Any suggestions or strategies for the (Democrats) in this upcoming 2022 midterm election?

Talk about your accomplishments and your intentions, not Donald Trump.

That would be my advice.

Hahaha. They have to talk about Trump,

although the student loan thing and definitely the pot thing might help—if Biden doesn’t change his mind. He’s already waffling on student loans…

(sigh)

I found no evidence of this. Please state your source.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/28/trump-russia-investigation-mueller-liberal-media-rachel-maddow

Excerpts of a woodshed censure:

With Trump has come Russia: two years of conspiracy-mongering about whether the president, a failed real estate mogul and reality TV star consumed with dubious deal-making, conspired with the Russian government to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. Robert Mueller’s determination that no evidence exists to prove Trump and Russian colluded to fix the election has exposed, once again, the venality of A-list political punditry. At the top of the heap is none other than MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.
________________

Still, it’s abundantly clear now that many liberal outlets overdid it in their fervor. And Maddow, MSNBC’s ratings juggernaut of the Trump era, is the embodiment of this overzealousness. The Mueller investigation was covered more on MSBNC than any other television network, and was mentioned virtually every day in 2018. No twist was too minuscule or outlandish for Maddow; every night, seemingly, brought another nail in the coffin of the soon-to-be-dead Trump presidency.
There was the time Maddow theorized that Trump was “curiously well-versed” in “specific Russian talking points”, strongly implying press briefings were dictated from the Kremlin. An American missile attack on Syria, Maddow concurred, could have been orchestrated by Putin himself. During a cold snap, the Russian government could shut down our power supply. Putin could blackmail Trump into pulling troops from Russia’s border.
Maddow was not only certain that Russians had rigged the election. On air, she would talk about the “continuing operation” – the idea that the Kremlin was controlling the Trump presidency itself. In more sober times, this brand of analysis would barely cut it on a far-right podcast. In the Trump era, it was ratings gold.
_______________

Maddow is much smarter than this. But the siren song of ratings is too difficult for a TV personality ignore, especially when a television network is transformed from an also-ran into a top contender.
This is not to say, of course, Trump is not a future criminal and the Mueller investigation didn’t perform a service. Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, and Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney, are headed to prison. Trump’s conflicts of interest are almost comical. Between the dubious family business dealings and Cohen’s hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels, there’s plenty of material for prosecutors in New York to investigate. Did Trump, in his reckless stupidity, obstruct justice? It’s possible.

But none of it will have to do with a fantastic collusion case. Rather, it will concern old-fashioned, sloppy corruption of the type Trump and his ilk – greedy pols and fraudulent businessmen – have engaged in for generations. It’s more destructive and more banal. It will not end his presidency, because federal prosecutors have reached a consensus that a sitting president probably cannot be indicted. Once Trump is out of office, the prosecutorial wheels can keep turning.
The case of Russian collusion served as soma for the Democratic masses addicted to cable TV and prestige news outlets, where the story could never die. Focus enough on Trump’s “illegitimate” presidency – Russian agents installed him! – and forget the catastrophic failure of the Democratic party to elect Hillary Clinton and stop Trump’s shambolic candidacy.
____________________

Most definitely not the only comeuppance for her weak tea drumbeat against ‘Russia Russia Russia’ that consumed so-called news during that time, but one of my favorites.

I think this was well-spoken:

Greenwald told Observer in an email that he believes he was banned from MSNBC in 2017 because of his “harsh criticism of the obsession of MSNBC generally, and Maddow specifically, with the Russia story, as well as their numerous errors and reckless speculation.”

A spokesperson for the network did not immediately respond to Observer’s request for comment.

Throughout the Trump era, Greenwald has taken an aggressive stance toward MSNBC and Maddow. In July, the journalist published an op-ed in his flagship media property The Intercept titled “MSNBC Does Not Merely Permit Fabrications Against Democratic Party Critics. It Encourages and Rewards Them.” The piece cast questions over the network’s frequent guest Malcolm Nance—a former Naval Officer who accused Greenwald of being “an agent of Trump & Moscow” over Twitter—and the network’s coverage of critics toward the Democratic Party.

