So, the D's are spending hundreds of thousands of $$ trying to help some of the R Crazies win their primaries on the premise they'll be easier to beat come November compared to a more or less regular (read sane) R, an endeavor pretty much akin to cleaning your flamethrower while it's still loaded. You might get away with it, but then aga…
So, the D's are spending hundreds of thousands of $$ trying to help some of the R Crazies win their primaries on the premise they'll be easier to beat come November compared to a more or less regular (read sane) R, an endeavor pretty much akin to cleaning your flamethrower while it's still loaded. You might get away with it, but then again if you don't...
I'm sure they're depending on many great polls and statistics in making this calculus. Now, polls and statistics can be useful things. But here's the thing...polls and statistics don't vote. People do. Just as they did in 2016 when all those numbers had pretty much anointed Hil...oh, never mind. Nothing to be learned from the past in this case.
And we're depending on the D's in Congress to have the great good sense to sign onto and pass this ECA legislation? Sorry, Charlie, FFS doesn't quite cover it. What really does probably isn't printable in this space.
The Dems are not helping R crazies. They are putting out attack ads on the R crazies and since everyone knows the R base loves their crazy it is being interpreted as a boost or a help to that candidate.
This is a R voter problem and not a D stategery problem.
OK, so since I'm not a 'political strategist' by any stretch of the imagination (I'm neither cunning nor devious enough), maybe you can explain why one would "attack" a primary candidate whom you're not assured of facing in the general election, and spend significant money doing it for a reason other than the one that seems to be a popular take with many pundits? I'm asking seriously, not to gainsay your position, but to try to make sense of this. It doesn't make much sense to me, either way, considering the risk involved.
You are right about R voters being a problem. By my lights they are the *biggest* problem.
I think the bigger gamble is expecting Collins and Manchin to stick to their agreement if it does get general support. After all, Manchin dropped all interest in *HIS* own alternative to HR1 the very second Stacey Abrams and other "leftists" said "Sure, sounds great!" and got on board with it
You may well be right. Too much posturing and not enough, if any, backbone a common malady these days. Manchin is what he is, and the same with Collins. And neither have shown themselves to be exactly "dependable" in more ways than one.
So, the D's are spending hundreds of thousands of $$ trying to help some of the R Crazies win their primaries on the premise they'll be easier to beat come November compared to a more or less regular (read sane) R, an endeavor pretty much akin to cleaning your flamethrower while it's still loaded. You might get away with it, but then again if you don't...
I'm sure they're depending on many great polls and statistics in making this calculus. Now, polls and statistics can be useful things. But here's the thing...polls and statistics don't vote. People do. Just as they did in 2016 when all those numbers had pretty much anointed Hil...oh, never mind. Nothing to be learned from the past in this case.
And we're depending on the D's in Congress to have the great good sense to sign onto and pass this ECA legislation? Sorry, Charlie, FFS doesn't quite cover it. What really does probably isn't printable in this space.
The Dems are not helping R crazies. They are putting out attack ads on the R crazies and since everyone knows the R base loves their crazy it is being interpreted as a boost or a help to that candidate.
This is a R voter problem and not a D stategery problem.
OK, so since I'm not a 'political strategist' by any stretch of the imagination (I'm neither cunning nor devious enough), maybe you can explain why one would "attack" a primary candidate whom you're not assured of facing in the general election, and spend significant money doing it for a reason other than the one that seems to be a popular take with many pundits? I'm asking seriously, not to gainsay your position, but to try to make sense of this. It doesn't make much sense to me, either way, considering the risk involved.
You are right about R voters being a problem. By my lights they are the *biggest* problem.
I think the bigger gamble is expecting Collins and Manchin to stick to their agreement if it does get general support. After all, Manchin dropped all interest in *HIS* own alternative to HR1 the very second Stacey Abrams and other "leftists" said "Sure, sounds great!" and got on board with it
You may well be right. Too much posturing and not enough, if any, backbone a common malady these days. Manchin is what he is, and the same with Collins. And neither have shown themselves to be exactly "dependable" in more ways than one.
I keep expecting Manchin to turn R right after the election.