You can think of a couple times it went horribly wrong, but if we’re objective and look at the track record, it worked pretty well for dems in ‘20 and ‘22
It also worked extremely “well” in 2016 where the Hillary campaign was able to position Trump as the GOP nominee and leverage that vulnerability to lose an election. DNC political consultants ah wicked smaht.
Two big differences though: 1. Right now the practical benefit of having a moderate instead of an extreme GOP senator from Ohio are very small. In the end, all GOP senators will vote with the crazies. That’s of course completely different for the presidency. 2. Dems are very unlikely to win Ohio and need every advantage they can get.
I think in this case the risky strategy is completely warranted whereas in 2016 it was just stupid.
Yeah, there’s totally no risk with this strategy and I can’t think of any time this went horribly wrong in the past.
You can think of a couple times it went horribly wrong, but if we’re objective and look at the track record, it worked pretty well for dems in ‘20 and ‘22
It also worked extremely “well” in 2016 where the Hillary campaign was able to position Trump as the GOP nominee and leverage that vulnerability to lose an election. DNC political consultants ah wicked smaht.
Two big differences though: 1. Right now the practical benefit of having a moderate instead of an extreme GOP senator from Ohio are very small. In the end, all GOP senators will vote with the crazies. That’s of course completely different for the presidency. 2. Dems are very unlikely to win Ohio and need every advantage they can get.
I think in this case the risky strategy is completely warranted whereas in 2016 it was just stupid.
it was the best strategy. the absolute best.
So much better than any strategy that has ever come before.
(excuse me while I bleach my keyboard)