Support NeoGAF

[Bonen no Max'd]

MT-AL is R+11, not R+20.

 

[metalslimer]

Montana was a long shot. But I'm gonna legit cry if Ossof loses.

That one will be a dagger to the heart because it will probably be within 2 points.

 

[Aaron Strife]

MT-AL is R+11, not R+20.

But Trump won by 20. I think that's what people get mixed up on.

 

[Allard]

MT-AL is R+11, not R+20.

They are misinterpreting what most people mean by that. Its R+11 advantage, but he is talking about the percentage difference between candidates which is +20 40% vs 60% I think.

 

[rokkerkory]

GG Quist try again please!

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

But Trump won by 20. I think that's what people get mixed up on.

Zinke only won by 15 the same year though.

 

[Kusagari]

Zinke only won by 15 the same year though.

Yeah, against a pretty bad candidate and during the Trump wave. There's no way you can say the district is +20.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Rurals coming in. Quist is boned.

Bet it's Gianforte +6.

Unless there are a lot of urban districts out in the counties around Billings and Great Falls its going to be more than that. Just looking at the NYT tracker I'd say Gianforte +10 but you obviously are closer to it.

 

[kirblar]

GG Quist try again please!

If Quist does underperform in Billings we do not want to run him against GG Bodyslam again.

 

[whyamihere]

Unless there are a lot of urban districts out in the counties around Billings and Great Falls its going to be more than that. Just looking at the NYT tracker I'd say Gianforte +10 but you obviously are closer to it.

There's still a decent amount left in D country to keep it close, including Native American reservations.

Silver Bow will tighten the margin a bit but it won't be enough.

 

[wandering]

FiveThirtyEight:

The Cook Report’s PVI (a bit more weighted to the 2012 election result than Harry’s adjusted partisanship) pegs Montana’s House seat at a score of R+11. That, more or less, means we think a Republican should win about 61 percent of the vote in a “neutral” political environment. When all is said and done, it’s likely Gianforte will be in the low to mid 50s. Keep in mind, the median House seat is only R+3, so, as Harry said, Democrats don’t need to win these kinds of districts to win the House. They need to over-perform by about 4 points on average, and Quist is on track to do that.

 

[whyamihere]

FiveThirtyEight:

Yuuup.

I think this brings up a discussion about how the Left is going to rectify this loss, which they seemed to prefer as a seat (and candidate type) to Ossoff's more affluent and educated GA-6. I have longer thoughts on this, but I do think the Left needs to figure out how to rectify socialism and diversity with white tribalism. They certainly haven't here as the Republican Party transforms into a party of the rural white person.

I don't think there's an easy answer. You can blame the DCCC same Quist as a candidate until you're blue in the face, but with winning Gallatin but losing with Trump-like margins in the East, Quist's map looks like Hillary's but "better" than a fundamental reshaping of the political landscape of rural America.

I dunno. There isn't an easy answer. But I do think if the Left is gonna bitch about how we should be going after seats like MT-AL or KS-04 instead of GA-06 because those seats are of the salt-of-the-Earth working man and that those seats are the only types that would elect candidates who could actually pass progressive legislation like Medicare For All (I disagree with this point btw so please do not attack me over that or I will be v upset) then they need to rectify with the reality that these seats are almost impossible to win because rural whites are racist and are blaming their problems on brown people and foreigners and everything trumps that.

 

[Crocodile]

Yuuup.

I think this brings up a discussion about how the Left is going to rectify this loss, which they seemed to prefer as a seat (and candidate type) to Ossoff's more affluent and educated GA-6. I have longer thoughts on this, but I do think the Left needs to figure out how to rectify socialism and diversity with white tribalism. They certainly haven't here as the Republican Party transforms into a party of the rural white person.

I don't think there's an easy answer. You can blame the DCCC same Quist as a candidate until you're blue in the face, but with winning Gallatin but losing with Trump-like margins in the East, Quist's map looks like Hillary's but "better" than a fundamental reshaping of the political landscape of rural America.

