Thread by @jonathanchait

1/ Thread in response to @mtaibbi: In March I wrote a piece about how candidates like Conor Lamb are effective challengers in many red districts: nymag.com/daily/intellig…

@mtaibbi 2/ The ever-nimble @mtaibbi has finally produced his rebuttal, which consists of distorting the point into its near-opposite: rollingstone.com/politics/polit…

@mtaibbi 3/ Taibbi describes the tactic as "stealing the Republicans' electoral strategy":

@mtaibbi 4/ But his next paragraph quotes me, and the quote makes clear I am arguing the GOP strategy can be "hacked," not "stolen." But then he proceeds to conflate the two:

@mtaibbi 5/ Here @mtaibbi is leading his readers to believe Lamb is anti-Obamacare, pro-life, and pro-gun, and by implication I am advocating such candidates as well. Both implications are totally false--

@mtaibbi 6/ In fact, Lamb ran to the left on health care, is pro-choice, and supports stronger background checks, which was the last main gun bill in Congress, though not other gun measures: cnn.com/2018/03/13/pol…

@mtaibbi 7/ So, having corrected those errors, is there any grain of a legitimate point left in @mtaibbi's case, beside the familiar, tedious name-calling? I can't find one.