It's not helpful when Democratic candidates lump D's in with R's, saying they both

[pnwmom]

have been letting people down.

No party is as good as it should be, but the D's are at least TRYING to help ordinary people, despite massive obstruction. The Rs are not.

So, Pete, I wish you wouldn't say things like this. Your inexperience might be showing.

Link to tweet

Hardball
✔
@hardball
"Here's the thing, people have seen Democratic and Republican administrations letting them down for as long as I've been alive. And there's a sense that our economy and our govt are twisted, are tilted, are not working for us."

[rusty quoin]

1. I agree. Only one party has continually been wrong. Don't lump us in equally.

[Honeycombe8]

2. He's just stating what people think. That's a good thing.

Yes, there is a world of difference between the two parties insofar as benefiting the working and middle classes, the poor, unions, health care, taxes, and on and on. But he's not comparing the benefits of the two parties and how they differ. He's just stating that Americans have seen administrations of both parties that have failed them. There is no halo over the Democratic Party. The parties are comprised of individuals, some of whom have failed or succumbed to special interests or passed legislation that didn't work out for some Americans.

Speaking truth about what Americans think is something both parties need to hear. It's never pleasant to hear it, but it's a good thing to know. Still, he wasn't comparing the benefits of the two parties. He didn't say that the two parties are the same.

[pnwmom]

5. No, this is false equivalency. And since he doesn't understand this,

he comes off as naive. Why should we believe that he can solve the problem that no other President, Democratic or Republican has?

President Barack Obama was a great President who came to office at the peak of a deep recession and made today's gains possible. But you'd never know that listening to Pete.

[ancianita]

8. +100

Judgment comes with age.

Thinking on one's feet has to show that.

[Honeycombe8]

11. I disagree.

It's that simple. You're not listening to people, if you think that no Democratic administration has ever failed some Americans.

There is no halo over the Democratic Party.

I could give you examples, but you don't want to know.

He is not comparing the two, which is what it takes to do a "false equivalency." He is simply reporting a fact. Deny it or not, it's a fact that some Americans have been disappointed by administrations of both parties. It's hard to believe that, if you personally haven't been disappointed. But everyone's experience is not the same. Even when one is happy with an administration, no person is 100% happy with everything that every administration has done. Every administration does something that affects some people in a bad way, even though that's not the intent.

Remember that Michael Moore reported that Trump would be the Republican nominee, and later reported that he'd win the election. He wasn't wanting that to be the case. He was simply reporting that enough Americans were feeling a certain way about things that it would propel Trump to the Presidency.

[pnwmom]

13. I didn't say that "no Democratic administration has ever failed some Americans."

I didn't say anything even close to that.

He said: ""Here's the thing, people have seen Democratic and Republican administrations letting them down for as long as I've been alive."
That's a very broad statement and it would include the Obama administration.

And I said: "No party is as good as it should be, but the D's are at least TRYING to help ordinary people, despite massive obstruction. The Rs are not. "

[Honeycombe8]

15. I disagree.

He was not comparing the two parties. And yes, there are people who thought the Obama administration let them down, at least in some way. Just because it didn't let you down in any way doesn't mean that others weren't adversely affected.

He's just stating the obvious. Like a reporter reports facts. Don't shoot the messenger. Listen or don't listen. Up to you. But the fact still exists.

[honest.abe]

37. I felt partly "let down" by the Obama administration but..

I would never ever put that in the same sentence with what the Republicans have done. There is zero equivalence.

[Honeycombe8]

42. If I report that you dislike both blue and red t-shirts, I'm just reporting what you dislike.

If I say you like dislike blue and you dislike red, I'm reporting a fact of what you dislike and not comparing the two colors. Even though WE know that blue is a good color and the better color. I may even point out that you look good in blue. But the fact remains that you dislike both blue and red.

It's not a discussion on the good and bad of each color. What I'm conveying is that YOU dislike those colors in t-shirts.

If we're trying to sell you blue t-shirts, this is information we would want to know, so we can address that. Maybe we need to point out more strongly how good you look in blue t-shirts, or maybe offer an option of different shades of blue.

[honest.abe]

43. Here's the problem: "Democratic and Republican administrations letting them down"

Putting both Democratic and Republican administrations in the same sentence in the same context, is wrong. That sends the wrong message.