I dunno. There isn't an easy answer. But I do think if the Left is gonna bitch about how we should be going after seats like MT-AL or KS-04 instead of GA-06 because those seats are of the salt-of-the-Earth working man and that those seats are the only types that would elect candidates who could actually pass progressive legislation like Medicare For All (I disagree with this point btw so please do not attack me over that or I will be v upset) then they need to rectify with the reality that these seats are almost impossible to win because rural whites are racist and are blaming their problems on brown people and foreigners and everything trumps that.

This post reads a lot like a "kirblar was right post"

 

[Boke1879]

Yuuup.

I think this brings up a discussion about how the Left is going to rectify this loss, which they seemed to prefer as a seat (and candidate type) to Ossoff's more affluent and educated GA-6. I have longer thoughts on this, but I do think the Left needs to figure out how to rectify socialism and diversity with white tribalism. They certainly haven't here as the Republican Party transforms into a party of the rural white person.

I don't think there's an easy answer. You can blame the DCCC same Quist as a candidate until you're blue in the face, but with winning Gallatin but losing with Trump-like margins in the East, Quist's map looks like Hillary's but "better" than a fundamental reshaping of the political landscape of rural America.

I dunno. There isn't an easy answer. But I do think if the Left is gonna bitch about how we should be going after seats like MT-AL or KS-04 instead of GA-06 because those seats are of the salt-of-the-Earth working man and that those seats are the only types that would elect candidates who could actually pass progressive legislation like Medicare For All (I disagree with this point btw so please do not attack me over that or I will be v upset) then they need to rectify with the reality that these seats are almost impossible to win because rural whites are racist and are blaming their problems on brown people and foreigners and everything trumps that.

To your last point. That's what some people just straight up need to realize. These people will vote R because they promise to get rid of "illegals" and be tougher on crime.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Yuuup.

I think this brings up a discussion about how the Left is going to rectify this loss, which they seemed to prefer as a seat (and candidate type) to Ossoff's more affluent and educated GA-6. I have longer thoughts on this, but I do think the Left needs to figure out how to rectify socialism and diversity with white tribalism. They certainly haven't here as the Republican Party transforms into a party of the rural white person.

I don't think there's an easy answer. You can blame the DCCC same Quist as a candidate until you're blue in the face, but with winning Gallatin but losing with Trump-like margins in the East, Quist's map looks like Hillary's but "better" than a fundamental reshaping of the political landscape of rural America.

I dunno. There isn't an easy answer. But I do think if the Left is gonna bitch about how we should be going after seats like MT-AL or KS-04 instead of GA-06 because those seats are of the salt-of-the-Earth working man and that those seats are the only types that would elect candidates who could actually pass progressive legislation like Medicare For All (I disagree with this point btw so please do not attack me over that or I will be v upset) then they need to rectify with the reality that these seats are almost impossible to win because rural whites are racist and are blaming their problems on brown people and foreigners and everything trumps that.

Great post.

 

[whyamihere]

This post reads a lot like a "kirblar was right post"

Don't make me choke a bitch 😘

I'm saying as a socialist, a lot of us are very thrilled to say HILLARY (who I voted for in the primary!), DCCC, BERNIE WOULDVE WON! but we have yet to come up with a solution to white tribalism.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Yuuup.

I think this brings up a discussion about how the Left is going to rectify this loss, which they seemed to prefer as a seat (and candidate type) to Ossoff's more affluent and educated GA-6. I have longer thoughts on this, but I do think the Left needs to figure out how to rectify socialism and diversity with white tribalism. They certainly haven't here as the Republican Party transforms into a party of the rural white person.

I don't think there's an easy answer. You can blame the DCCC same Quist as a candidate until you're blue in the face, but with winning Gallatin but losing with Trump-like margins in the East, Quist's map looks like Hillary's but "better" than a fundamental reshaping of the political landscape of rural America.

