A valuable look at some of the inside stresses within the Democratic party.
A valuable look at some of the inside stresses within the Democratic party.
I chose to run for re-election because I felt like I had to prove that this is real. That this movement was real. That I wasn’t a fluke. That people really want guaranteed health care and that people really want the Democratic Party to fight for them.
But I’m serious when I tell people the odds of me running for higher office and the odds of me just going off trying to start a homestead somewhere — they’re probably the same.
Except she's not talking about policy guidance or offering to stump for them. She's talking about letting them leverage her digital outreach and organization infrastructure in a party that still...
Exemplary
When she talks about offering her aid to Dem candidates in their campaigns, and they refused her like that's an indication of moderate incalcitrance and not the fact that they are fighting in very different states than New York City and she is a rookie Representative, it indicates either a naive misunderstanding of American politics or the desire to smear her peers.
Except she's not talking about policy guidance or offering to stump for them. She's talking about letting them leverage her digital outreach and organization infrastructure in a party that still insists that the best use of money is to make even more phone calls and buy even more TV slots and stuff people's mailboxes with even more flyers long after those things have hit a point of diminishing returns.
It is the moderate Democrats who have a naive understanding of American politics. They have such tunnel vision about their own districts and the present state of their constituencies that they are completely blind to what's important for turning out the youth or progressive vote for state and national elections. It's turnout in college towns, urban areas, and ethnic enclaves that win electoral votes and senate seats. Moderate house districts are good, but the entire rest of the party is not obligated to march to their beat.
All this talk about her quitting screams of sour grapes. "You all aren't immediately coming around to my viewpoint in two years so I'm taking my call and going home." It's simply not a good look.
This didn't happen unprompted. This happened as a result of a chorus of conservative Democrats instigating a fight on the post-election conference call for the next congressional winners. Abigail Spanberger was literally shouting on the line about how BLM and police accountability movement almost lost her the race and blaming AOC specifically. Nancy Pelosi actually had to get on the call and tell her calm down. AOC's response is nothing more than just telling them to get over their scrub mentality and look at their own strategy for why they underperformed instead of blaming her and BLM.
I think those two points go together? Republicans have made her a designated enemy and that's where the death threats come from. But that also means her support might not help much in some...
I think those two points go together? Republicans have made her a designated enemy and that's where the death threats come from. But that also means her support might not help much in some districts, because people have been told to hate her.
Won't the Republicans be told to hate anyone who is effective? I really don't think we should let Republicans dictate our strategy, candidates, or platforms. If Republicans are told to hate anyone...
Won't the Republicans be told to hate anyone who is effective? I really don't think we should let Republicans dictate our strategy, candidates, or platforms.
If Republicans are told to hate anyone who is effective, and we're just going to accept that as a fact that should determine our actions, then maybe what we need is regular turnover and new blood, so that the Republican hatred has to hit a moving target. Who do you think will be better at developing new leadership, insurgents like AOC or entrenched advocates for the status quo like Pelosi?
They do try, but this demonization works better on some targets than others. Also, this is just about election tactics of Democrats in relatively conservative districts. I don’t see much point in...
They do try, but this demonization works better on some targets than others.
Also, this is just about election tactics of Democrats in relatively conservative districts. I don’t see much point in second-guessing a candidate’s campaign strategy since they likely know their district or state better than we do?
It doesn’t mean more outspoken candidates from safe districts can’t lead, as Pelosi does.
It's not that simple, though. There are often multiple possible candidates in conservative areas, who disagree on tactics/strategy. Deferring to the locals doesn't always give you a clear answer....
I don’t see much point in second-guessing a candidate’s campaign strategy since they likely know their district or state better than we do?
It's not that simple, though. There are often multiple possible candidates in conservative areas, who disagree on tactics/strategy. Deferring to the locals doesn't always give you a clear answer.
In the primary between Charles Booker and Amy McGrath, Booker lost 42.7% to 45.4%, which wasn't a particularly big difference. It could have easily gone the other way if Booker had a couple more weeks to campaign.
Amy McGrath didn't do particularly well in the general election, despite $90 million in her warchest and immense publicity. It's worth considering trying a different candidate + strategy next time. Marquita Bradshaw, a Green New Deal champion endorsed by Sunrise Movement in the Tennessee Senate race, only ran 2 points behind McGrath despite a shoestring budget. Perhaps neither progressives nor centrists can win in heavily Republican districts, but it seems silly to continue running the same losing strategy. At least lose in different new and exciting ways, and maybe reconsider the conventional wisdom about "who can win".
