You don't need to run three million dollars of Facebook ads in a D+29 district. I don't know how else to put it. Her fundraising and spending are both a ridiculous indictment of a status quo, and she could lead by example with no harm to her prospects.
-
-
Replying to @Pinboard
If this sort of attitude actually held any real world value, we might still have a Sanders campaign. Sorry her virtue signaling isn't up to scratch, but I'm not convinced it's a complete indictment of her arguments for changing the system. She has the right goal. Meanwhile...
2 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
-
Replying to @Pinboard @NedGilmore
She’s advertising not only to win votes but to build a war chest / her name. She’s overall gotten more than she’s spent. Good for her team. Solo campaign finance reform is not a winning play when the issues are systemic and primaries still happen.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Her 'job' is to prove that she's a top tier player, _nationally_. That's where her 'prospects' lie. That's why winning her seat with 72% of the vote kinda matters.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @NedGilmore @rseymour
I understand this argument (from both of you) but I don't think it makes sense. You don't amass a war chest by spending millions out of it. And I don't think her margin of victory in her specific district will have any bearing on her wider political future
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Point 2 probably explains point 1 in this. Do you invest in a candidate of dubious appeal to go on to a bigger role? Or would you feel happier investing in someone who was so far ahead that their primary result alone almost makes the case for them moving on to bigger things?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Much of the (vapid) criticism of progressive candidates is that they're big on wild, pie-in-the-sky idea but they struggle with the basics of campaigning, etc, the stuff that 'wise' party insiders know instinctively and are obviously better at. Crushing that is important.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NedGilmore @rseymour
The way you crush it, though, is demonstrating strength in a contested district. There's lots of politicians out at both ends of the spectrum who win with 80%+ majorities in a safe district, but would be toast in a bigger race. Winning by 90% in their safe seat doesn't change it
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
She won 72% in the primary tho. I know she's not going to lose her safe seat, that's not a good test of anything.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Frank Lucas won 83% in his last contested primary. Since then, his hold is so secure that no one will even challenge him. Is that proof of anything?
-
-
I mean, it's not a perfect rule of thumb.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.