Bernie, Avenatti, Ocasio-Cortez, etc..
For those who truly want to know what's up with that, here's at least an attempt at a Twitter-length answer...
They're complicated contests to put the candidates who can best help advance your interests in the best position to win.
They aren't sing-offs where two performers vie for a trophy.
What you do with your first 40 moves determines whether you get to checkmate on your 41st.
Those variables all exist - and they can either be used to help win or they can be ignored...
...which is usually a recipe for losing.
They were better strategically about the wargame that is competitive politics.
One of the reasons: Dems are passionate; Repubs are mercenary.
Us Dems believe our candidates deserve to win - and then try to convince everyone of why that is...
We start with beliefs and passion and then try to wrap it in tactics and messaging.
Strong emotions can make people run through fire...
It's not great for making dispassionate, calculated decisions at a chess board about which pieces to move.
I'm railing against runaway emotions - or the potential for them. I'm fighting against feelings driving the bus.
I'm trying to bat down the risk of strong feelings turning into a toxic, damaging force that eventually loses elections.
These are all tweets from the same person. Not important who it is. It isn't about them OR Avenatti.
It's about the way emotion can kill reason and then poison the whole well.
I only said that if Trump really wanted to tarnish Avenatti, he'd be able to do it...
I don't actually want to tarnish Avenatti. I want him to succeed. I want him to keep doing the things he was doing early on - like using the legal process to provoke revelations about Trump, Cohen, et al.
Fans think I'm bashing. Detractors think I'm a hater too.
Notice I've written none of those about any of the people mentioned in the first post.
Contrary information becomes the enemy.
Inconvenient facts are the opposition.
Blinders turn into outright rejection of opposing facts.
Rejection of opposing facts reinforces the blinders.
...and all of that leads to rejection of contrary voices, fracturing of the coalition and divisions among the base.
You start with some strong feelings.
You rev them up until they're red-lining.
You prompt a little friction between people with opposing views.
Then let the machine spin itself into a smoking, broken heap.
It's about what happens when admiration goes from a positive to a recipe for toxicity.
It's great to be passionate. It's great to like people in politics.
...and once that genie is out of the bottle, there's no putting it back.
Confirmation bias is a tattoo. It doesn't wash off.
If I was interested in 'likes', I wouldn't go near criticizing people whose popularity is rising.
People get super mad and hate it.
We've got one chance to win in Nov.
We have to make the right moves the whole game or we'll lose.
Things that interfere with steely, clinical, strategic thinking increase the likelihood we'll lose.
We can't have that.