As a rational person, I have to conclude that the campaign that lost the election had a bigger role to play in defeat than obvious scapegoats like Sarandon, Brie, etc. The campaign had one job.
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet
You also had a job. How did you discharge that job? You say: I was right and I should have doubled down. It is a bit astonishing that even in retrospective, you can't admit the slightest error. (Saying I should have been louder is humblebragging, not admitting error).
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @immo_i
I did admit a big error: not being critical enough of Clinton campaign. If you go through my articles for 2015/2016, only a small fraction are even mildly critical. https://newrepublic.com/authors/jeet-heer …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
So....doubling down on your butthurtness.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @skitter771 @immo_i
I'm not sure what doubling down means (or even buttheart). For most of 2016 I thought Clinton was a strong candidate and expected her to trounce Trump. I overlooked, ignored or was blind to flaws in her campaign. I wish I had done better & listened to her critics. Mea culpa.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
That is, again, a load of horse crap. You promoted the bullshit notion that Trump won't endanger abortion rights in this very thread, undermining her warning at the time. Undermine a strong candidate then do an "oops, she was actually weak" is shameless doubling down.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @skitter771 @immo_i
So your position is my trolling tweets telling right-wingers that Trump will appoint Peter Thiel to legalize harvesting baby parts had a bigger impact on election than decisions made by Robby Mook etc. to not emphasize economic populism. Amazing. Partisanship is a hell of a drug
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HeerJeet @skitter771
"Economic populism"? Are we still doing the economic anxiety bit? But that isn't the point. You claimed liberals, including Clinton didn't care about the court and reproductive rights in 2016. But they did. And you didn't.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @immo_i @skitter771
If liberals cared about abortion they could have done more to secure reproductive freedom when they had a congressional supermajority.pic.twitter.com/EXBB9iWAnp
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HeerJeet @skitter771
"The bill won't pass the republican house" Prior to that Obama was occuoied with the auto bail out and AVA - economic populism in other words. And of course the law wouldn't change much in the Supreme court. And you surely did not agitate for this bill in 2009/2010
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
It's possible for presidents to pass many bills in a 2 year span. See 1933-1934, 1935-1936, or 1965-1966. Overturning a federal law is a steeper lift than upholding a state one.
-
-
It helps if you have massive majorities in Congress as FDR & LBJ had in all 3 of those congresses.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.