Stories like Teachout's are reminders that elections are shaped by the political environment of the moment. Anti-establishment progressives say Dems lost in Obama years because they didn't focus on ideas. But if that's true, why did Teachout lose by 9 points in 2016?https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/986263191402549248 …
-
-
-
Replying to @ryangrim
She far outraised and outspent Fasohttps://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary?cycle=2016&id=NY19 …
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @CahnEmily
I remember there being a ton of outside money, too
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ryangrim
It basically evened out when you factor in that she got a better rate as a candidate. My point is that if candidates who have lost before are somehow tainted and never should run again, then shouldn't Teaachout be discounted and cast aside?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CahnEmily
Discounted, definitely. Cast aside is case by case. (The counter-argument is that the the top of the ticket sets the tone around ideas. It is hard for a House challenger to break thru past a presidential candidate.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ryangrim
Very true. Which is why the progressive argument against some of the 2016 candidates that lost and are running again is also in bad faith.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CahnEmily
Unless they ran on the exact same messaging that failed at the top of the ticket, then it's good faith
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Performance relative to the top of the ticket matters too, of course.
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.