FYI: In terms of Sanderism that is NOT what my theory argues. My theory does argues the partisan composition of the electorate will determine the winning party, and that turnout of each party's coalition, base & Indie leaners will determine the party composition. My theory does
allow Democrats to run as Democrats & make a positive case for liberal policies (essentially run the Democratic version of how Republicans campaign) but its doesn't suggest that extremism is ideal. Lots of gray area between the out-dated Blue Dog Chuck Todd approach & Sanderism
In addition, my research does suggest staking out more extreme issue positions. It suggestion framing issues as "stakes" and appealing to voters' emotions- again, copying how Republicans campaigns. Forgive me, but it drives me nuts when people mischaracterize my arguments. And to
tell you the truth, there are some people on election twitter who do it on purpose to discredit or marginalize my work. Doesn't help when headlines are written that also sensationalize the research- but again, I am nothing but grateful for the Politico piece putting my research
people's radar even though the headline is a massive overstate of my claim about swing voters (they do exist, there is just far less of them, they're actually super predictable, and the most imp aspect of their swing, turnout, has been ignored until now. That said, as @jonfavs is
also (rightly) pointing out, although Sanders is the riskiest nominee for the Ds bc of his extremism, he is absolutely electable assuming the Dem Party rallied around him the way the GOP did Trump. Now if they don't- that'd be a whole different ballgame.
