,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Agree. And I think a segment of professional trolls amplified that false belief online, to drop turnout.
But it was also prevalent IRL among Dem mucketeys- even before primaries, it was sacrilege to suggest HRC had legit exposure, or that there might be a stronger candidate.
But it was also prevalent IRL among Dem mucketeys- even before primaries, it was sacrilege to suggest HRC had legit exposure, or that there might be a stronger candidate.
It was a “Her Turn” mentality, which illogically turned her then-unexpected 2008 loss to Obama into a supernatural guarantee of victory.
Voters don’t go by “turns” though.
Voters don’t go by “turns” though.
I’m not suggesting “bErNiE WouDdA wOn” - I doubt that. I’m suggesting Hillary would have won absent the extreme party-level overconfidence that led insiders to preselect her, without the vetting and honing that real competitive primaries should give to a party.
A truly-competitive primary, which Dems have embraced in this 2020 run-up, will expose the eventual nominee’s hidden vulnerabilities.
💩 media calls this “infighting” - wrong. It’s VETTING. and it’s crucial if the nominee is to win.
💩 media calls this “infighting” - wrong. It’s VETTING. and it’s crucial if the nominee is to win.
Those vulnerabilities need to be previewed and disarmed in the primary, to prevent 2016 overconfidence.
Did Trump cheat? Yes.
But we made it too easy, with disengaged overconfidence that depressed turnout.
Did Trump cheat? Yes.
But we made it too easy, with disengaged overconfidence that depressed turnout.