Honestly, I don't think that's the case. Despite what the media propagates, the USA is very purple. The rural areas are more progressive than you'd think. The reverse is true of urban areas. The...
they are fighting in very different states than New York City
Honestly, I don't think that's the case. Despite what the media propagates, the USA is very purple.
The rural areas are more progressive than you'd think. The reverse is true of urban areas. The confirmation bias comes because when in opposing territory they're more likely to keep quiet about it.
Putting up a moderate Democrat to court the moderate Republicans is a losing game. Because why have a crappy Republican instead of a 'good' one? This is equally true in reverse...do you see Republicans courting moderate Democrats? I certainly don't.
This election showed, without a shadow of a doubt, that there are very few, if any, voters that switch isles. It's about energizing your base to get them out to vote.
The original map is way oversampling blue for some reason, even in it's legend, where 90% blue is 39,57,254, and 90% red is 253,2,116 - which is obvious when you actually zoom in on that red, it's...
The original map is way oversampling blue for some reason, even in it's legend, where 90% blue is 39,57,254, and 90% red is 253,2,116 - which is obvious when you actually zoom in on that red, it's very pinkish. To do this right I think you'd need to drop the margins to [0,100] percent, and use the full rgb spectrum. I imagine this would lead to a few shining, standout counties, but on net, would make the map even more checkerboard purple.
Yeah, that's a pretty good map for 2016. Doesn't do a great job of showing a purplish America though unfortunately. 60/40 still pops up as very red. Maybe the problem is that purples make up a...
Yeah, that's a pretty good map for 2016. Doesn't do a great job of showing a purplish America though unfortunately. 60/40 still pops up as very red. Maybe the problem is that purples make up a very narrow band of the RGB spectrum versus both the reds and the blues. Maybe a problem with the human eye, too. When I look at a RGB color wheel, green looks massively overrepresented, and purple looks underrepresented, and I know that humans are better at perceiving green light than any other color.
Sure, although Republicans being red has been around for 20 years at least so using yellow would be bad for convenience. An alternative that people have tried is adding green according to the...
Maybe we should color republican states yellow so we can see more detail, then?
Sure, although Republicans being red has been around for 20 years at least so using yellow would be bad for convenience.
As a moderate myself I disagree with this take. I'm not sure how we can have any election hot takes at all before all the votes are counted and tabulated but from what I've seen so far that's not...
As a moderate myself I disagree with this take.
This election showed, without a shadow of a doubt, that there are very few, if any, voters that switch isles. It's about energizing your base to get them out to vote.
I'm not sure how we can have any election hot takes at all before all the votes are counted and tabulated but from what I've seen so far that's not at all what has happened. Suburban women left the GOP in droves, and non-whites broke GOP more heavily than ever before.
And regardless The Left cannot currently fight the GOP in it's own game. The reason Republicans can get away without appealing to moderates is because they have Fox News and Talk Radio blasting garbage into people's brains 24/7/365. There is no equivalent on the Left and until that changes both parties abandoning the middle will result in Republican government.
A valuable look at some of the inside stresses within the Democratic party.
Except she's not talking about policy guidance or offering to stump for them. She's talking about letting them leverage her digital outreach and organization infrastructure in a party that still insists that the best use of money is to make even more phone calls and buy even more TV slots and stuff people's mailboxes with even more flyers long after those things have hit a point of diminishing returns.
It is the moderate Democrats who have a naive understanding of American politics. They have such tunnel vision about their own districts and the present state of their constituencies that they are completely blind to what's important for turning out the youth or progressive vote for state and national elections. It's turnout in college towns, urban areas, and ethnic enclaves that win electoral votes and senate seats. Moderate house districts are good, but the entire rest of the party is not obligated to march to their beat.
This didn't happen unprompted. This happened as a result of a chorus of conservative Democrats instigating a fight on the post-election conference call for the next congressional winners. Abigail Spanberger was literally shouting on the line about how BLM and police accountability movement almost lost her the race and blaming AOC specifically. Nancy Pelosi actually had to get on the call and tell her calm down. AOC's response is nothing more than just telling them to get over their scrub mentality and look at their own strategy for why they underperformed instead of blaming her and BLM.
