CharmCityTiger
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 88
I don't see this strategy working. Dem voters won't reflexively vote for someone just to spite the other party the same way Republicans will.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I’m a registered Republican. I am so that I can vote in Pub primaries here in Ga. I vote against every Trump endorsed/MAGA candidate on the ballot. In the General election I blindly vote straight Dem.I don't see this strategy working. Dem voters won't reflexively vote for someone just to spite the other party the same way Republicans will.
Claire McCaskill won at least one and maybe two US Senate elections that way, but finally Missouri had gone full Tea Party/MAGA.The tactic has been a mixed bag for Dems at least. Famously did not work out for the Clinton campaign when they boosted Trump in the 2016 primary, but there has been success in promoting crazy R senate candidates
I saw a poll recently that had Crockett ahead in the primary, I was surprised as pretty much every other poll I've seen regarding this race showed Talarico leading. I would think, just based on a superficial look at both candidates, that Talarico's religious appeal would appeal more generally in Texas than Crockett's aggressive partisanship. Based on past experience with Texas elections I'll admit that I have a hard time believing that a black woman from an urban district can win statewide in Texas in a general election, although to be fair any Democrat winning in Texas seems like a real long shot.I know you know this and probably agree with it, but these things are super state-specific. Talarico would be a fucking disaster in Oregon. Crockett would be the obvious choice in Maryland. But in Texas, I can't help but think Talarico is the best possible option, by several orders of magnitude. That's not a knock on Crockett. If anything, it's a knock on Texas. But more than anything, it's just a recognition that the candidate has to fit the state.
I still think Talarico's odds should be less than 40%. But almost anyone else would be less than 20%, so I'll take Talarico in a heartbeat.
I realize you wouldn’t care about the sheriff’s race. It’s arguably the most important elective office in a county; but, you don’t care about it.Idc about the sheriff primary. Nothing Allam has said about Foushee is inaccurate. We don’t need a candidate in a liberal district who is awash in AIPAC money, and I expect she will lose the primary on Tuesday.
If I still lived in Maine, I’d vote for whoever is on the ballot against Susan Collins. I voted against her in 2014 and 2008. I’d have voted against her in 2020 (I knew her opponent in 2020 and that was a dead woman walking from Day 1 despite huge money - Sarah Gideon; as cold of a fish as had run for political office as ever and a truly insincere person).So if it comes down to Platner versus Collins, who would you vote for - or would you just not vote? And I'm not arguing for Platner, just curious.
Personally, I think it’s pretty easy to explain away the appearance of antisemitism by way of his time as a grunt in the military.You reject the idea that he is anti-Semitic and I can appreciate how one gets there from his campaign rhetoric. But how do you explain away the repeated instances of not just soft anti Semitic dalliances but virulently anti Semitic symbols, tertiary associates, and public appearances with openly far right anti-Semites?
My sense is Platner is viewing his campaign purely through the lens of populist labor and that comes with some creepy bedfellows. It probably also works in Maine.