- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
don’t worry guys the 14 people in her district will still vote for her
Maybe this money should be used to move 15 democratic voters to her district.
now youre talking my language
Ribbit
Hey if they can bus Mexican immigrants to Martha’s Vineyard we can relocate some hippies to Wyoming.
What an odd title, not naming the democratic guy with the better fundraiser. I guess Boobert is good click beat over the pond?
It’s because the general consensus is the same as trump/Biden, on a smaller scale. It’s not a vote for that guy, it’s a vote for “not Boebert”.
I’d like it to be about that guy, but the fact is, it isn’t.
Honestly, I feel like this focus on “vote against the opponent” is a misstep by the DNC and will become a major hindrance in a few years. The DNC should be promoting candidates that will push a popular progressive agenda rather than “I’m not them”. I get why they’re doing it, but it will come back to bite the DNC
Districts who vote for people like Boebert aren’t going to vote for a candidate running on “popular progressive agenda”, because they aren’t progressive. You won’t be able convince the MAGA crowd not to vote for a nut-job. But if you can showcase how insane some candidates are, the more moderate conservatives (which is a massive % of US voters) might just be turned-off enough that they don’t vote at all.
MAGA is no longer a winning platform, that’s why there was no ‘red wave’ in 2022. Truthfully, the solution would be RCV, but that would reduce the established power from both parties, so established politicians on both sides would vote against it in Boebert’s district (Colorado passed a bill in 2021 allowing RCV in counties and municipalities). I live in Minnesota, a solidly purple state (despite the presidential voting record). With a one senator majority lead, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party very likely secured the next election for themselves. How? By passing 30 progressive bills that have 70%+ statewide support, like a public healthcare option, legal cannabis, guaranteed paid sick time, bans on corporate ownership of single family homes, and more. This is how we win, not “vote for me, I’m not her”
The DNC should be promoting candidates that will push a popular progressive agenda rather than “I’m not them”.
It’s the best they’ve got. DNC is fiercely center and hates progressives.
But it’s the choice between pushing someone who isn’t your opponent and maybe getting elected vs pushing “popular progressive agenda” and not getting elected. This is the district that elected Boebert twice. They don’t want progressive. It’s only through the sheer awfulness that Boebert is that there’s even a chance.
like I said, I get why they’re taking this angle, but I think it will end up hurting the DNC in the long run if they keep up this strategy.
And he’s the guy that came up with the term “angertainment”, which could not be a better description of the Boebert wing.
Yeah, it makes sense, in a sort of sad way.
I was thinking exact same thing! Why not highlight him?!
Hope it’s enough. She barely made it last election, so I’ve got hope her constituents are getting tired of her bs.
According to the article, it’s the same guy (Adam Frisch) that challenged her last time. The margin of loss was also crazy thin. 536 votes, 0.5%
And it was supposed to be a safe Republican seat.
That’s the real story here.
The guy who lost by a razor-thin margin against an incumbent in a district projected to be safely on the R+10 - R+20 range saw the race com down to 536 votes.
That was in a midterm, where turnout is always lower. Boebert is in trouble here, I think. Polls and projections have had a hard time finding a model that works in the last few cycles, but fundraising still seems to be a great indicator of sentiment, and seeing someone consistently out-raise the other candidate by such strong margins is telling. Seeing it against an incumbant should have Boebert sweating bullets.
She’s definitely in trouble, but I’d wager that most of Frisch’s haul has come from out of the district. He certainly seems like a good candidate, but I think higher turnout in a presidential race will give boebert a good shot at it.
Yeah except that also that meant that she was doing jack shit for her constituents because it mostly didn’t matter either way. I think that was enough of a warning shot that she’ll make a meaningful effort this time and will probably improve turnout
Eh I’m always skeptical how much a congressman actually does specifically for their district, vs the broader “own the libs”.
I really liked when Jared Polis (current CO governor) was my congressman because we aligned reasonably well politically and since he didn’t need to do fundraising (.com millionaire) he actually directly responded to constituents. Like you could tag him on reddit and he’d reply.
From what I can tell boebert does jack shit for her district (and i do spend a little time there)
Outreach I agree with, but actually doing something specifically for the district I’m less sure about.
redacted
Wait until you hear about the healthcare system.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the person who fit the role and deserved the job based on their commitment to progress got the job instead of who raised the most money?
Why not just skip the middle man and determine the winner automatically by whoever raises the most cash by a set date.
