Elaine Kamarck here asserts as fact that party leaders are more concerned with electability while party activists care about ideology. That’s backwards. In my experience, activists heavily weigh electability and party leaders are highly ideologicalhttps://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/opinion/dccc-democratic-primaries-interference.html …
-
Show this thread
-
Is there data to support either set of claims? Are activist and party leaders mutually exclusive? Do different roles dictate priorities, or do priorities drive people toward certain roles? Is it possible to be both ideological and pragmatic?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I guess I just wonder what purpose analyses like these serve? Unless there's actual evidence to support one or the other approach, what difference does it make?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @IDreamOnDemand @digby56
It matters because it allows party leaders to avoid debate on substance if they can say they only care about electability. But it’s not true.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Yeah, why worry about electability at all if you don't have plans for how you use the position once you hold it? Of course ideology matters. But it doesn't matter much if you can't also get elected. Both are necessary.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Party leaders derive benefits from their participation in politics whether they win or lose. Activists only do so when they win. So activists have more incentive to care about winning.
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.