comment: >
context: She's trying to level her perception off to remain in power. Boebert almost losing scared her shitless. She knows that the qAnon grift only works for so long and it's about to hit its sell by date. So now she needs to turn more mainstream conservative to remain in office. Why? Well if she leaves office what does she have? She's not attractive enough for a conservative news station to pick her up. No think tank wants a barely educated woman. Lobbyists will consider her unable to hold true influence while not in Congress. She needs to ride the Congressional gravy train until she can retire with her ill gotten millions from back room double dealings. >
  
  There’s an entire right-wing grifter ecosystem that she could plug right into. It’s very lucrative. >
  
  I don't think she has enough clout and name value to actually maintain a grift to the same level as Trump. She'd have to run on the Trump brand and you can bet he would want his pound of flesh from that. >
  
  I disagree completely. She’s on Bannon’s show all the time. Everyone knows her name. >
  
  I'm not saying they don't know her I'm saying outside her current position there isn't enough prominence behind the name to make money off it. >
  
  
  In the Trump era of politics, Greene has quickly become one of the most prolific fundraisers and attention-getters in the Republican Party — and not always for good reasons.  
  
  Name one time, ONE TIME, when it's been for a good reason. >
  
  Given NPRs pathological need to be seen as "centrist", they'll be totally unable to but still insist it must have happened. >
  
  It means that when her time is up, and in those circles it will inevitably be up, she will be seen as the enemy by the same people who support her now. 
  That’s the problem with using cults to prop yourself up. 
  “You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” 
  Their base has turned on virtually everyone. >
  
  Ali Alexander, Nick Fuentes, and Laura Loomer have already been trashing her all over the place. >
  
  And she’s fighting with Boebert… 
  It’s like during the crusades when the Christian’s sacked Constantinople, another Christian nation, because they weren’t 100% the same… >
  
  It means NPR is choosing to promote her. >
  
  The media will always rehabilitate fascists >
  
  It means she's a fraud. >
  
  That party is like watching the decline of civilization in real time. >
  
  It's like living in Rome when Augustulus ruled. >
  
  She’s trying to become Trump’s VP choice. >
  
  The bar just got lower? >
  
  The Ultra MAGAs hate her now that she openly backed McCarthy who, in their opinion, is no better than a Democrat. He was seen wearing a Ukraine lapel pin, an unforgivable sin and a betrayal of all things MAGA >
  
  
  Georgia-based Republican strategist John Mason Long said Greene's evolution to work with leadership without alienating the base is smart, given the current dynamics where the House essentially needs the entire conference on the same page.
  "What she knows she has to do is be an effective legislator," he said.
  
  🤨
  
  Greene's political stances do not differ that much from the anti-McCarthy holdouts, but Long, the Georgia-based strategist, said the decision to wield her influence to be constructive within the party instead of obstructive will likely pay off in the long run if she has aspirations for higher office.
  
  Excuse me, I have to go be violently sick. >
  
  She’s got something to lose now >
  
  NPR get it together. MTG is a traitor and seditionist. Her little PR stunt shouldn’t change that. >
  
  We’re doomed? >
  
  I means our shitty political media has shifted the Overton window rightward once again.
  They normalized Trump, now they're normalizing Greene. >
  
  The lunatics are running the asylum. >
  
  Peaking early, imo >
  
  Nothing good for America! Anything to do with her is only good for white, rich, “Christian” conservatives! >
  
  I figured after eking out a win that Boebert would be the first one to put on a normal people mask and pretend to be serious about her job, but I guess she's content to do the bare minimum to keep her seat. 
  Marge wearing a normal people mask and aspiring to higher office is truly frightening, though. >
  
  It’s all thanks to people like NPR. >
  
  Really? How is it NPR’s fault? Do you listen to NPR regularly? >
  
  Yes I do I’m just saying that give her positive PR is stupid. >
  
  How is this positive PR? They are reporting something that happened. Do you think it’s journalistic to see reporting as an us versus them contest? >
  
  MTG and McCarthy are doing the ugly? >
  
  Wouldn't be shocked but her current squeeze appears to be the tool anchor for RSBN >
  
  IMO, a grand jury had some questions they wanted answered? It's almost my birthday! >
  
  It means that parasites are very adaptive. >
  
  She's a loony in a country full of loonies? >
  
  It means everyone should ignore these insane people and stop giving them attention. >
  
  she's gonna buy a new straw wig and visit "antifa" in jail? >
  
  It means Q is here for good. 
  GOP = Q
  Q = GOP >
  
  Ladies and Gentleman of the jury, I'm just a Caveman. I fell in some ice and later got thawed out by your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me. Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW and run off into the hills or whatever. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, did little demons get inside and type it? I don't know. My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. >
  