I think those two points go together? Republicans have made her a designated enemy and that's where the death threats come from. But that also means her support might not help much in some districts, because people have been told to hate her.
Won't the Republicans be told to hate anyone who is effective? I really don't think we should let Republicans dictate our strategy, candidates, or platforms.
If Republicans are told to hate anyone who is effective, and we're just going to accept that as a fact that should determine our actions, then maybe what we need is regular turnover and new blood, so that the Republican hatred has to hit a moving target. Who do you think will be better at developing new leadership, insurgents like AOC or entrenched advocates for the status quo like Pelosi?
They do try, but this demonization works better on some targets than others.
Also, this is just about election tactics of Democrats in relatively conservative districts. I don’t see much point in second-guessing a candidate’s campaign strategy since they likely know their district or state better than we do?
It doesn’t mean more outspoken candidates from safe districts can’t lead, as Pelosi does.
It's not that simple, though. There are often multiple possible candidates in conservative areas, who disagree on tactics/strategy. Deferring to the locals doesn't always give you a clear answer.
In the primary between Charles Booker and Amy McGrath, Booker lost 42.7% to 45.4%, which wasn't a particularly big difference. It could have easily gone the other way if Booker had a couple more weeks to campaign.
Amy McGrath didn't do particularly well in the general election, despite $90 million in her warchest and immense publicity. It's worth considering trying a different candidate + strategy next time. Marquita Bradshaw, a Green New Deal champion endorsed by Sunrise Movement in the Tennessee Senate race, only ran 2 points behind McGrath despite a shoestring budget. Perhaps neither progressives nor centrists can win in heavily Republican districts, but it seems silly to continue running the same losing strategy. At least lose in different new and exciting ways, and maybe reconsider the conventional wisdom about "who can win".
Do you have a citation for this?
Honestly, I don't think that's the case. Despite what the media propagates, the USA is very purple.
The rural areas are more progressive than you'd think. The reverse is true of urban areas. The confirmation bias comes because when in opposing territory they're more likely to keep quiet about it.
Putting up a moderate Democrat to court the moderate Republicans is a losing game. Because why have a crappy Republican instead of a 'good' one? This is equally true in reverse...do you see Republicans courting moderate Democrats? I certainly don't.
This election showed, without a shadow of a doubt, that there are very few, if any, voters that switch isles. It's about energizing your base to get them out to vote.
The original map is way oversampling blue for some reason, even in it's legend, where 90% blue is 39,57,254, and 90% red is 253,2,116 - which is obvious when you actually zoom in on that red, it's very pinkish. To do this right I think you'd need to drop the margins to [0,100] percent, and use the full rgb spectrum. I imagine this would lead to a few shining, standout counties, but on net, would make the map even more checkerboard purple.
I think this map (from here) is what you're looking for.
Yeah, that's a pretty good map for 2016. Doesn't do a great job of showing a purplish America though unfortunately. 60/40 still pops up as very red. Maybe the problem is that purples make up a very narrow band of the RGB spectrum versus both the reds and the blues. Maybe a problem with the human eye, too. When I look at a RGB color wheel, green looks massively overrepresented, and purple looks underrepresented, and I know that humans are better at perceiving green light than any other color.
Sure, although Republicans being red has been around for 20 years at least so using yellow would be bad for convenience.
An alternative that people have tried is adding green according to the margin so gray and desaturated red/blue are the intermediary colors, like this. (GIF of the 2 versions flickering for reference)
I do like that other option. It's still hard to pick out details, but having the more diverse areas fade to grey is far more legible.
Unless you're calibrated your display for "true color" you can't rule out your monitor or phone being a culprit either.
That's fair...I didn't dive too far down the rabbithole to fin original.
But even in Philly....20%+ voted for Trump.
As a moderate myself I disagree with this take.
I'm not sure how we can have any election hot takes at all before all the votes are counted and tabulated but from what I've seen so far that's not at all what has happened. Suburban women left the GOP in droves, and non-whites broke GOP more heavily than ever before.
And regardless The Left cannot currently fight the GOP in it's own game. The reason Republicans can get away without appealing to moderates is because they have Fox News and Talk Radio blasting garbage into people's brains 24/7/365. There is no equivalent on the Left and until that changes both parties abandoning the middle will result in Republican government.