I dunno. There isn't an easy answer. But I do think if the Left is gonna bitch about how we should be going after seats like MT-AL or KS-04 instead of GA-06 because those seats are of the salt-of-the-Earth working man and that those seats are the only types that would elect candidates who could actually pass progressive legislation like Medicare For All (I disagree with this point btw so please do not attack me over that or I will be v upset) then they need to rectify with the reality that these seats are almost impossible to win because rural whites are racist and are blaming their problems on brown people and foreigners and everything trumps that.

To your last point. That's what some people just straight up need to realize. These people will vote R because they promise to get rid of "illegals" and be tougher on crime.

Time is/may not on our side.

 

[kirblar]

Don't make me choke a bitch 😘

I'm saying as a socialist, a lot of us are very thrilled to say HILLARY (who I voted for in the primary!), DCCC, BERNIE WOULDVE WON! but we have yet to come up with a solution to white tribalism.

It might be because the "left" coalition is effectively young people + rural whites, and the back half of that equation is generally more likely to be on board w/ white tribalism than the rest of the party?

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Don't make me choke a bitch 😘

I'm saying as a socialist, a lot of us are very thrilled to say HILLARY (who I voted for in the primary!), DCCC, BERNIE WOULDVE WON! but we have yet to come up with a solution to white tribalism.

Some days I write some long junk about things we can do to fix US racism (as in heavily reduce its power and pervasiveness), but honestly, it may only stop when it gets what it asks for and then crashes and burns anyway.

And even then you just get disaffected racists, not converted ones.

 

[Abinash117]

Don't make me choke a bitch ��

I'm saying as a socialist, a lot of us are very thrilled to say HILLARY (who I voted for in the primary!), DCCC, BERNIE WOULDVE WON! but we have yet to come up with a solution to white tribalism.

The people that associates with white tribalism likely does not give a damn about the issues as much as the left-wing populists and economic focused progressives does. They might care about protecting SS and medicaid, but that just means they they care about that.

Besides if they associate themselves with white tribalism, what do you think they care more about?

It might be because the "left" coalition is effectively young people + rural whites, and the back half of that equation is generally more likely to be on board w/ white tribalism than the rest of the party?

I think it most cases people care far more about their own interests. The "Left" may have ideas that the rural voters may like, but that doesn't mean they vote for progressives. It was naive to think that voters who vote Republican almost like bloc like minorities for years was gonna vote for liberals/progressives.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

It might be because the "left" coalition is effectively young people + rural whites, and the back half of that equation is generally more likely to be on board w/ white tribalism than the rest of the party?

This result is a blow to the left's model of turning out populist whites while staying competitive in the suburbs. Quist was running against an out of state mega-millionaire and substantially underpeformed Bullock in rural areas. Liberals have taken a ton of losses in recent years but that doesn't mean the alternative is necessarily better.

 

[TestOfTide]

Don't make me choke a bitch ��

I'm saying as a socialist, a lot of us are very thrilled to say HILLARY (who I voted for in the primary!), DCCC, BERNIE WOULDVE WON! but we have yet to come up with a solution to white tribalism.

We already know the solution to white tribalism: Integration sustained over time.

Yes you have the initial hump of resistance by white people, but once you get past that it makes the demonization of minorities a lot less effective.

 

[royalan]

To your last point. That's what some people just straight up need to realize. These people will vote R because they promise to get rid of "illegals" and be tougher on crime.

Exactly.

I think some Democrats are making a mistake by thinking that the reason we lost in 2016 is that we didn't talk about "The Policies!" enough. Trying to correct for that perceived error is leading us to put our hopes in talking to the poor WWC voter who's just down on his luck and would vote for us if they just knew how awesome we were and how much we care about them.

That's not the case now and it wasn't the case in 2016.

