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 …
Well yes, Michael Steele oversaw the 2010 wave. Sometimes you’re in the right place at the right time.
-
-
So they're bad at winning elections even when they win elections? OK.
-
Also the DNC has barely played in these special elections. That’s not really their role. But if you wanna credit Tom Perez with the coming potential wave, ok.
-
You're the one who thinks the DNC's management is a very important story worthy of many, many pieces. But if you're saying it's primarily a fundraising org that doesn't set policy or have all that much impact on people's lives, then we're in agreement.
-
Huh? You can count on one hand the stories I’ve done on the DNC.
-
There's a bottom line here. There's nothing more dog-bites-man than 'party committee will support vulnerable incumbents' -- of course they will -- and if you look at the mentions and quote-tweets on that you'll see unbridled outrage over it, including people with lots of...
-
...followers saying things like, 'what's even the point of voting for Dems?' The disconnect between the substance and response is problematic, IMO. YM apparently varies.
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.