It’s easy to look back. I sincerely think that, based on research and subsequent speculation, appealing to non-MAGA conservatives was a rational play. It explains Liz Cheney and the whole nothing-will-fundamentally-change angle.
Again, didn’t pay off, but I’m sure research showed greater expected returns from conservatives than leftists.
But these “lets poll and analyse who to peddle to” strategy has been a failure for two of the past three elections. People are tired of getting managed messages instead of a coherent platform.
I’m not saying you’re incorrect, I’m just saying that, considering the circumstances, it wasn’t an unreasonable gamble. Leftists are notoriously stingy with their vote. As long as progressives are unreliable on election day, appealing to proven voters on well-vocalized issues is a safer strategy. It being an unsuccessful strategy doesn’t mean it’s not the most successful strategy.
Polling research has shown that many progressive policies are popular with not only republican voters but all Americans. Trying to appeal to republican voters by taking on right-wing framing on issues like Immigration, will just reinforce the lies that rhetoric is built on and push those voters further right.
I think it was obviously insane from the start. It was clear long before 2024, before 2020 even. Offering a racist a ham sandwich isn’t going to get him to vote for you when the alternative is offering him the whole pig. Campaigning that way and losing once looks like an accident. Doing it… however the fuck many times we’ve seen this play out now looks like it’s on purpose.
Not every conservative is a racist and it isn’t helpful to frame things that way. It’s not unreasonable to prefer a ham sandwich to a diseased pig, and it’s not unreasonable to think that’s a compelling offer.
The gamble was that enough of them wouldn’t support racists if given a moderate alternative. Just because it didn’t work didn’t mean it wasn’t a reasonable strategy.
It’s easy to look back. I sincerely think that, based on research and subsequent speculation, appealing to non-MAGA conservatives was a rational play. It explains Liz Cheney and the whole nothing-will-fundamentally-change angle.
Again, didn’t pay off, but I’m sure research showed greater expected returns from conservatives than leftists.
But these “lets poll and analyse who to peddle to” strategy has been a failure for two of the past three elections. People are tired of getting managed messages instead of a coherent platform.
I’m not saying you’re incorrect, I’m just saying that, considering the circumstances, it wasn’t an unreasonable gamble. Leftists are notoriously stingy with their vote. As long as progressives are unreliable on election day, appealing to proven voters on well-vocalized issues is a safer strategy. It being an unsuccessful strategy doesn’t mean it’s not the most successful strategy.
Polling research has shown that many progressive policies are popular with not only republican voters but all Americans. Trying to appeal to republican voters by taking on right-wing framing on issues like Immigration, will just reinforce the lies that rhetoric is built on and push those voters further right.
Polls on campaign messaging
How to Win a Swing Voter in Seven Days
“The View” Alternate Universe: Break From Biden in Interviews, Play the Hits in Ads
Polls on policy
How Trump and Harris Voters See America’s Role in the World
Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college
Democrats should run on the popular progressive ideas, but not the unpopular ones
Here Are 7 ‘Left Wing’ Ideas (Almost) All Americans Can Get Behind
Finding common ground: 109 national policy proposals with bipartisan support
Progressive Policies Are Popular Policies
Tim Walz’s Progressive Policies Popular With Republicans in Swing States
People don’t want ‘nothing will fundamentally change’ they want real change to improve their livelyhood
I think it was obviously insane from the start. It was clear long before 2024, before 2020 even. Offering a racist a ham sandwich isn’t going to get him to vote for you when the alternative is offering him the whole pig. Campaigning that way and losing once looks like an accident. Doing it… however the fuck many times we’ve seen this play out now looks like it’s on purpose.
Not every conservative is a racist and it isn’t helpful to frame things that way. It’s not unreasonable to prefer a ham sandwich to a diseased pig, and it’s not unreasonable to think that’s a compelling offer.
They’re either racists or willing to support and vote for racists. Not sure where you think that line of reasoning is gonna go.
The gamble was that enough of them wouldn’t support racists if given a moderate alternative. Just because it didn’t work didn’t mean it wasn’t a reasonable strategy.