To be clear, Democrats should compete everywhere, and we should always articulate our policy aims in a way that's easily digestible by the masses (and we are notoriously bad at this and it should be addressed). But at some point, we need to wake up and realize that this is not the battle that's being fought. We're in the midst of a culture war, and those are won on passion.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Yuuup.

I think this brings up a discussion about how the Left is going to rectify this loss, which they seemed to prefer as a seat (and candidate type) to Ossoff's more affluent and educated GA-6. I have longer thoughts on this, but I do think the Left needs to figure out how to rectify socialism and diversity with white tribalism. They certainly haven't here as the Republican Party transforms into a party of the rural white person.

I don't think there's an easy answer. You can blame the DCCC same Quist as a candidate until you're blue in the face, but with winning Gallatin but losing with Trump-like margins in the East, Quist's map looks like Hillary's but "better" than a fundamental reshaping of the political landscape of rural America.

I dunno. There isn't an easy answer. But I do think if the Left is gonna bitch about how we should be going after seats like MT-AL or KS-04 instead of GA-06 because those seats are of the salt-of-the-Earth working man and that those seats are the only types that would elect candidates who could actually pass progressive legislation like Medicare For All (I disagree with this point btw so please do not attack me over that or I will be v upset) then they need to rectify with the reality that these seats are almost impossible to win because rural whites are racist and are blaming their problems on brown people and foreigners and everything trumps that.

This is a fair critiques but I do think it should keep in mind that MT-AL is not IA-1 or IL-13. I don't think a durable left majority will be built in a place like Montana or Kansas overnight, but I don't think it should be impossible to look at lost constituencies and win them back. I also think a Democratic party that looks like mostly like Ossoff is going to be absolutely terrible.

I also think breaking things into just the three categories of urban/suburban/rural is a bit misleading. The important "rural" areas that the left really wants to win back are really small cities like Erie, Kenosha, or Wichita, the last of which Thompson *did* win after it went for Trump. These places definitely don't look like the place I grew up in (which would never vote for a Democrat ever) but were reliable left votes and winning them back represents a better coalition than Ossoff's "I'll cut government waste!" imo

 

[kirblar]

Exactly.

I think some Democrats are making a mistake by thinking that the reason we lost in 2016 is that we didn't talk about "The Policies!" enough. Trying to correct for that perceived error is leading us to put our hopes in talking to the poor WWC voter who's just down on his luck and would vote for us if they just knew how awesome we were and how much we care about them.

That's not the case now and it wasn't the case in 2016.

To be clear, Democrats should compete everywhere, and we should always articulate our policy aims in a way that's easily digestible by the masses. But at some point, we need to wake up and realize that this is not the battle that's being fought. We're in the midst of a culture war, and those are won on passion.

That error is accurate, just not in the way they think. Clinton's ads and messaging ended up backfiring on her. When your opponent is a crazy person, the lesson is to play it straight and then let them screw themselves.

This is a fair critiques but I do think it should keep in mind that MT-AL is not IA-1 or IL-13. I don't think a durable left majority will be built in a place like Montana or Kansas overnight, but I don't think it should be impossible to look at lost constituencies and win them back. I also think a Democratic party that looks like mostly like Ossoff is going to be absolutely terrible.

I also think breaking things into just the three categories of urban/suburban/rural is a bit misleading. The important "rural" areas that the left really wants to win back are really small cities like Erie, Kenosha, or Wichita, the last of which Thompson *did* win after it went for Trump. These places definitely don't look like the place I grew up in (which would never vote for a Democrat ever) but were reliable left votes and winning them back represents a better coalition than Ossoff's "I'll cut government waste!" imo

That's just it, they're lost, and we're still losing them. And there's no sign of those trends going backwards, because the people flipping aren't flipping on the values axes that would allow us to compete to get them back.

Districts' like Ossoff's, on the other hand, are trending our direction, in large part because of that axis (racism!) that's pushing the rural whites out.