No, I'm noting that MSNBC serially lies about people by airing fabricators who invent accusations that people are paid agents of a foreign power. I know that liberals think that lies told by liberal outlets shouldn't be discussed: that was the point of my article.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) July 12, 2018


But tensions with Greenwald and Maddow were not always so strained. In an interview with New York Magazine earlier this year, The Intercept founder recalled his friendship with the cable news host, before shuddering at her career in recent years.

“I used to be really good friends with Rachel Maddow,” he told the publication. “And I’ve seen her devolution from this really interesting, really smart, independent thinker into this utterly scripted, intellectually dishonest, partisan hack.”
_________________

https://observer.com/2018/08/glenn-greenwald-says-msnbc-banned-him-after-he-criticized-rachel-maddow/amp/

It was hard to choose only one, but I’ll try to stop with this one.

https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-sees-a-russia-connection-lurking-around-every-corner/

MSNBC’S RACHEL MADDOW SEES A “RUSSIA CONNECTION” LURKING AROUND EVERY CORNER
In a six-week period, Maddow covered Russia not just more than any other issue, but more than every other issue combined.
Aaron Maté
April 12 2017, 9:22 a.m.

ONE DAY AFTER her network joined the rest of corporate media in cheering for President Trump’s missile attack on Syria, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow was back to regular business: seeing Russian collaboration with Trump at work.

It’s “impossible,” fellow anchor Lawrence O’Donnell told Maddow on April 7, to rule out that “Vladimir Putin orchestrated what happened in Syria this week – so that his friend in the White House could have a big night with missiles and all of the praise he’s picked up over the past 24 hours.”

Maddow concurred, suggesting that only the FBI’s ongoing probe into Trump’s alleged collusion with Russian electoral interference will determine the truth. “Maybe eventually we’ll get an answer to that from [FBI Director] Jim Comey,” Maddow said.

The Washington Post noted that the “conspiracy theory” drew “derision from across the political spectrum.” But it was not out of place.

MSNBC, the country’s most prominent liberal media outlet, has played a key role in stoking the frenzy over Trump’s alleged involvement with Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential race — in lock step with the Democratic Party’s most avid partisans.

Jennifer Palmieri, a senior member of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, captured the prevailing mentality when she recently urged party members to talk about the Russian “attack on our republic” — and to do so “relentlessly and above all else.”

And no leading media figure has done so more than Maddow. In the period since Election Day, “The Rachel Maddow Show” has covered “The Russia Connection” — and Russia, generally — more than it has any other issue.
—————————
While proof of collusion with Moscow could well emerge — and could well topple Trump’s presidency — the “above all else” focus on Russia lacks concrete supporting evidence, either of Russian hacking and cyber disinformation impacting the vote’s outcome or of the Trump campaign’s complicity with it. Journalist Matt Taibbi calls it “an exercise of conspiratorial mass hysteria.”

This muddies the waters for a sober, credible investigation of Russia’s actions — but that is the least of its consequences. Democrats have avoided constructive introspection on their seismic election loss by blaming the Kremlin. Anti-Russia sentiment threatens to turn into rank xenophobia and escalate tensions with a nuclear-armed power. And most critically for a vital news source like Maddow’s show, every moment devoted to scrutinizing Trump’s alleged Russia ties deflects attention from his administration’s actual policies.

Ok, wait. This one is the best. Maddow = Hannity!!
—————

https://slate.com/culture/2019/03/rachel-maddow-mueller-report-trump-barr.html
—————
Since Donald Trump’s election, Rachel Maddow has climbed to the top of the cable news ratings with a resistance bullhorn and a conspiratorial vision of the Trump presidency. She has traded the No. 1 slot with Fox’s leading conspiratorialist Sean Hannity, the flip side of her cabal-spotting coin. (In the days since the Mueller investigation concluded, Maddow’s ratings have dipped significantly while Hannity’s have risen.) Hannity, the president’s phone a friend, is widely understood to be a propagandist for the administration—perhaps even by his own audience, MAGA devotees who would never hold such a thing against him. Night after night he pushes deranged “factual” interpretations—Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is an actress, not a congresswoman; the Mueller investigation is an attempted deep state coup—that turn the world into a wall of crazy targeting the Trump regime.
—————————

