If only a Democratic candidate could focus on exciting the fucking base instead of trying to become Republican-lite to capture Republican votes. Maybe you’d shatter turnout by actually getting your voters excited, instead of constantly reminding them how ready they are as a party to pander to the unhinged, cruel fucking freaks in the Republican party.
This is just plain wrong. Vox says it better than I can,
It reflects wishful thinking and a rigid set of political priors — namely, that Democrats’ political problems always stem from insufficient motivation of base voters — more than a cold, hard look at what the electoral and demographic data say.
I’ve been told this absolute bullshit consistently for 40 fucking years while universal healthcare polls in the 80% approval range as long as you don’t actually call it “universal healthcare.”
I’ve been told this absolute bullshit consistently for 40 fucking years
So the thing is the above can be entirely unrelated to the below
while universal healthcare polls in the 80% approval range as long as you don’t actually call it “universal healthcare.”
Wouldn’t it be a huge irony if the 80% that approves all live in safe blue and red states, while the 20% that don’t approve all live in the battleground states?
Being in denial of the reasons for the former doesn’t actually solve the problem, it will just cause Dems to lose the Electoral College.
That aside, I do recall laughing when Mitt Romney started campaigning against the ACA, and then Obama thanked Romney for the idea (the ACA being based on an earlier universal healthcare scheme for a State that Romney promoted and successfully implemented as its governor).
I suppose you’ve hit the nail on the head actually - progressive policies can be a win if they’re appropriately branded and marketed in the right way to that demographic. But that goes to the point from Vox that I echoed earlier - the campaign has to be tailored to win over the swing voters specifically, rather than the average American - and the former can actually look quite different from the latter.
If only a Democratic candidate could focus on exciting the fucking base instead of trying to become Republican-lite to capture Republican votes. Maybe you’d shatter turnout by actually getting your voters excited, instead of constantly reminding them how ready they are as a party to pander to the unhinged, cruel fucking freaks in the Republican party.
This is just plain wrong. Vox says it better than I can,
Source: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/1/29/16945106/democrats-white-working-class-demographics-alabama-clinton-obama-base
Also, keep this in mind,
Source: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/22/13713148/electoral-college-democracy-race-white-voters
The campaign of Harris knows what it is doing. This, sadly, is indeed what it takes to win.
I’ve been told this absolute bullshit consistently for 40 fucking years while universal healthcare polls in the 80% approval range as long as you don’t actually call it “universal healthcare.”
So the thing is the above can be entirely unrelated to the below
Wouldn’t it be a huge irony if the 80% that approves all live in safe blue and red states, while the 20% that don’t approve all live in the battleground states?
Being in denial of the reasons for the former doesn’t actually solve the problem, it will just cause Dems to lose the Electoral College.
That aside, I do recall laughing when Mitt Romney started campaigning against the ACA, and then Obama thanked Romney for the idea (the ACA being based on an earlier universal healthcare scheme for a State that Romney promoted and successfully implemented as its governor).
I suppose you’ve hit the nail on the head actually - progressive policies can be a win if they’re appropriately branded and marketed in the right way to that demographic. But that goes to the point from Vox that I echoed earlier - the campaign has to be tailored to win over the swing voters specifically, rather than the average American - and the former can actually look quite different from the latter.