If you like a candidate but you don’t vote for them because you don’t think they’ll win nomination, you’re being played. This isn’t Oscar picks. The goal of voting isn’t to guess the winner. It’s to pick the one that best represents you. https://twitter.com/TheStagmania/status/1206265294626398209 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
Replying to @JuliusGoat
“Electable”—War hero, long-serving Senator, Main Street John Kerry. “Electability concerns”—Barack Obama. Funny name, possibly Muslim, too young, not enough experience, should wait his turn, and ... uhh ... too ... well, how will he play to Midwestern voters?
2 replies 0 retweets 20 likes -
Replying to @Grange95
I'm going with Joe Biden because I have decided to try to attract away voters who are only comfortable voting for white men away from ... Donald Trump, a guy whose entire appeal centers around stimulating the nerve centers of people who are only comfortable voting for white men.
1 reply 2 retweets 22 likes -
-
-
Replying to @JuliusGoat @Grange95
The MATH of 1stPastThePost voting is: If you don't vote for the VIABLE candidate (#1 or #2 in gen election) LEAST-FAR from your goals you are helping your WORST option Ranked Choice solves this, but not what we have Strategy is key, not a popularity contest Primaries have more
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JimP32 @JuliusGoat
I agree. But what the past several elections (2000-2016) show is that it is more important to energize and turn out the base than to win the “independent” vote. This is mostly because the electorate is increasingly partisan and there are few true independent voters.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Grange95 @JuliusGoat
Right but part of this problem is tactics & 'noble sentiments' to "vote your heart", only for politicians that "earn your vote" or "enthusiasm" This turns people to support non-viable 3rd Party candidates (Stein) or abandon the Nom for favorite (Bernie), and lose it all
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JimP32 @JuliusGoat
Disagree. Enthusiasm and unity are separate issues. You need both to win. Kerry and Romney has unity with no enthusiasm, and Hillary had enthusiasm without unity. GW Bush, Obama, and Trump had both.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This obsession with whether a candidate is “viable” or “electable” based on perceptions of how radical they are is misplaced. Obama and Trump weren’t deemed “viable” or “electable” until they were nominated.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
In 2016, Republicans had several traditionally “electable” mainstream candidates—Jeb!, Rubio, Kasich. The base wanted a radical—Trump or Cruz. Trump won the general on the strength of a highly energized base (just look at the folks at his rallies).
-
-
Replying to @Grange95 @JuliusGoat
I'm talking mainly about the math of the General election In primaries, there can be more than 2 viable candidates, and some that appear non-viable may actually be able to become winners so the Primary math & estimation is def. more messy
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But, yes, in the primaries, it is critical to ultimately nominate a candidate who can win the general
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.