[Honeycombe8]

44. Again, don't shoot the messenger. A fact is a fact, whether you like it or not.

Each party disregards opinions of the public at their own peril. We learned that lesson in 2016. When people report unhappiness in certain areas or within certain groups, it is irrelevant whether they also are unhappy or not with the other party.

Example: A group of people was strongly unhappy with the Obama Administration because the ACA hurt them badly. Those issues weren't addressed, so they voted for Trump, because he picked up that cause. He also picked up the cause of unhappiness in the rust belt with trade agreements and such, that the Democrats had not seriously addressed. It doesn't matter to them that WE think they were better off because of those things. THEY think they were hurt by those agreements & policies. (I had experience with reporting problems with the ACA myself, when I tried to report big issues with the ACA for me; not one Democrat ever acknowledged my issues, and more than a couple accused me of lying. There was 100% denial of any problems with the ACA for people I discussed that with. Or they didn't care. It's either one or the other. I didn't vote for a Republican, of course...I was about to go on Medicare, anyway. But I can understand the desperation and anger among people who were younger than I was.)

When Michael Moore reported that Trump would win, he wasn't comparing the Democratic Party unfavorably with the Republican Party. He was letting people know: Hey...if you're listening...we have a problem. He didn't want them to, but he could see that a Trump Presidency was coming, and reported it.

So when Pete reiterates that unhappiness among people, he's just reporting it. He even says that those people agree in ideology with the Democratic Party. Still, the fact remains that some people have felt let down by both parties at times.

[honest.abe]

45. The fact is there is no equivalence.

Shocking you and Pete dont seem to understand that.

[Honeycombe8]

46. Shocking you don't understand that reporting a fact is not making it equal to another fact.

Shocking.

Example: 1,000 people voted for Trump in that district, and 1,200 people voted for Clinton. (How dare they draw such a false equivalency of Trump with Clinton. Not. It's just reporting facts on the two major parties.)

[Celerity]

49. +1

[Celerity]

50. +1

[Celerity]

53. +1

[Celerity]

52. +1

[Celerity]

51. +1

[Celerity]

48. +1

[still_one]

3. That is the false equivalency bullshit that some self-identified progressives pushed in 2000 and

2016 which gave us bush and trump

Sorry Pete, but there IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN republicans and DEMOCRATS

[still_one]

7. The Supreme Court Mattered. THAT ISN'T BLIND ALLIGBENCE, that the Jill Stein's, Susan Sarandons,

Cornel West, and those other so-called progressives who actively campaigned against the DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE in 2016.

Workers rights, women's rights, environmental rights, civil rights, etc. etc. etc.

THAT IS NOT BLIND ALIGENCE

and those that cannot distinguish those positions from the republicans, are having a major critical thinking problem.

As to your other point, If you are so LET DOWN, then call or write your representative. I assume you are talking about impeachment.

[Atticus]

9. I don't see where anyone called for "blind allegiance". But, Pete's statement at least

implies equivalency, and that is neither accurate nor politically helpful IMHO. I like him, but this was uncharacteristically careless speech.

[still_one]

17. You said that so much better than I did. I also like Mayor Pete, and essentially agree with the OP

that his phrasing of this wasn't the best.

I even understand what I believe he is strategically trying to do, and that is attract independents to support him. I think there are better way to do that

[Cha]

12. smh.. he could have

mentioned that the Dems have tried to makes Lives Better in so Many Ways but have Been Obstructed by repubs.:

[pnwmom]

14. Yes , he could have and should have, IMO. nt

[quickesst]

6. He was wrong to say this....

.... for one simple reason and I'll tell you why. Yes, there have been letdowns in every Administration, but if you use common sense and logic it's easy to see which party has been doing the right thing, and which party has been doing the wrong thing. The problem is when the Democratic Party gets into power, what does the Republican Party do? Every single stinking reprehensible, illegal, and immoral thing they can to stop any progress on the part of a Democratic Administration. A little thought, common sense, and a dash of logic can do wonders.

[dalton99a]

16. Sounds like his long-time hero Bernie

[pnwmom]

18. Yes, I hear echoes of that. n/t

[Cha]

22. I thought of that.. not telling

of all the accomplishments of the Dems.. and the Obstruction of the repubs.. just lumping them in with the repubs.

The Obama Admin "letting them down" because Tea Party?

"Both sides".. So not true.

