He was talking about supporting the re-election of senators from red states who vote yes. Of course they would do so; winning elections is the DNC's function. Stupid question, and equally stupid outrage. Of course, nobody bothers to watch the video.https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1045757962533457921 …
-
-
He was asked the question, tried to stick to why Kavanaugh isn't qualified and then when pressed he gave the obvious answer. Would it be reasonable for the head of the DNC to refuse support for red state Sens because of this vote? I think not.
-
I think it would be reasonable to say: The process isn’t over, and we don’t know what will emerge, so we’re withholding judgment on that. Just a hint that the party believes in something beyond elections might actually help it win elections.
-
That's basically what he tried to do by talking about how awful Kav is. He was pressed to give an answer to an obvious question and he reluctantly did. I can't stand the Manchins & Heitkamps, but when you have an incumbent in a red state, it'd be malpractice not to support 'em.
-
So you and I agree he flubbed the politics of his answer. He tried to do the smarter thing and failed.
-
Not really. I guess he could have refused to give an answer when pressed for one, but I think people would have given him a hard time for that as well.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The other obvious problem with this argument is that senators from red states know the DNC isn't going to cut them lose regardless of what answer the chairgives at some ideas festival. A very obvious bluff doesn't increase pressure one iota.
-
Perez said earlier this year that the DNC would not support candidates anywhere who opposed abortion rights. This question asks if that extends to ones who help overturn Roe.
-
You're making an obvious answer into something scandalous. The rest is whatever you want it to be.
-
Scandalous? I tweeted out a video without any of my own commentary.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think the thing is he could have parsed it differently - he of course would answer this way because what other option do they have but he could have pivoted to "that's why people need to push them to vote no, that's why we need brave commitment to fighting for what's right."
-
Fair, but the outrage on Twitter isn't based on quibbles about the exact line he took.
-
No, but that's WHY the outage is there. Answer questions better, get better results. I'm available for DNC comms consulting anytime by the way.

-
Maybe, but I'd also just note that we're working from a 96-second clip without any of the discussion that preceded it or followed.
-
Fair. But knowing media works in short clip sound bytes you have to also use those well each and every time - in short, pithy ways.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It’s so weird-republicans have shown over and over that holding their candidates to certain positions works and wins elections. But Dems refuse to see this.
-
Agree about the principle, but that's not what the RNC does. It's the role of leadership, donors, outside groups, etc. to keep the caucus together.
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.