 

[TestOfTide]

Exactly.

I think some Democrats are making a mistake by thinking that the reason we lost in 2016 is that we didn't talk about "The Policies!" enough. Trying to correct for that perceived error is leading us to put our hopes in talking to the poor WWC voter who's just down on his luck and would vote for us if they just knew how awesome we were and how much we care about them.

When I say that Dems didn't talk about policy enough in 2016, I didn't mean they didn't talk enough about policy to Trump's fanbase.

I'm saying that even a lot of Hillary voters knew next to nothing about her policy proposals. And that's before we get to undecided and uninformed voters who AREN'T political junkies like you and I.

One thing Bernie did right was make sure everyone knew what his biggest policy proposals were, regardless of their realism.

To prove my point I challenge you to do the following:

- Find a friend who is not a political junky
- Ask him the following "Trump had the wall and the muslim ban, Bernie had the free college and free healthcare, but what was Hillary's equivalent?"
- I guarantee you their answer will be "I don't know. what?"

 

[Crocodile]

Why has Bollock been so successful in Montana? Isn't that clearly what Dems in that state should emulate no? I'm not aware of any particular messaging mistakes Quist made.

FWIW, running different types of Democrats in different states seems to make a lot of sense to me. You don't run Ossoff in Montana and you don't run Quist in Georgia. There is room in the party for both. But yes, just running good economic policies isn't going to turn over all rural White voters and those on the left who complain about "identity politics" should shut up because they are stupid.

 

[Black Republican]

congrats to the body slam kingpin

 

[B-Dubs]

When I say that Dems didn't talk about policy enough in 2016, I didn't mean they didn't talk enough about policy to Trump's fanbase.

I'm saying that even a lot of Hillary voters knew next to nothing about her policy proposals. And that's before we get to undecided and uninformed voters who AREN'T political junkies like you and I.

One thing Bernie did right was make sure everyone knew what his biggest policy proposals were, regardless of their realism.

To prove my point I challenge you to do the following:

- Find a friend who is not a political junky
- Ask him the following "Trump had the wall and the muslim ban, Bernie had the free college and free healthcare, but what was Hillary's equivalent?"
- I guarantee you their answer will be "I don't know. what?"

Hell, most people didn't know Obama's proposals either and he won twice. People thought he was going to give them everything they ever wanted. Most people don't know shit about who they vote for.

Bernie got hot because there was a void in the primary and he tapped into the same sort of populist movement that propelled Trump.

Trump won because he was racist and scapegoated everyone's problems using said racism. That was his entire campaign.

 

[TestOfTide]

Hell, most people didn't know Obama's proposals either and he won twice. People thought he was going to give them everything they ever wanted. Most people don't know shit about who they vote for.

Bernie got hot because there was a void in the primary and he tapped into the same sort of populist movement that propelled Trump.

Obama was running on ending the war in Iraq and healthcare reform.

 

[B-Dubs]

Obama was running on ending the war in Iraq and healthcare reform.

And yet, when you asked the average joe they don't know shit.

 

[royalan]

That error is accurate, just not in the way they think. Clinton's ads and messaging ended up backfiring on her. When your opponent is a crazy person, the lesson is to play it straight and then let them screw themselves.

I absolutely agree with this. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say that Democrats need to play it straight regardless, crazy person or not. We have got to stop campaigning around the real or perceived GOP reaction.

When I say that Dems didn't talk about policy enough in 2016, I didn't mean they didn't talk enough about policy to Trump's fanbase.

I'm saying that even a lot of Hillary voters knew next to nothing about her policy proposals. And that's before we get to undecided and uninformed voters who AREN'T political junkies like you and I.

One thing Bernie did right was make sure everyone knew what his biggest policy proposals were, regardless of their realism.