[Ron Green]

19. He's telling the truth, and that ought to be

Step One for anyone seeking to be President.

[pnwmom]

20. Then how is he going to succeed where all the other Dems have failed, from his perspective?

If he acknowledged the success of a President Obama, for example, at least he could aim at being as successful as Obama.

[Ron Green]

54. I'm sure he recognizes and acknowledges Obama's positive qualities and efforts, but

this country and this world need more, in the way of actual transformational politics. For example, not enlisting people like Summers and Geithner to manage big financial decisions.

[pnwmom]

55. He's got a pretty substantial ego if he thinks his years of being Mayor of a town of 100K in Indiana

has prepared him to do a better job getting legislation through a divided Congress than President Obama.

[betsuni]

21. "Transform" "transformative"

I don't know what this talking point means. The "twisted" and "tilted" thing is because of Republicans OF COURSE. Come on.

"Both sides" makes me:

[Cha]

23. +1!!!

[Cha]

24. Obama oversaw the longest streak of private-sector job creation on record. Trump's May job growth is

Link to tweet

[betsuni]

25. I have no idea why so many people don't know that when Democrats are in charge the

economy is okay and when Republicans do the old trickle down nonsense the economy tanks.

[lapfog_1]

26. He gives it away at the end of the clip

"The thing is, if we have a campaign where the theme is 'lets go back to normal'..."

Is a direct swipe at Obama / Biden...

dear god I would love to go back to normal. We aren't going to magically make 40% of the country disappear overnight... we should at least reach out to the now vanishing middle 10%.

[betsuni]

30. "We aren't going to make 40% of the country disappear overnight."

Yes. I don't understand why some people think that if you just explain with magic words, the 40% will stop voting for Republicans. Or that it isn't clear that most Americans don't understand which party is responsible for terrible legislature.

I just saw Michael Bennet on PBS say that people don't know what Democrats stand for. What did Republicans say about Obama/Democrats: redistributing wealth, socialism, Obamacare, gun control, abortion, same sex marriage, feminism, etc. Who the hell doesn't know what Democrats stand for?

[leftofcool]

27. Pete is correct

That is exactly what many Democrats think.

[Cha]

28. Why not mention all the Good the

the Democratic Party has done for our Nation in the last 60 years?

The Midterms got us a Democratic House Victory because the country wanted Democracy as opposed to fucking fascism.

[brooklynite]

29. I have no problem with his remarks; I've been told the same by Democratic Leadership...

Understanding why people don't vote for us is as important as understanding why they do.

[MrsCoffee]

31. One reason they don't vote for us is because they are told both parties are the same.

[honest.abe]

33. Exactly.

[brooklynite]

34. To one extent they are...

...not on ideology, but on not responding to voters' needs. ONe of the reasons Trump won was that established figures in both political parties weren't seen as responsive.

[MrsCoffee]

35. Trump didn't win.

I don’t believe in any analysis that uses “Trump won”. It’s quite clear that the election was stolen and does not reflect the will or wants of the people.

[brooklynite]

36. Yes he did...

...because a majority of voters supported him in enough States under our Electoral College. The same system we'll have in 2020.

[honest.abe]

38. I hope and pray its not the same in 2020.

If so we are screwed yet again. They cheated to win.

[MrsCoffee]

39. No he didn't.

To say he somehow won the election without conspiracy and interference is ridiculous. It is most definitely not a reflection of the will or wants of the people.

But somehow I’m not surprised to see this claim of legitimacy.

[brooklynite]

40. "But somehow I'm not surprised to see this claim of legitimacy"

I deal with politics in the real world, not what makes me feel good. That Russia interfered in messaging doesn't change the fact that people chose to vote for him, and our Leadership recognizes him as President.

[MrsCoffee]

41. But it certainly changes the narrative that he somehow represents the will and wants of the people.

I live in the real world where they recognize him as president. I also live in the real world where leadership is investigating the shit out of him and his crew.

[Cha]

56. Exactly!

[honest.abe]

32. Yep, that kind of talk really hurts us.

No doubt he is trying to attract the angry voters who feel left out, much like Bernie. Its ridiculous to bash the Dem party and lump them in with Repubs. Its like night and day.

[Celerity]

47. I agree with Pete on this one, and not only because he is my preferred choice atm.

I think the 'he is selling false-equivalency' spin is tosh.