Wait do they actually think she’s going to win?
If she ain’t meet the requirements she ain’t meet em. If you ain’t meet the requirements to get into a school then it’s most likely your fault don’t be mad they put rules in place.
We'll always have the white suit.....Tulsi didn't qualify for the September debate.
Her model goes against your argument. You've asserted that it's postirve supportive voting behavior that elicits the blue wave.
Whereas her model is in agreement with the establishment model you oppose. That being voting against something, in the case of her arguments against Obama, against Clinton, and against Trump matters more.
These are her own words
Come on man. You know how I shine. :Bucketsumad:
All that said, lemme relink the Bitcofer interview for you because I'm not getting this from no where and it was obvious you didn't read it when you mentioned moderates winning the most seats before. This woman got 2018 seats flipping almost dead on well in advance of anyone else being close. Her model is more confident than I am and one of her main conclusions from the model is that progressive platforms outperformed centrist ones when you factor in certain variables that traditional models miss (and again, her model bodied all of the traditional models).
She predicted the "blue wave" perfectly. So what about 2020?
The assertion was that progressive models outperformed centrist ones in this past election. The blue wave was a definitely going down, yes, but to maximize the impact you'd assume a better strategy is to lean in to left leaning platforms because of the partisan nature of the electorate. If you're never gonna get Republicans to cross over and you don't have to worry about them; then you should focus on turning out the left leaning independents. She literally points out that moving left won certain candidates the independent voting battle which I'll cite for you later. Anyway here's the actual assertion:
QUOTE="storyteller, post: 34751038, member: 2612"]
All that said, lemme relink the Bitcofer interview for you because I'm not getting this from no where and it was obvious you didn't read it when you mentioned moderates winning the most seats before. This woman got 2018 seats flipping almost dead on well in advance of anyone else being close. Her model is more confident than I am and one of her main conclusions from the model is that progressive platforms outperformed centrist ones when you factor in certain variables that traditional models miss (and again, her model bodied all of the traditional models).
She predicted the "blue wave" perfectly. So what about 2020?
Here's supporting points in the article with clarification
So back to the assertion, the correct strategy could maximize supporters. For one, you could further stoke negative partisanship toward Trump. When I mentioned "lack of meaningful action from House leadership" as something that could reduce turnout, I meant that impeachment would increase negative partisanship and create higher voter turnout. Here's why I think that's the case:
But that's not the only strategy that she says can increase the turnout of Democrat voters. She speaks to platforms that showed success versus the ones that were abject failures. Which approach to issues does she cite as the most effective in driving turnout?
But that isn't what she said. She said that you have a finite window to pass legislation so you should pas whatever you ran on because you're going to lose those seats anyway.
All elections are economy elections. Looking at any opinion poll tells you what people care about.Here you go moving the goalposts.
You initially stated that Obama lost because he did not have bold policy proposals and that depressed the base. You went on to suggest that Dems will lose because they are not progressive enough.
The study you cited did not support this. Further your retort does not dispel my initial statement that it is common for incumbents to lose seats.
Actually, the piece you quoted actually proves my point that many of those seats Obama lost were going to be lost anyway. While I was right in saying ACA and the bailout were major drivers for Obama losing I was wrong in that it wasn't so much about depressing the dem base, but his successes actually motivated Republicans at historic levels. So this normal trend coupled with gerrymandering gives up a better idea of why dems lost seats than you saying it's because dem legislation wasn't bold enough.
Her critique on blue dogs is fine, but blue dogs only picked up 6 new seats in 2018. They were about as successful as progressives. And those who won on both sides were either in safe seats or spoke out against Trump and the GOP.
But that isn't what she said. She said that you have a finite window to pass legislation so you should pas whatever you ran on because you're going to lose those seats anyway.
That's directly at odds with how this started.
The funniest part is the type of candidate that seems ideal in her metric is almost someone like Hillary Clinton. :Madwithher:
I dont forget all the progressives saying democrats running anti-trump campaigns wasn't the way to win back the house, but instead they need to focus on policies
:Obeezyha:
I agree the worst thing to the USA is for mitch mcconell to hold the majority in the next congress even with a democratic president they cant accomplish anything.Those platforms ain’t doing shyt
you motivate voters to vote by running for office.
Abrams is engaging in political entrepreneurship.
AOC got put on by the justice democrats not some ambiguous “voter suppression” group. Might as well tell me she’s baking cookies to help voter turnout out.
at least Eric Holder is doing work with his gerrymandering initiative