I agree with this, too. Not to give too much credit to Bernie, he simplified his message to the point of being blatantly dishonest. But one thing he understands (and that Harris, Warren, Booker and Obama understand), is that if you want to reach the common person with your message, speak to them. Not the wonks. Nobody cares about your big SAT words, or your complex sentence structure, or how diplomatic you're trying to be. People want to be able to understand what you're trying to sell them the first time around, and make it quick, because ain't nobody got time for all that.

 

[Crocodile]

When I say that Dems didn't talk about policy enough in 2016, I didn't mean they didn't talk enough about policy to Trump's fanbase.

I'm saying that even a lot of Hillary voters knew next to nothing about her policy proposals. And that's before we get to undecided and uninformed voters who AREN'T political junkies like you and I.

One thing Bernie did right was make sure everyone knew what his biggest policy proposals were, regardless of their realism.

To prove my point I challenge you to do the following:

- Find a friend who is not a political junky
- Ask him the following "Trump had the wall and the muslim ban, Bernie had the free college and free healthcare, but what was Hillary's equivalent?"
- I guarantee you their answer will be "I don't know. what?"

-Preserve and improve the ACA (and healthcare in general)
-Put a liberal on the SC
-Real Infrastructure plans and job retraining programs for the regions "left behind"

are the 3 that come to mind first. However they are all way more nuanced than the "policies" of the other candidates.

 

[kirblar]

-Preserve and improve the ACA (and healthcare in general)
-Put a liberal on the SC
-Real Infrastructure plans and job retraining programs for the regions "left behind"

are the 3 that come to mind first. However they are all way more nuanced than the "policies" of the other candidates.

The first one works.
The second one swing voters don't care about.
The third is may not be a good one to highlight as a tentpole.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Arby's should change the name of the Big Montana to the Big Shit.

 

[TestOfTide]

And yet, when you asked the average joe they don't know shit.

Except they did. "Change" was a blatant allusion to the fact that people were sick of the war in Iraq, sick of being screwed by healthcare companies, and sick of Bush in general.

That's the beauty of it. Obama's team knew how to succinctly put the campaign message in a way that one glance and you KNEW what Obama was running on.

 

[TestOfTide]

-Preserve and improve the ACA (and healthcare in general)
-Put a liberal on the SC
-Real Infrastructure plans and job retraining programs for the regions "left behind"

are the 3 that come to mind first. However they are all way more nuanced than the "policies" of the other candidates.

Did you actually do my experiment or did you just answer my question yourself not understanding that it doesn't work when you answer it because you are a political junky?

I'm guessing the latter because the average voter did NOT know about Hillary's jobs plan.

 

[Abinash117]

Except they did. "Change" was a blatant allusion to the fact that people were sick of the war in Iraq, sick of being screwed by healthcare companies, and sick of Bush in general.

That's the beauty of it. Obama's team knew how to succinctly put the campaign message in a way that one glance and you KNEW what Obama was running on.

I guess the next Dem candidate should run on "Restore & Improve".

 

[PKrockin]

Even if Hillary focused on policy (she didn't, to my knowledge), it was drowned out by Trump coverage. Whatever the voters knew about her was pretty much limited to emails!!! and a vague, unexciting sense that she was more Obama.

 

[The Technomancer]

When I say that Dems didn't talk about policy enough in 2016, I didn't mean they didn't talk enough about policy to Trump's fanbase.

I'm saying that even a lot of Hillary voters knew next to nothing about her policy proposals. And that's before we get to undecided and uninformed voters who AREN'T political junkies like you and I.

One thing Bernie did right was make sure everyone knew what his biggest policy proposals were, regardless of their realism.

To prove my point I challenge you to do the following:

- Find a friend who is not a political junky
- Ask him the following "Trump had the wall and the muslim ban, Bernie had the free college and free healthcare, but what was Hillary's equivalent?"
- I guarantee you their answer will be "I don't know. what?"

You're not, but I see quite a bit of people who think Dems only lose because we/they/whatever don't communicate to "working class voters" just how good DemSoc stuff would be for them materially.

