My hot take is that “Dems want to boycott Goya” is a better example of asymmetric GOP messaging power than “defund the police.” There actually were “defund” advocates. The Goya boycott stuff was some people on Twitter for a few hours. (ugh, thread, I guess)
So @AOC joked about “googling how to make my own adobo,” @JulianCastro more seriously said that Latinos should reconsider buying Goya products bc its CEO endorsed Trump. But it was like a 12-hour news cycle, comparable to people being mad at Kirstie Alley.
In the Trump campaign’s hands, this cleverly became ads in which Latino actors said that Democrats had “launched a smear campaign against Goya.” Biden hadn’t said a peep about it. It was a couple of pissed off Latino Dems who had moved on pretty quickly!
The other part of this was Trump and Ivanka posing with Goya products, which nobody actually thought they ate. But compare, like, the left-wing mockery of Ds for kneeling in kente cloth to the “hell yeah” reaction on the right to the Goya pics.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Interesting Q for Rs post Trump is if they embrace his fairly popular “hand out money” policies or return to less popular “quote Reagan and don’t give people free stuff” policies.
The “Trumpism or Ryanism” question feels pretty settled to me! The low point of Trump’s popularity wasn’t around any particular scandal, it was when Ryan convinced him that he had a mandate to replace the ACA with high risk pools.
But if the “lol the government always makes things worse” talking point can survive the CARES act it can survive anything
When I talked to incoming NRSC chair Rick Scott last month, he suggested the election contests would be over by Thanksgiving week and that voters would have a month to focus on the Senate runoffs. Small problem with this... (1/2)
What if Trump just keeps endorsing election contests? The new goalpost is December 14, when the electoral college votes... but the election isn't certified in Congress until January 6, the day after the runoffs. And some Trump allies say they'll be contesting it. (2/2)
Rs keep letting Trump play out the string here, but he keeps finding more string. Which you'd think they'd have figured out after four years of working with him.
I see this argument a lot but, while there were obviously more pro-Biden ex-GOP groups than there had been pro-Clinton ex-GOP groups, Biden didn't try to separate Trump from the rest of the GOP as Clinton did.
I think people conflate two things Biden said - that "four years of Trump will be seen as an aberration" and that there'd be an "epiphany" after Trump lost - with the sort of stuff Clinton did, outright saying that Trump was not a normal Republican. buzzfeednews.com/article/rubycr…
The Clinton approach, which was bad in 2016, would have made zero sense in 2020 - you'd had four years of once-skeptical Rs marrying their fortunes and identities to Trump. But Biden didn't really use it. Trump won a lot of states and districts w/ very little ticket splitting.
Also says Biden and Harris "refused to say what they would do if they got elected." You have to be very bubbled to think that. B/H had a platform and series of plans that Trump attacked during the campaign! Trump, meanwhile, had no platform.
This has been an ironic theme in pro-Trump media. The viewer didn't hear much about Biden/Harris's agenda bc coverage on these channels focused on Biden dodging or saying no to wedge issues. (Or on "Biden has dementia" and Hunter laptop stuff.)
It's a very weird take on things because the agenda matters! Industries and lobbyists are adjusting to the policy changes they're expecting from a Biden admin. They don't carer that he blew off "court packing" questions or whatever.
According to Pennsylvania record, 250,780 registered Dems requested but didn't return absentee ballots, compared to 167,470 Republicans. Like every election conspiracy theory, this is explainable unless you're dishonest.
John Solomon is wildly dishonest and keeps getting fired for it, which is important context here.
This story's also just sloppy. Matt Braynard is introduced, correctly, as a former Trump official. But the reference to his project gets the name wrong (Voter Integrity FUND - story says "project") and leaves out that he founded it *this month.* whyy.org/articles/forme…
My impression’s been that they are 100% confident that it won’t work, and that they’re better off with this as a “Trump flails around” story than a “parties clash over results, who’s right?” story
By sitting back and letting lawyers handle it they've gone 28-1 in court (and the one Trump victory, if upheld, wouldn't affect the PA count), watched Rs rip each others' faces off in Georgia, watched an attempt to throw out Detroit's vote backfire on GOP/go viral.
Are they overconfident? Election officials say they aren't - see Benson in MI who sees no impediment to certifying the vote. Maybe on Earth-2 Biden is flying to Detroit to make the Wayne County stuff more infamous. But their instinct is: Don't swing at everything.