Just now, Reddy said:

It's a fucking awful point. Caucuses =/= General Electorate. PERIOD. Jesus y'all. Go take one Poly Sci class.

They lost in states where the other candidate won.  Period.  States that would have meant the election.  But party above all else, just like the Trump crowd.

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

They lost in states where the other candidate won.  Period.  States that would have meant the election.  But party above all else, just like the Trump crowd.

NO. NOT PERIOD. A CAUCUS IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SET OF VOTERS THAN A PRIMARY OR A GENERAL.

This is such basic shit. Seriously.

23 minutes ago, Reddy said:

NO. NOT PERIOD. A CAUCUS IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SET OF VOTERS THAN A PRIMARY OR A GENERAL.

This is such basic shit. Seriously.

I thought it would seem like it, but alas not. 

1 hour ago, Reddy said:

It's a fucking awful point. Caucuses =/= General Electorate. PERIOD. Jesus y'all. Go take one Poly Sci class.

I know that Caucuses are not equal to general electorate.  I just wanted to make the point that Bernie would have beat Clinton in those states in any sort of election.

Don't need a Poly Sci class to tell me Bernie would have won.

3 hours ago, Reddy said:

It's a fucking awful point. Caucuses =/= General Electorate. PERIOD. Jesus y'all. Go take one Poly Sci class.

So what do the Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin primaries Bernie won mean, then? These were primaries, not caucuses. To me, that, combined with the fact that two of those primaries took place in two of the three states that ended up putting Trump in the White House, suggests that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is correct in her assessment that the midwest would be receptive to an economic populist message, and that Ms. Duckworth, while a respectable and good senator, might be a bit off base regarding the constituencies of the midwest as a whole. But hey, what do I know, that Crowley for Congress campaign is rolling right along, right?

Edited July 2, 20187 yr by Dam8610

You could also look at the states (and caucuses) Obama won vs. Clinton in 2008.

Like Iowa.

She was clearly the centrist to his more progressive/community activist/anti-war (Iraq War vote she never lived down) vibe.

7 hours ago, GoSox05 said:

I know that Caucuses are not equal to general electorate.  I just wanted to make the point that Bernie would have beat Clinton in those states in any sort of election.

Don't need a Poly Sci class to tell me Bernie would have won.

Holy shit. I'm not relitigating this. There is literally no metric that proves your position. None. There is a metric ton of oppo on Bernie that never got dropped. I guess we'll see what happens in 2020. But holy shit.

4 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

So what do the Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin primaries Bernie won mean, then? These were primaries, not caucuses. To me, that, combined with the fact that two of those primaries took place in two of the three states that ended up putting Trump in the White House, suggests that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is correct in her assessment that the midwest would be receptive to an economic populist message, and that Ms. Duckworth, while a respectable and good senator, might be a bit off base regarding the constituencies of the midwest as a whole. But hey, what do I know, that Crowley for Congress campaign is rolling right along, right?

So you also think it's likey Ocasio better understands the midwest than the Senator from Illinois? Do you all listen to yourselves?

23 minutes ago, Reddy said:

So you also think it's likey Ocasio better understands the midwest than the Senator from Illinois? Do you all listen to yourselves?

I live in the the Far West burbs, which is pretty purple, and I've spent a lot of time in small town Wisconsin for the last 16 years. I talk politics with people in both places regularly. And the answer is yes, the Senator from Illinois is out of touch with Middle America. To them, it's the economy, stupid taken to a whole new level. These people don't have good jobs available to them, they want decent jobs. I've been to plenty of small towns in Wisconsin. I look at what there is to do  for work in town. They're lucky if they have a food manufacturing plant in town. Most jobs in those areas are in retail and food service. There really isn't much else. They want upward mobility. The best jobs in a given town used to be public school jobs, but since Scott Walker destroyed the unions there, there really aren't good jobs to be had in small town Wisconsin. 

Even in my own life, I'm struggling to get an opportunity to earn a decent wage. I have my own issues, but that shouldn't prevent me from earning a decent living. 

Mainstream Dems are deaf to this problem, and until they acknowledge it, they will continue to lose elections. 

Edited July 3, 20187 yr by Jack Parkman

1 hour ago, Reddy said:

So you also think it's likey Ocasio better understands the midwest than the Senator from Illinois? Do you all listen to yourselves?

Ms. Duckworth likely understands her Illinois constituency very well, but Illinois is not the whole of the midwest, and she's no more qualified to comment on the seven state region than Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is. Judging by the results I spoke of earlier, there's even a distinct possibility that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez might be more well informed about the midwest as a whole. Given that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has previously worked as an organizer for a presidential campaign and has traveled to each state, it would be reasonable to believe that she might have a better handle on what the constituencies of the six non-Illinois midwest states are looking for in a political candidate than Ms. Duckworth.

5 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

Ms. Duckworth likely understands her Illinois constituency very well, but Illinois is not the whole of the midwest, and she's no more qualified to comment on the seven state region than Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is. Judging by the results I spoke of earlier, there's even a distinct possibility that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez might be more well informed about the midwest as a whole. Given that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has previously worked as an organizer for a presidential campaign and has traveled to each state, it would be reasonable to believe that she might have a better handle on what the constituencies of the six non-Illinois midwest states are looking for in a political candidate than Ms. Duckworth.

So then what credibility would you give me? Someone who literally talks to voters in Iowa all day, every day, for 10 to 12 hours a day and - wait for it - has spent time in every single state (37 since 2016).

