Oh I’m not denying that this was truly disappointing.
It’s what people like and want (maybe not what you want), especially the younger base who don’t mind playing dirty.
If dems don’t play on the same level of dirtiness, they’ll get steamrolled.
Disagree. They didn’t play on that level of dirtiness in 2020 and did fine.
I think you’re reading WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYY too much into one election. An election that usually goes badly for Dems.
You and I have a different definition of fine.
Trump would have won if the pandemic did not happen - he did absolutely everything wrong for those outside of his base.
Democrats lost house seats in 2020. Since then the GOP has unified around non-existent election fraud and non-existent CRT, and that is a winning strategy in the suburbs.
Selling policy simply will not win them elections in today’s environment.
That point has been made.
GILLIBRAND: Yes, there’s still reason to hope. I’ve been talking with Joe Manchin over the weekend, sending him information and data that he’d asked for earlier in the week. He has a number of concerns that he wanted to learn more about, and I’ve been able to give him those answers. But, you know, we still have maybe a few more days before this deal is finally finalized, and I believe that until the ink is dry that we have more and more time to urge Senator Manchin to look at the economic benefits for the country, for families, for businesses. He was very worried about strengthening Social Security. And one of the best pieces of information I had for him is that when you have paid leave, parents in particular are much more likely to go back to work after having a child or adopting a child if they have paid leave. In fact, they’re 40% more likely to go back to work if they have paid leave, which means they’re buying into Social Security when they’re back at work. So if you want to strengthen it, best way to do it is make sure you have paid leave.
I hate how much I don’t have a practical argument against this.
There is a principled argument, and moral argument, and a complex theoretical argument about focusing on policy and truth but form a practical sense, it seems the game is lost.
If there’s a democratic candidate that talks like Trump, but runs on progressive policies, I most certainly will prefer that candidate to Joe Biden.
I disagree here. Trump sold his vision and got a large base aligned. A large portion of America was not on board with his vision which is why he was one term. You don’t have to name call to sell your vision, but ty out do have to actually have a vision and be able to clearly articulate it.
It can’t be nuanced. It has to be bold and high level. It also can’t be just complaining about the things that make America America. Free markets, working for a living, capitalism, etc are American ideals. Going against those are losing strategies. Especially the working for a living part. Trying to convince majority of Americans to support anything that is anti working for a living is going to fail and fail miserably.
2 Likes
How do you make that candidate have an impact in rural areas, though? It’s great in metro areas where Democrats have to royally fuck up to not get elected. You need to have a message that connects and resonates elsewhere, to draw broad-based support that makes inroads where Republicans have set deep roots from the last 30+ years.
The moment a “true progressive” talks about climate change, free college, etc. in rural areas they’re sunk and they’ll be lucky to be within 30 points at the polls. Can you run “progressive” ideas there and win? Yes, but it’s all about messaging and it’s about not running things that scream “uber-progressive, leftist, free shit for everyone and I get nothing.” You gotta start with moderate, yet relatable ideas like paid leave and child care and move from there.
You can do all these things and slander and insult republicans at the same time.
If democrats can’t do the same that Trump did and win? Then we as a country is just more Trump than not. Then we should admit defeat as this is indeed Trump’s America, and if we’re a democracy, Trump should win.
I think the “attack Republicans” piece is somewhat separate from the positions you take as a candidate. If you’re taking positions that open you up to attack and can be used to make you look totally unreasonable, you’re negating yourself. Democrats do the worst of both: they don’t attack and they take positions that can get used against them in 13,000 ads.
I think I’ve made this point before, but back where I grew up it’s deep red now and Republicans are going to get 65% of the vote before considering who the Democrats run. If the Democrats run someone who talks about being reasonably pro-life (against abortion but doesn’t want to outlaw it, find ways to reduce the situations that lead to women considering abortion), wants to find ways to promote business growth while making sure they pay their fair share and don’t shift the burden to people already struggling to get by, and find ways to help people struggling in the area to make ends meet and not have to choose between raising kids or working and the kids fend for themselves, there’s at least a shot at winning. A Republican coming out against helping people is going to draw ire. Enough to lose? Don’t know, but if they decide to attack the idea of making people there better off, it’s an easy opening for Democrats to attack relentlessly.
When the Democrats run someone who professes to be uber-progressive and starts spouting climate change, racial justice in an area that’s ~90% white and free college for all where ~70% of people didn’t go to college and never will, it’s an automatic L and it’s going to be a 75-25 kind of margin regardless of how ignorant the GOP candidate is and how much top-notch work Democrats put in.
1 Like
This hits my thoughts almost exactly
1 Like
Agreed, the Republicans did quite well in 2020. Trump underperformed his party.
I voted against Murphy in NJ and for Biden in 2020. In my mind the Progressives got trounced in the 2020 Primary but still believe themselves relevant so we get things like people messing about with the infrastructure bill in an attempt to become relevant.
Was taxes one of the reasons you voted against Murphy? Just curious.
The electoral college helps a bit with that.
No, I mainly went off watching the last gubernatorial debate and finding Ciattarelli more moderate than Murphy (who will proudly profess being a progressive).
I’m also against mask mandates in schools which separates them, and Ciattarelli is from NJ which is nice.
What’s up with this upstart Edward Durr guy defeating the NJ Senate President? Any thoughts?
1 Like
I saw the headline but don’t know much about the race. Flushing out people who have been in the same position for many terms certainly seems like a healthy idea though.
I’m reading that Durr spent $153 during his primary race, and another $5,000 on his general election campaign.