On 11/8/2020 at 4:07 PM, Texaspython said:

Defund the police and socialism were on the ballot and losers for Dems. You can’t run around and talk about socialism and defunding the police then act shocked that we lost on those issues.

 

Biden won because he ran away from socialism and defunding the police. We’re going to get slaughtered in 2022 unless the adults grab the wheel. The extreme left is just so out of touch. They just don’t understand we win despite the stupid shit they say.

I don’t think the policies themselves are problematic. It’s the way Democrats give short shrift to messaging that people in Odessa can understand and embrace. It also didn’t help that the media refused to engage candidates on what defunding the police actually meant.

[Biff Tannen 45,678]

4 minutes ago, Satchel said:

I don’t think the policies themselves are problematic. It’s the way Democrats give short shrift to messaging that people in Odessa can understand and embrace. It also didn’t help that the media refused to engage candidates on what defunding the police actually meant.

Agree.  The key to progression is to change the terms and have an honest (and well-marketed) discussion about what the policies actually are.  

[Satchel 6,938]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

Agree.  The key to progression is to change the terms and have an honest (and well-marketed) discussion about what the policies actually are.  

Very much agree.

[StassneyHorn 6,575]

Posted this before but it was recently updated with more numbers. Biden-won counties account for 71% of economic output. How the party dances with that info, should they decide to use it as a talking point will be interesting. Blue collar workers that switched to Trump strike me as particularly sensitive, but Biden is a guy that historically would’ve drawn their support. 

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-nations-political-economic-divide/

[Pancho 44,767]

This absolutely cannot happen. 

 

[Patrick Bateman 3,913]

1 hour ago, Pancho said:

This absolutely cannot happen. 

 

Probably won't....

 

[Seasick Sailor 3,747]

Pirate Lives Matter:

[Js1 85,319]

13 hours ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Probably won't....

 

It's way more likely she's out of the Senate by 2023 than gearing up for re-election.  She is going to get hella pressure from Schumer and probably Newsom to pack it up and go home if she's as off her rocker as they say. 

[BradInATX 9,208]

"Man, we really have got to get back to our blue collar roots and win union workers and hispanics back" - Democrats

"Hey America, we're going to turn Biden's inauguration into a star-studded Hollywood spectacle in the middle of a pandemic, featuring Justin Timberlake and and Demo Lovato! That's really targeting our audience - good job everyone." - Also Democrats

 

They just can't help themselves. I just can't with these tonedeaf self-fellating idiots sometimes. 

Edited January 14, 2021 by BradInATX

[Js1 85,319]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

"Man, we really have got to get back to our blue collar roots and win union workers and hispanics back" - Democrats

"Hey America, we're going to turn Biden's inauguration into a star-studded Hollywood spectacle, featuring Justin Timberlake and Bon Jovi!" - Also Democrats

 

They just can't help themselves. I just can't with these idiots sometimes. 

I mostly like you, but are you some kind of special, as if Joe Biden is the first person EVER to have celebrities perform at the inauguration?  

Bush had Wayne Newton, Brooks & Dunn and Ricky Martin perform. 

Obama had Bruce Springsteen, Mary J, John Bon Jovi, John Mellencamp, Josh Groban, will.i.am, etc. etc. perform

Trump had Toby Keith, 3 Doors Down and Lee Greenwood and Jackie Evancho perform

 

Who gives a fuck? They are doing a concert for TV purposes in lieu of all the usual pomp and circumstances - no balls and no parade.  You conveniently left out that they are doing an event for lives lost during COVID-19 the evening before and an event for MLK Day.  A whopping 90 min concert in lieu of inauguration balls - DEMOCRATS OUT OF TOUCH

[TwiceHorn 31,456]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

I mostly like you, but are you some kind of special, as if Joe Biden is the first person EVER to have celebrities perform at the inauguration?  

Bush had Wayne Newton, Brooks & Dunn and Ricky Martin perform. 

Obama had Bruce Springsteen, Mary J, John Bon Jovi, John Mellencamp, Josh Groban, will.i.am, etc. etc. perform

Trump had Toby Keith, 3 Doors Down and Lee Greenwood and Jackie Evancho perform

 

Who gives a fuck? They are doing a concert for TV purposes in lieu of all the usual pomp and circumstances - no balls and no parade.  You conveniently left out that they are doing an event for lives lost during COVID-19 the evening before and an event for MLK Day.  A whopping 90 min concert in lieu of inauguration balls - DEMOCRATS OUT OF TOUCH

This is the inauguration ball, right?