  It means the rot of the GOP is finally reaching the leadership level on ways that will ensure a continued lasting fascistic ideological bent. >
  
  Something about lipstick and a pig >
  
  How is there no top post about Biden's mishandling of secret material--when it's the headline topic of literally every news outlet and political forum? Instead you guys spam posts about MTG and Trump.
  This subreddit is such a joke.
  Edit: Ooo! One of you already hit the "kys" suicide report button. How progressive, mature, and intellectual. >
  
  its been near the top of the front page since it broke, are you just looking for something to complain about? >
  
  It means the left will continue to lose if dem leadership can’t meet people where they are. >
  
  Continuing to lose implies that there have been notable recent losses. The last 3 elections cycles were very good for the democrats. >
  
  But they can’t pass legislation. We’ll see about 2024. But if you can’t hold on to both houses given how bad the GOP has become it’s probably time to rethink you’re approach. Even when they did have the majority NP blocked a bill banning stock trading that voters on both sides support. >
  
  Right now they can't, which sucks, but politically they are still doing quite well. The reason they lost the house beyond the normal midterm bias against incumbent majorities had quite a bit to do with gerrymandering. Thats why they were able to slightly expand their senate lead (where gerrymandering can't effect things) despite losing the house by a few seats.
  
  But if you can’t hold on to both houses given how bad the GOP has become it’s probably time to rethink you’re approach
  
  Well, if you want to look back on how we achieved a supermajority back in 2008 it was because the party had a platform that was more centrist than it is today and they invested in running conservative "blue dog" democrats in red states. So yes, there's certainly an clear evidence that the party can do better electorally by more directly shunning progressive candidates and more openly embracing and financing conservative candidates.
  But somehow I don't think that's what you mean, is it?
  I'm certainly up for the democrats trying to do things better but any analysis that doesn't take into account a realistic assessment of the right-leaning electorate in the country which consistently disproves polling about issues with their votes is not being realistic. >
  
  But after 2008 dems proceeded to lose 1,000 seats in 2016. I don’t think running centrists in red states is the answer. What I mean by meeting people where they are is addressing issues that affect democrat and republican voters alike. Child tax credit, universal pre-k, parental leave, things like that. If BBB had passed I thinks dems would have done a lot better in the midterms and maybe even held onto the house. >
  
  
  But after 2008 dems proceeded to lose 1,000 seats in 2016.
  
  Yes, because the Republicans were very successful in framing Obamacare and the democrats under Obama as "socialists" and radically left. That's what the success of the tea party campaign was. They sure as hell weren't running in 2010 saying that democrats weren't getting anything done, their messaging was all about liberal overreach.
  
  hat I mean by meeting people where they are is addressing issues that affect democrat and republican voters alike.
  
  Possibly. There's very little evidence that passing good legislation ever changes voters minds. It certainly didn't help in 2010, after the most productive congressional session in a generation. Passing terrible legislation like the crime bill and wall street deregulation in Clinton's second term didn't get in the way of them winning the 1998 midterms. People tend to vote based on media narrative.
  We didn't have a big enough majority in the senate to pass BBB. It's amazing anything at all got passed with a 50-50 split. If people wanted BBB and all the stuff that Republicans blocked the past 2 years, they should have voted to increase the dem's majority instead of giving it to the Republicans who blocked it. >
  
  It sounds like you’re saying the GOP’s rhetoric is more effective than dems. But that’s exactly my point. >
  
  Legislation and rhetoric are very different things. You were using legislation as examples.
  Yes the GOP's rhetoric is more effective than the dems. But the reason for that is not because the rhetoric itself is better crafted. The reason is because Republicans have an entire media apparatus at their disposal that is incredibly well funded and entirely ideologically dedicated to promoting Republican rhetoric. There is essentially no left-wing or center-left media organizations outside of some podcasts that qualify as this for democrats. The news organizations that right-wingers decry as left wing propaganda (NPR, NYTimes MSNBC, CNN) are all simply centrist / attempting-to-look-neutral and do not engage in the kind of demagoguery on behalf of any political party that Fox and - more importantly - right wing AM radio stations do. 
  Your rhetoric will be way more effective when you have a multimillion dollar national bullhorn working for you every day. >
  
  Maybe. you’re rhetoric would also be more effective if you had legislation to back it up. >
  
  They do have the legislation for the most part. Republicans are just often able to block it because we haven't had a big majority since 2009, during which time democrats absolutely backed up their rhetoric with legislation and were pummeled in the resulting election because of perceived overreach.