A key distinction: it's OKAY if Dems from red states have some views that seem out-of-step with the liberal consensus. What doesn't make sense is arguing that the way to win tough states is to be generically "moderate," defined by being closer to the polling median on every issue
https://twitter.com/rev_avocado/status/1485297263375171586
The voters in the middle, the ones Democrats need to win in red states, aren't voters who have average views. They're voters with DISORGANIZED views, which, if you aggregate them, LOOK average.
The ideological structure of the electorate (to the extent that it even matters in elections, which is unclear) is incredibly complicated, varying along many dimensions, and CANNOT BE ACCURATELY REPRESENTED ON A ONE-DIMENSIONAL IDEOLOGICAL SPECTRUM
Collapsing voter ideology to one dimension, and then trying to win votes by shifting right on that spectrum, at best, leaves most of your persuasive levers on the table, and at worst, is actively harmful, since that shift might produce detrimental shifts in unobserved dimensions
On the other hand, if you collapse voters into a single ideological spectrum, it's easier to argue that an affluent, moderate white man is not an outlying member of a demographic minority, but in fact roughly reflects the average American, so there's that.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