 

[whyamihere]

That error is accurate, just not in the way they think. Clinton's ads and messaging ended up backfiring on her. When your opponent is a crazy person, the lesson is to play it straight and then let them screw themselves.

That's just it, they're lost, and we're still losing them. And there's no sign of those trends going backwards, because the people flipping aren't flipping on the values axes that would allow us to compete to get them back.

Districts' like Ossoff's, on the other hand, are trending our direction, in large part because of that axis (racism!) that's pushing the rural whites out.

I do think it's a more complicated discussion and this simplifies it.

I do not think Ossoff is going to vote for Medicare for All or left wing goals. That bothers me. I do think someone like Blumenthal or Murphy would, because they support it, even though CT is suburban af. So what's the answer? I'm not sure. But I also understand (and you have to understand) why people on the left are wary of only going districts like GA-06. Because then is it all 90s New Democrat bullshit? Idk.

The answer is obviously to nominate real progressives like Perriello in these swingy suburban districts. Like Virginia.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

When I say that Dems didn't talk about policy enough in 2016, I didn't mean they didn't talk enough about policy to Trump's fanbase.

I'm saying that even a lot of Hillary voters knew next to nothing about her policy proposals. And that's before we get to undecided and uninformed voters who AREN'T political junkies like you and I.

Can't imagine why Clinton's policy proposals didn't get traction...

 

[Spoiled Milk]

I usually agree with B-Dub's posts but I'm inclined to disagree here and side with TestOfTide. Obama ran on ending the Iraq War and making healthcare affordable for average Americans. He also ran on not being Bush, and on saving the economy from reckless wall street fatcats. Most people who voted for him knew what they were voting for.

 

[Paches]

Can't imagine why Clinton's policy proposals didn't get traction...

Oh God, I forgot about her "health episode".

 

[B-Dubs]

Except they did. "Change" was a blatant allusion to the fact that people were sick of the war in Iraq, sick of being screwed by healthcare companies, and sick of Bush in general.

That's the beauty of it. Obama's team knew how to succinctly put the campaign message in a way that one glance and you KNEW what Obama was running on.

Change was literally everything to everyone though. How many times has the left critiqued him on shit they said he said he'd do only to discover he never said that? The drone program is the biggest one. Then there's weed, but that went away after a couple of years.

That was the brilliance of Change, it allowed him to be anything to anyone while also having solid policy proposals.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I always thought it was cotch brothers for some reason.

I only know how to pronounce Soros.

 

[sc0la]

I always thought it was cotch brothers for some reason.

I only know how to pronounce Soros.

It sounds like "Sorrows" right? It fits since he is the source of all the sorrows in the world.

 

[RastaMentality]

Oh God, I forgot about her "health episode".

wow serious PTSD.

 

[Crocodile]

Did you actually do my experiment or did you just answer my question yourself not understanding that it doesn't work when you answer it because you are a political junky?

I'm guessing the latter because the average voter did NOT know about Hillary's jobs plan.

In my defense its the middle of the night, I'm not calling any of my apolitical friends to run your thought exercise

I understand your general point though there was a LOT of stupid shit that went down that election and the media didn't help

 

[kirblar]

I do think it's a more complicated discussion and this simplifies it.

I do not think Ossoff is going to vote for Medicare for All or left wing goals. That bothers me. I do think someone like Blumenthal or Murphy would, because they support it, even though CT is suburban af. So what's the answer? I'm not sure. But I also understand (and you have to understand) why people on the left are wary of only going districts like GA-06. Because then is it all 90s New Democrat bullshit? Idk.

The answer is obviously to nominate real progressives like Perriello in these swingy suburban districts. Like Virginia.

I mean, that's just it, we're losing these districts (and gaining these new ones) because it's not '90s Bill Clinton style coalition. It's something different. On policy it's far more liberal on the whole. It's just not doing it the way that the left flank wants. (And this is a good thing.)