I’d be willing to bet anything that if she’s the nominee, we’re getting President Vance - or a third Trump term. It would be the political equivalent of not even wanting to win. To win elections, you need a nominee who can appeal to at least some of the people who voted for Trump. AOC is the exact opposite of that. This wouldn’t be shooting oneself in the foot - but to head.
AOC and Bernie are filling entire stadiums in red states.
Their grassroots support is so fucking strong, I’ll answer phones and knock on doors for these two mofos even though that’s the last thing I want to do on my free time.
Just because it’s a red state doesn’t mean everyone there supports Trump. AOC and Bernie definitely have passionate followings, and they can fill venues - but that kind of enthusiasm doesn’t always translate into broad, general-election support. If you polled random voters - especially outside of activist circles - both are often seen as being on the political fringe. I actually think Bernie might have had a real shot if he wasn’t 300 years old and the democrats didn’t conspire against him, but with AOC, I think her public image is already too polarizing to win over the kinds of voters Democrats would need to flip. If anything, I’d imagine the MAGA crowd would love for her to be the nominee because they know how easy it would be to rally their base against her.
Yes you are. Instead of engaging with the content of my argument, you’re attempting to discredit it by implying I’m parroting a biased media outlet - suggesting my view is invalid not because of its reasoning, but because of its supposed origin or alignment. It’s a bad faith logical fallacy meant to undermine credibility without addressing the substance.
Then engage with the discussion??? It’s very frustrating reading your comments actively shutting down discourse.
Here I’ll do it for you:
I disagree with @opinionhaver because I think that filling stadiums in red and swing states is a tangible metric that is at least correlated with general election support. I think that Trump is even more polarizing than AOC, and so her polarization isn’t as much of an issue as they make it out to be.
There. Now we find out how substantial their position is when they defend it, instead of just crying about talking points
There are a large number of people who voted for her and trump on the same ticket (they were both up for election this year). Her and people like her would do far better than any middle of the road dem could. Im convinced of that.
For some reason we keep hearing the same thing for the last ten years, yet dems cant denonstrate a consistent ability to beat Trump of all people with “moderates”. This “playing it safe” approach isnt working long term. Its embarrasing really.
I’d be willing to bet anything that if she’s the nominee, we’re getting President Vance - or a third Trump term. It would be the political equivalent of not even wanting to win. To win elections, you need a nominee who can appeal to at least some of the people who voted for Trump. AOC is the exact opposite of that. This wouldn’t be shooting oneself in the foot - but to head.
This take is so detached from reality.
AOC and Bernie are filling entire stadiums in red states.
Their grassroots support is so fucking strong, I’ll answer phones and knock on doors for these two mofos even though that’s the last thing I want to do on my free time.
Just because it’s a red state doesn’t mean everyone there supports Trump. AOC and Bernie definitely have passionate followings, and they can fill venues - but that kind of enthusiasm doesn’t always translate into broad, general-election support. If you polled random voters - especially outside of activist circles - both are often seen as being on the political fringe. I actually think Bernie might have had a real shot if he wasn’t 300 years old and the democrats didn’t conspire against him, but with AOC, I think her public image is already too polarizing to win over the kinds of voters Democrats would need to flip. If anything, I’d imagine the MAGA crowd would love for her to be the nominee because they know how easy it would be to rally their base against her.
Are you a host on msnbc or cnn?
Classic ad hominem. Easier to mock the messenger than deal with the message, I guess.
Not attacking you, but you are definitely just repeating talking points of cable news… sorry if that upsets you
Yes you are. Instead of engaging with the content of my argument, you’re attempting to discredit it by implying I’m parroting a biased media outlet - suggesting my view is invalid not because of its reasoning, but because of its supposed origin or alignment. It’s a bad faith logical fallacy meant to undermine credibility without addressing the substance.
To be fair. Corporate media also pushes narratives whether they are true or not, much like your made up point
Then engage with the discussion??? It’s very frustrating reading your comments actively shutting down discourse.
Here I’ll do it for you: I disagree with @opinionhaver because I think that filling stadiums in red and swing states is a tangible metric that is at least correlated with general election support. I think that Trump is even more polarizing than AOC, and so her polarization isn’t as much of an issue as they make it out to be.
There. Now we find out how substantial their position is when they defend it, instead of just crying about talking points
‘A change from the status quo’: the voters who backed Trump and AOC
There are a large number of people who voted for her and trump on the same ticket (they were both up for election this year). Her and people like her would do far better than any middle of the road dem could. Im convinced of that.
For some reason we keep hearing the same thing for the last ten years, yet dems cant denonstrate a consistent ability to beat Trump of all people with “moderates”. This “playing it safe” approach isnt working long term. Its embarrasing really.
As Jim Hightower put it, there ain’t nothing in the middle of the road but a yellow line and squashed armadillos.