8 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

I live in the the Far West burbs, which is pretty purple, and I've spent a lot of time in small town Wisconsin for the last 16 years. I talk politics with people in both places regularly. And the answer is yes, the Senator from Illinois is out of touch with Middle America. To them, it's the economy, stupid taken to a whole new level. These people don't have good jobs available to them, they want decent jobs. I've been to plenty of small towns in Wisconsin. I look at what there is to do  for work in town. They're lucky if they have a food manufacturing plant in town. Most jobs in those areas are in retail and food service. There really isn't much else. They want upward mobility. The best jobs in a given town used to be public school jobs, but since Scott Walker destroyed the unions there, there really aren't good jobs to be had in small town Wisconsin. 

Even in my own life, I'm struggling to get an opportunity to earn a decent wage. I have my own issues, but that shouldn't prevent me from earning a decent living. 

Mainstream Dems are deaf to this problem, and until they acknowledge it, they will continue to lose elections. 

I wouldn’t say that Trump or the GOP have solved this problem either, they just recognized this in their campaign and capitalized off of it. The jobs haven’t come back for the folks impacted by automation and outsourcing and they haven’t found new industries for folks to work in. It seems to me that the party who works on job retraining legislation, alternative energy jobs and investing on jobs in infrastructure will be the one who wins elections instead of what Trump is currently doing.

10 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

I live in the the Far West burbs, which is pretty purple, and I've spent a lot of time in small town Wisconsin for the last 16 years. I talk politics with people in both places regularly. And the answer is yes, the Senator from Illinois is out of touch with Middle America. To them, it's the economy, stupid taken to a whole new level. These people don't have good jobs available to them, they want decent jobs. I've been to plenty of small towns in Wisconsin. I look at what there is to do  for work in town. They're lucky if they have a food manufacturing plant in town. Most jobs in those areas are in retail and food service. There really isn't much else. They want upward mobility. The best jobs in a given town used to be public school jobs, but since Scott Walker destroyed the unions there, there really aren't good jobs to be had in small town Wisconsin. 

Even in my own life, I'm struggling to get an opportunity to earn a decent wage. I have my own issues, but that shouldn't prevent me from earning a decent living. 

Mainstream Dems are deaf to this problem, and until they acknowledge it, they will continue to lose elections. 

The Democrats will also continue to lose elections if their only path to victory is to chase after rural white voters.

12 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

The Democrats will also continue to lose elections if their only path to victory is to chase after rural white voters.

I generally agree with this as well. Which is why they have to do everything in their power to stop the voter suppression laws the GOP is trying to pass. If they succeed in that, we're on a runaway train. 

However, the majority of congressional seats are in rural white areas, so that strategy *might* only work for a presidential election. It definitely won't work to take back Congress. If the Dems want any chance of controlling Congress any time soon they HAVE to convince rural whites that it is in their best interest to vote D. Otherwise, they might never win an election again. 

Edited July 3, 20187 yr by Jack Parkman

11 hours ago, Reddy said:

So you also think it's likey Ocasio better understands the midwest than the Senator from Illinois? Do you all listen to yourselves?

Seems like Hillary who lived in the midwest sure didn't seem to get it.

45 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

I generally agree with this as well. Which is why they have to do everything in their power to stop the voter suppression laws the GOP is trying to pass. If they succeed in that, we're on a runaway train. 

However, the majority of congressional seats are in rural white areas, so that strategy *might* only work for a presidential election. It definitely won't work to take back Congress. If the Dems want any chance of controlling Congress any time soon they HAVE to convince rural whites that it is in their best interest to vote D. Otherwise, they might never win an election again. 

 

This

23 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Seems like Hillary who lived in the midwest sure didn't seem to get it.

Who's talking about Hillary here besides you? Get a new hobby. It's 2018.

49 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

The Democrats will also continue to lose elections if their only path to victory is to chase after rural white voters.

Like in PA-whatever district it is now and Conor Lamb did? Ah, I see.

1 minute ago, Reddy said:

Like in PA-whatever district it is now and Conor Lamb did? Ah, I see.

He improved somewhat in the rural part of that county. Where he massively blew up was in Allegheny County, in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, where the population is both diverse and better educated.

4 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Who's talking about Hillary here besides you? Get a new hobby. It's 2018.

LMAO, nice deflection of the point.

Just now, Balta1701 said:

He improved somewhat in the rural part of that county. Where he massively blew up was in Allegheny County, in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, where the population is both diverse and better educated.

And yet his positions are extremely moderate. He also won with such a small margin that the rural vote mattered.

Just now, southsider2k5 said:

LMAO, nice deflection of the point.

You never have a cogent point. It's literally apples and oranges, but as we found out with the caucuses discussion, you can't tell the difference.

Edited July 3, 20187 yr by Reddy

Just now, Reddy said:

You never have a cogent point.

Which means you didn't either.

Just now, southsider2k5 said:

Which means you didn't either.

See the edit. Hillary's performance in '16 with rural folks has literally zero to do with a typical Dem's performance with rural folks in '18. Literally zero. Please, I'm begging you, follow the guys at 538 on Twitter for like - two weeks. You'll understand all of this stuff much better.

Just now, Reddy said:

See the edit. Hillary's performance in '16 with rural folks has literally zero to do with a typical Dem's performance with rural folks in '18. Literally zero. Please, I'm begging you, follow the guys at 538 on Twitter for like - two weeks. You'll understand all of this stuff much better.

We'll see about that. They're going to go all-in on the racist fear of everyone on a scale they haven't been able to do in these special elections.