Like I know not everyone agrees to me, but seems like Rs could have performed better in 2016 if they hadn't nominated literally the most unpopular candidate in the history of polling
-
-
Show this thread
-
if you think about the primary as a big contest that involves a) everyone deciding to run or not + b) the actual primaries then you have to think of HRC as the most electable Democrat of 2016? Seems easy to come up w/similar people who would have done better
Show this thread -
Gillibrand seems like a good example of this. Very similar to Clinton, has a lot less baggage, would have probably won. You can come up w/a lot of these.
Show this thread -
It's also *okay* for your primary not to select for the most electable because the party is trying to balance someone who will do the stuff they want + actually get into the WH.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
George McGovern!!! my first vote. But then again I was in MA, where he was electable
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I agree. But there is a sense in which I think it is true. In a world where Bernie could have built a winning primary coalition i think he could have alsowon the general.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Gen elections have candidates competing for whole electorate across entire ideological space; primaries just one party's voters across truncated ideological space. Primaries are almost purpose-built to NOT produce most electable gen-election nominee (think median voter theorem).
Thanks. 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.
NJ