Democrats fell in love with the idea that winning elections was a matter of talking to voters about the one issue we think impacts them, instead of our plan to move the country forward as a whole.
In the life of a nation, few ideas are more dangerous than good solutions to the wrong problems.
Everybody wants to have the president talk about their issue.
Revolt by all means, but only on one issue at a time. To do more would be to confuse the whips.
I worry that as the problem-solving power of our technologies increases, our ability to distinguish between important and trivial or even non-existent problems diminishes.
Don't focus on what Trump says. Focus on the results of his actions. Stay in your lane and focus on one particular area.
I have changed the focus of the work of my Commission so that we no longer concern ourselves with trivial details and concentrate on the key issues instead. By doing that, we met a large number of the legitimate demands made by the British people. The Commission really did do everything it could to create the conditions for a positive campaign.
Let's leave behind the predictable and stale debate between liberals and conservatives. Let's take the resources that we have, and prioritize, and manage, and focus our energy on just doing things that count - on real results.
I try to shy away from labels and focus on the issues.
What matters is not a simple sense of an issue’s salience, but whether a government can shape outcomes on it, where there is the greatest likelihood that the parties will actually be able to implement their policies.
I wholeheartedly believe that we can't organize just as women. There has to be specific messaging and an issue prioritization based on identity groups. Because when you ask a black woman what her top priority issues are versus a white woman versus a Muslim woman versus an undocumented woman, you're going to get... different answers.
I am so tired of being told by Democratic operatives to 'suck it up' because so many other profound issues are at stake.
Small issues are really just large ones that haven't been accorded the requisite attention.
I make it a point not to buy certain magazines, not because I am against tabloids or things like that, but I want to fill my mind with valid issues in the world.
To be outspoken when truth is under attack, when charity is being bruise, or when important issues of life are at stake is a good and courageous thing. To be outspoken when nothing is at stake except the feelings of someone else is a small and contemptible thing.
It's not hard to assume that voters do not have deeply considered views on each and every policy issue before them but instead, perhaps, have one or two strongly held views and then allow their favored political leaders to fill in the gaps on the rest of the issues.
Representative democracy is a remarkably blunt instrument. Hundreds of issues are bundled together at every election, yet the vote tends to swing on just one or two of them.
I've certainly done more than my fair share of pouncing on a stupid issue to win the news cycle of the day, to distract from what are real and important issues.
I've reached the age where I don't care what their motives are. It's their policies that count.
I think there has been this really bad habit of environmentalists being insufferably smug, where they are sort of saying, 'This is the issue that beats all other issues,' or, 'Your issue doesn't matter because nothing matters if the earth is fried.'
In the world of perpetual outrage, people cannot see the difference between deflated footballs, a dead lion, and dismembered babies.
In a personalized world, important but complex or unpleasant issues are less likely to come to our attention at all.
I always think that it's important to step back and look at the facts, figure out what is big, what is small, and always target the solution and the policy issue correctly. Don't try to solve the wrong problem with unemployment insurance.
Some people don't want to be morally consistent. They just want to be tied to their one issue.