re: #546 Interesting Times

Well, perhaps because too many Democrats didn’t go to him in the first place? e_e

Seriously though, what parts of his arguments - and the general idea of framing things in terms that resonate with people and advance one’s values - do you object to?

(example: he advocates Democrats say “public protections” instead of “regulations”, because the former as a moral, positive connotation while the other buys into GOPer negative framing. So far, I haven’t actually seen any Dems do this on a wide scale. What’s the harm in at least trying?)

Because listening to his crap for eight years under Bush accomplished a lot?