,
14 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
It’s truly amazing how interested the national media is to have Claire McCaskill, a Midwest senator who ran a campaign on a centrist strategy that badly failed, come on TV and advise that a centrist strategy is the way to win races in the Midwest.
Unpopular? Was going to lose anyway? Wow, then never mind, she definitely sounds like somebody Democrats should listen to for strategy on what works in the Midwest.
I’m really enjoying all of these wonderful trenchant points that are being made in The Discourse, but we’re talking about a centrist candidate who ran a centrist campaign in a Midwest state and lost claiming centrism is the key to winning. Is my point.
Anyway one way to win on progressive ideas that poll well nationally might be to not refer to them as “free stuff.”
I think this is correct in the Midwest and everywhere. Compelling candidates tend to win.
Trying to ride the fence is rarely compelling.
And Missouri had about 50% voter engagement. You don’t have to win over the conservatives. Go get some of that 50%.
Trying to ride the fence is rarely compelling.
And Missouri had about 50% voter engagement. You don’t have to win over the conservatives. Go get some of that 50%.
By the way shout out to the dude who found my personal email and decided to argue with my tweets that way.
Pro tip: don’t do that.
Pro tip: don’t do that.
What’s funny to me is, I wasn’t even really making the point: centrism will lose in the Midwest.
I was making the point: why get somebody who lost in the Midwest with centrism to make the case for centrism in the Midwest? Why bring her on so often to make that specific case?
I was making the point: why get somebody who lost in the Midwest with centrism to make the case for centrism in the Midwest? Why bring her on so often to make that specific case?
Maybe this seems crazy but if young progressives don’t vote, doesn’t that represent an opportunity to figure out how to get them to vote, rather than keep trying the same message?
50% overall voter disengagement seems like an untapped market to me
50% overall voter disengagement seems like an untapped market to me
You certainly can’t bring it into existence if you start with the premise it can’t be done.
The way you “fairy dust progressive stuff into existence” I’d say is by proposing it and advocating for it and running on it and fighting for it until you win on it and then by defending it as if people with bad intentions wanted to take it away again.
🤷♂️
More people didn’t vote than voted for Trump, it’s an unsolvable puzzle
I mean maybe Americans really don’t want health care when they’re sick and real investment in infrastructure and education and to not watch the human race go extinct in 2075.
But hey maybe they do.
Why not try once?
But hey maybe they do.
Why not try once?
Say that’s true. OK.
A candidate isn’t going to draw traditional non-voters equally. A candidate is going to pull non-voters who have been waiting for that kind of candidate. It doesn’t take many.
A candidate isn’t going to draw traditional non-voters equally. A candidate is going to pull non-voters who have been waiting for that kind of candidate. It doesn’t take many.