But Maddow too, has turned the universe into an intricate web of intersecting plots that all lead to one conclusion: collusion. In the days since the Mueller report was sent to Barr, Maddow has held fast to her faith that Mueller is some kind of avenging hero, who will get Trump in the end. “As we await the Mueller report,” she said on Tuesday night, “we are left with this incredibly provocative set of unexplained behaviors.” Then she cued up “the mystery sound,” a not particularly eerie ding she used to introduce a long digression about a still-active “mystery case,” in which a “mystery company owned by mystery country” has resisted all attempts to testify about some mystery topic at the special prosecutor’s request, which she then tied to a number of other still active parts of the Mueller investigation, which she intimated could still result in something damning.
————————

It’s true that a case involving the subpoena of a still-anonymous foreign corporation is ongoing, as are other prosecutions, like that of Roger Stone for perjury. But we can be fairly certain that Mueller has decided these cases are not relevant to the question of whether he will issue indictments for “conspiracy and coordination” with Russia—since, among other things, he seems to have decided to issue no indictments at all. Maddow’s winking insistence otherwise feels like willful misdirection. “All this stuff is still live,” she said, with the amused self-assured look of someone who thinks they have figured out a magician’s trick, “even as it’s shutting down.” There’s no reason to peel the arrows and news clippings off the wall, so long as you can find a new string.
——————————
(The Glenn Beckification of Rachel MadCow)

The Howard Bealeization, or Glenn Beckifaction, of Rachel Maddow is a reminder that partisan paranoia has bipartisan appeal. Maddow is right to question the summarizing of a 300ish-page report into four measly pages, to insist on transparency, to challenge the motives of the Trump-friendly AG—and she’s not alone in doing so. But for Maddow, every piece of information remains a clue that might take down the Trump empire. There is no adjustment for how the report has been widely received, no skepticism about what the report might actually contain, just cockamamie connections, the feverish belief that every single thing we don’t know is the all-important fact, that the smoking gun of collusion is out there, and that, yes, Robert Mueller is still going to swoop in and save us.

——————————
She has been censured.
But, she made herself a multimillionaire playing to Democrat loons, so I’m sure she’d do it again. There are loons on both sides of the political spectrum.

Oh, you mean an opinion piece spoke negatively about her, not a public and official reprimand. Is that somehow an earth shattering thing?

Are you under the impression that I said it had shattered the earth? Or did I say she’d been censured for it?

And you said you hadn’t known she’d been censured. And asked me for a source. And I brought 3 or 4–one from a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist.

Do you understand?

I found your usage of the word "censure" confusing and not appropriate for the context used. I asked for and received clarification.

I'm under the impression you are defensive and aggressive.

Not at all—willing to give expansive evidence and cheerful!😂😂😂

I’m so sorry you found it confusing and not appropriate. Here is the definition for English speaking people.🙂🙂🙂<— symbols used to represent appealing personalities in most societies


cen·sure
/ˈsen(t)SHər/
Learn to pronounce
verb
express severe disapproval of (someone or something), especially in a formal statement.
"a judge was censured in 1983 for a variety of types of injudicious conduct"

It also means "a formal, public, group condemnation of an individual, often a group member, whose actions run counter to the group's acceptable standards for individual behavior" to which there is no substantiation for Rachel Maddow.

It's English, if you'd prefer to check it out.

Obviously, you care too much about appearing right than actually being right.

Can you source your preferred definition? With the complete definition?
You know, like I did?

I do care about actually being accurate, which is why I cited the definition.
You seem to care much more about appearing right rather than actually being accurate.

Tsk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure_in_the_United_States

Oh, you poor thing. That’s not a dictionary.

Disallowed!

Whatevs.

I strongly suggest that the Democratic Party pay more attention to the state of NEVADA
in this upcoming 2022 midterm election.

Democrat (Senator Catherine Cortez Masto) trails in poll of key Nevada Senate race.


Published October 6, 2022




https://news.yahoo.com/cortez-masto-trails-poll-key-175436870.html

I believe Early Voting in NEVADA 2022 midterm will be:

(October 22 - November 4)