I think there’s a big gap between union activists and many union members.
I think there’s a big gap between union activists and many union members.
You don’t think there are Black and Hispanic low-engagement, low-information voters who need a reason to care?
[QUOTE]
Oh, I agree with that. I think she’s one of the party’s rising stars, and I’d bet on her ability to motivate voters over, say, Cory Booker’s.
But yeah, ‘woman’ and ‘black’ matter. If they matter 2-3 points of turnout in November, that’s big.
Most voters don’t know jack shit about record and accomplishments. (ETA: And I’m definitely including whites here.)
And the 2-3 points to one’s home state - definitely true back in the day when all candidates were white men.
I am severely disappointed that nobody quoted this link. A beautiful song about a great American hero, sung by Joan Baez, one of the greatest American vocalists and an authentic heroine.
And the performance is live! At the 1969 Woodstock Concert. Imagine the enormous fidelity of this woman’s voice to produce this rendition LIVE. (BTW, the David she refers to at the beginning of the clip is her husband David Harris.)
Giants walked the Earth, as recently as 1969. We’ve hardly seen their like since.
Well, there is a guy who writes fictiony stuff under that name. It is actually his first and half of his middle name. He is the son of a guy some of us may have heard of.
How do you explain the fact that the Our Revolution and Justice Dems candidates failed to flip a single seat in the House, despite Bernie raising lots of online money for them and campaigning in their targeted districts? You lot never learn anything from dramatic and overwhelming failure. Same thing over in the UK with Labour and Jeremy Corbyn.
I’m not sure your point is completely fair. The U.S. is so polarized and the House so thoroughly gerrymandered that few Districts are even competitive to D vs R; those that are, require a moderate touch.
For comparison: The right-wing Tea Party has been grotesquely successful. But how many Teabagging Representatives defeated a Democrat incumbent? (I don’t know, and may quickly be proved wrong.)
ICYMI, Obama did take some action – to demand that SC broadcasters cease and desist running an ad that misquotes him as accusing Biden of being a racist.
An ad being run by Republicans, who still view Joe Biden as the guy they will be facing in November. Master strategists, that lot.
But moderate Dems flipped 41 seats, a rather large number in historical terms. How is this more marginal than the presidential election coming down to a few thousand votes in a few Rust Belt states?
I haven’t seen enough facts to learn anything. Which districts are we talking about, and what are their Cook PVIs?
In my understanding, Justice Democrats deliberately targeted long-shot seats that weren’t getting much attention from other Democratic organizations. Sure, they could stick to easy wins – but that would be easy, and wouldn’t actually accomplish anything aside from getting to say they backed winners.
It’s good to go after long-shot seats. Most of the time they’ll lose, but with time, those seats and districts may change, and the work they put in will be quite useful to the party.
Your understanding sounds like flushing money down the toilet. Where did you hear that?
Anyway, four days to go. Help me, Obama, you’re my only hope! 
I didn’t “hear” it – I looked at the list of seats and candidates they supported, and a very significant portion appeared like long shots to me.
I don’t see it as a waste – some of those districts are changing and will continue to change. Investing now can have dividends in the future (and sometimes there are surprises). It doesn’t mean that we should only target long shot seats – it just means that, IMO, we shouldn’t ignore them.
This sounds like a highly dubious rationalization/retcon. You’re telling me that they could have had dozens more seats added to their caucus, and been able to point to their having been the force that gave Pelosi the gavel…but they chose to just let the moderates have those seats instead?!? That’s preposterous, and might actually be a worse commentary on their efficacy as a political force if it were true!
I can’t make enough sense of this criticism to rebut it.
That’s on you then. What I wrote should be perfectly clear to anyone who is following along.
There it is, Rufus: South Carolina. You’ll never see a more wretched hi—
There’s really only one thing I can add to this discussion (FWIW). I was SO angry with the Democrats in 2008. I thought: “Oh great! You guys are considering nominating a black man. Yeah, the USA will elect a black president… in about 50 years! IDIOTS! What were you smoking?”
OK, who else you got? A woman? Named Clinton? What the hell is this suicide-fest, geez!?
Yup. Sure enough, the morons nominated the wet-behind-the-big-ears black dude. Now, the guy seemed pretty damn smart and impressive to me but I wasn’t the sort of voter they had to reach. The nomination was just so tragically stoopid!
Turns out the black dude named Hussein won. Blew my mind. I’ve tended to keep a bit quieter about supposed “long-shot candidates” since then.
Political scientists have provided evidence (convincing to me) that a generic Democratic white dude would have won an absolute blowout in that cycle, instead of the merely comfortable win he had. Obama is my favorite president, so I’m obviously glad it worked out; but it was definitely a risk.
Mark Shields and David Brooks on PBS Newshour tonight are singing my tune:
And just FWIW, because there seems to be some confusion based on some of the responses here: I was never *predicting *this would happen. I was *hoping *it would happen, just like they are–but also just like them, not exactly holding my breath.