,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
There's a strain of thought about 2020 that seems to have underneath it "Trump proves extremism is no bar to winning." It may well prove correct, but I do think this misses an important dynamic in, say, Trump's appeal vs. Bernie's appeal. 1/
Trump was radioactive to a large number of potential GOP voters, but they were fairly regular GOP voters, which is why he held onto them in 2016 (though not 2018). However, he was like catnip to then-swing voters the GOP desperately needed (whites without college degrees). 2/
Bernie/Warren/maybe Harris are sort of the inverse of this. They hold maximal appeal for base Democratic voters, but will make voters the Democrats really need (suburbanites) a tougher sell. In a way they are more like Cruz than Trump, and I'm not sure Cruz wins in 2016. 3/
I'm also a fan of the referenda theory of politics, though I've also been haunted by the likelihood that things like job approval are probably endogenous to electoral outcomes (there's a thread on this from 2012 somewhere if you're really interested). 4/
So I don't know. Ideology certainly matters less than the 4th grade civics version, where candidates give speeches and voters decide who they agree with the most on the issues. I just think some of the current crop of Dem candidates are problematic for Democrats in unique ways.
