The Schumer Plan is stupid.

Senator Chuck Schumer's plan to revitalize the Democrats -and his conversation surrounding it -depending on what Democrats you talk with,is either 1) boring 2) depressing 3) irrelevant 4) stupid. I vote for 2, 3, and 4.

Do you need a reminder of the what, why and wherefore of the plan Schumer proposes to bring in voters? If so, it is probably because you fell asleep when you first heard it.

Listen here! And try to stay awake (though I admit it's a snoozer.)

Schumer's Better Deal - Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future -- focuses on improving wages, lowering costs of everyday expenses and boosting job-training opportunities. OK. Did you get it? Quite a shock, isn't it, for Democrats?

He and the white male wing of the Democratic party announced this on Monday, July 24, 2017 as if they invented the wheel, like other male middle managers who raise their hands to claim as their own the idea that the woman at end of the table offered 10 minutes earlier.

For those who care about the truth, in June 2015, Hillary launched her campaign with a speech,"Americans need a better deal."

This didn't stop Schumer over this weekend from claiming, the fault for Trump in the White House is Hillary's alone.

"When you lose to somebody who has 40% popularity, you don't blame other things -- Comey, Russia -- you blame yourself," Schumer told The Washington Post. "So what did we do wrong? People didn't know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that." In the world according to Schumer, Hillary and her campaign lacked policy andwere "namby pamby."

    What does that even mean? The journalist and social justice activist @TomWatson answered the not-too-hidden sexism of "namby pamby" on Twitter:

    Watson also reminded Schumer and everyone else that Hillary's campaign was all about policy. One frequently stated complaint about Hillary was that she was policy geek. If people don't know what she stood for, the problem was not her lack of policy but an uninterested press.

    Schumer has set his priorities to attract only one set of voters- currently seen as most desirable of all voters - the Trump voters.

    This reminds me of another day, when Sanders was declared the favorite candidate of the millennials. Despite the fact that Hillary was beating Sander's sorry ass in Primaries, and winning the support of women of all races, and men of color, and older Americans, and unions, again and again stories in print and on television focused on " Why is Hillary Clinton Losing Young Voters.

    Then millennials became the only voters valued by oh so many Democrats.

    Currently, according to them, Trump voters – especially white male voters – are the key to Democratic success. It is no surprise then that, although black women were Hillary and the Democrats' most dependable and loyal supporters, we saw no black women at the Schemer table or as the focus of his concerns. Oh please.

    Never you mind that Hillary beat Trump by almost 3 million votes!

    She did this despite Russian and their messaging of her both in media and social media.

    She did this despite the refusal of our press and media to cover her and the issues she raised.

    She did this despite GOP gerrymandering and voter suppression.

    Hillary's situation with Trump is worse than Ginger Rogers was with Fred Astaire, getting no attention although she was, indeed, dancing backwards and in heels.

    Why won't Democrats deal with the fact that form, not content - personalities, not policies - and the Russians and media contributed to this loss? Why won't Democrats deal with the fact that too many voters were/are drawn to a 19th century definition of masculinity/leadership?

    Regardless of issues, Trump's appeal was emotional, reinforced and blessed by the Russian lies and distortions, and a media greedy for ratings, not truth.

    Who was/is Trump?

    He met the needs of his supporters' imaginations, the rich American tycoon made richer and more dominant by his role on the televisions in their living rooms over the years, the strong man who was outside ordinary constraints and values, who didn't need to accept social rules or boundaries. Even the bizarre Access Hollywood tapes supported this. Trump supporters, now voters, collectively gasped as this larger than life person came to their towns to save them.

    Some white men, appalled at the prospect of a woman president, especially one with such clear competency, were even willing to believe fantastic and foolish messages about Hillary rather than elect her - she believed she ran child sex trafficking from a pizza joint, sold American uranium to the Russians, or even killed one Vince Foster.*

    In 2016, misogynists joined hands with alt-Right and usually more silent racists, who so hated having a black president, that they tried to invalidate his Presidency by creating a fantasy about his place of birth.

    In Trump, they found their ideal leader, the "strong man" "a billionaire" outfitted in a baseball cap offering patriarchal American jingoism and Exceptionalism, wrapped in a celebrity gloss.

    These are the voters Schumer Democrats want to appeal to, yet Schumer and his friends have concluded they will appeal to these voters with content.

    In brief, Schumer has conjured up a sure fire way to lose in 2018 and in 2020.

    S o what should Dems be doing? First, we should take a different lesson from Trump.

    Claim victory. Refuse to say we lost....

    Brag about Hillary's win in the popular vote ...

    Shout that the American people of all ills --name and thank them (women, people of color, lgbtq, older people, union members) preferred us, our message and our candidate...

    Shout that we will win again....all we need to do is get rid of the electoral college.

    That is the winning tone.

    Here are 3 quick alternatives for the DNC to consider doing to win in 2018 and in 2020.

    1. We should look at the moments Dems really did connect...the high points of the 2016 campaign. Do you remember Hillary on the stomp with Elizabeth Warren? The energy was palpable…two fearless women daring the world. Or the night of the DNC when she arrived in white and we all sang the Fight Song? Every one of the 3 debates! We need to reclaim the magic of those moments and bottle them, for duplication.

    2. We need to find folks who didn't vote at all and motivate them...and not by intellectual arguments.

    3. We need to rid our election of the Russians and their messaging of our candidate. Robert Mueller's investigation will surely help this but Dems must lead in the public dialogue. Schumer, on the other hand, said that the Democratic priority was healthcare, not Russia. No way.

    4. We need to fight gerrymandering and voter suppression and make it easier for people to vote. Weekend voting. Automatic registration at 18. Fund raising to open polling places. We need to speak and write about these issues, especially as the Supreme Court takes up the most important case on gerrymandering in a decade this fall. As we know, the court is affected by public polls.

    5. And then there are the 23 Congressional Districts which Hillary won and where currently there are 23 GOP reps up for re-election in 2018 .....Democrats must visit each district, talk with Democrats and find candidates for each CD. The Party should then have an event for television and social media in which we introduce our candidates.Local politics is how we win.

    It is time for the Democrats to value our own voters, and not hunger for those who don't love them. So far, Schumer has insulted the low hanging fruit... Hillary voters, and while they won't lose us, if they continue as they have, they won't have our energy or dollars.

    They need us, and we need them to be smarter than they have been this week.


    July 26, 2017

    * They and the media gave time to these stories rather than doing investigative reporting on the Trump connection to Russia and Putting. When Hillary proclaimed that Trump was "Putin's puppet," the press and media were not interested in whether her claim had credence. They were interested only in the fact that the two candidates were arguing.

    Show Comments ()


    Follow Us On


    On Social