Not the actual inauguration ceremony?

 

[BradInATX 9,208]

3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I mostly like you, but are you some kind of special, as if Joe Biden is the first person EVER to have celebrities perform at the inauguration?  

Bush had Wayne Newton, Brooks & Dunn and Ricky Martin perform. 

Obama had Bruce Springsteen, Mary J, John Bon Jovi, John Mellencamp, Josh Groban, will.i.am, etc. etc. perform

Trump had Toby Keith, 3 Doors Down and Lee Greenwood and Jackie Evancho perform

 

Who gives a fuck? They are doing a concert for TV purposes in lieu of all the usual pomp and circumstances - no balls and no parade.  You conveniently left out that they are doing an event for lives lost during COVID-19 the evening before and an event for MLK Day.  A whopping 90 min concert in lieu of inauguration balls - DEMOCRATS OUT OF TOUCH

 

We're in the middle of a pandemic.

[Js1 85,319]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

This is the inauguration ball, right?

Not the actual inauguration ceremony?

 

There is no traditional ball.  There will be a made for TV concert for Wednesday night.  In fact, Biden and Harris won't even be in attendance, they're supposedly just going to be with family and staff. 

[TwiceHorn 31,456]

Just now, Js1 said:

There is no traditional ball.  There will be a made for TV concert for Wednesday night.  In fact, Biden and Harris won't even be in attendance, they're supposedly just going to be with family and staff. 

But still not the actual ceremony?  Roberts isn't going to trot out with the Bible to Bon Jovi, I hope.

I think the last inauguration I paid any attention to was Obama's first.

[BradInATX 9,208]

And the three previous lists are much more Americana/blue-collar focused. Biden's is almost purely California and Hollywood. And it's a bunch of fucking lilly-white people.

Edited January 14, 2021 by BradInATX

[Underdog 28,621]

Maybe Candace Owens is his target audience? 

[Js1 85,319]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

But still not the actual ceremony?  Roberts isn't going to trot out with the Bible to Bon Jovi, I hope.

I think the last inauguration I paid any attention to was Obama's first.

The actual ceremony should just be the invocation, the Pledge, the national anthem (which was sung in 2017 by a celebrity - GASP!!!!!), the swearing in and Biden's address.  Then it's over.

The Celebrating America TV special will air that night.  I'd imagine it will be like the DNC was - Tom Hanks talking and cutting to performances, Biden/Harris celebrating with family and staff, and, per the announcement, special dedications to frontline workers. 

[BradInATX 9,208]

24 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The actual ceremony should just be the invocation, the Pledge, the national anthem (which was sung in 2017 by a celebrity - GASP!!!!!), the swearing in and Biden's address.  Then it's over.

The Celebrating America TV special will air that night.  I'd imagine it will be like the DNC was - Tom Hanks talking and cutting to performances, Biden/Harris celebrating with family and staff, and, per the announcement, special dedications to frontline workers. 

 

To be honest, I didn't realize these were two separate things. I've never watched an inauguration or the made for TV nonsense afterwards. That's slightly less offensive.

I still stand by the point though. It's a bunch of white Hollywood elites, bar Bon Jovi who is fucking terrible anyway. Get some middle America in there. Get some minorities in there. You can get stuff that isn't considered Hollywood and still have the performers not be Trumpers. Call up Sturgill Simpson. Get some people of color. It's four white people, three that are Hollywood/Cali types, and one that sucks shit through a straw. It's terrible. It reads exactly like the list that a San Francisco marketing company that employs nothing but super-white millennials that go to brunch twice a week would come up with. Complete with them throwing a single minority in at the very bottom of the card because they called up Hanks, Timberlake, Bon Jovi, and Lovato and then realized "oops, we don't have any PoC - fuck, we gotta get one in there!". 

It's insulting to the people that put them in office. I know in the grand scheme of things it's not a big deal, but it's microcosmic of the type of bullshit that cost Hillary the rust belt and gave us four years of Trump.

Edited January 14, 2021 by BradInATX