Reddy

N=1 is always a strong way to draw a conclusion.

Because it hasn't? In ACTUAL elections, the Berniecrats have lost nearly every race throughout the midwest since 2016. Bernie's top Iowa staffer in '16 came in a distant 3rd in Iowa's 3rd District primary.

Dem turnout is up dramatically. Your narratives just aren't based in fact.

Annnnyway. Back to planning campaign events and registering and talking to voters. Y'all have fun on the interwebs. (Any of you D's volunteering on campaigns? We need ya)

Lol. Dems have, are, and will continue to learn from 2016. The approach is completely different this year. You only don't think so because you've decided that for yourself despite all of the evidence to the contrary. You just like trashing Dems and stoking the far-left narrative because you think it helps Rs. You're very transparent. And it's very clear that you don't read 538.

Are you saying 538 ignores and manipulates data, too, or just me? Bud, you're the person who keeps bringing it back to Hillary. No matter how many times I say she was a poor candidate - which I've done countless times - you completely ignore that and jump on whatever else you want to attack about my position. Everything you claim I do, you do in spades. You cherry pick, you ignore data, you misunderstand data, and you all the time dig in your heels and declare yourself correct. I'm so very close to putting you on ignore, because your posts never add anything to the discussion.

For sure, and the SCOTUS thing changes the game in a way I can't predict yet either, depending on the timeline of how it plays out. More D turnout in resistance? Turnout of Rs who wouldn't have otherwise because they're excited about overturning RvW? R apathy when the SCOTUS nom gets confirmed and they feel like they don't have to vote because they've "won"? Who knows. But results thus far across the country in primaries have shown a much higher activation level among Ds than Rs. I mean I posted the voter registration numbers in Iowa over the last month. 24,000 new Ds and only 3,500 new Rs. That's nothing to scoff at.

See the edit. Hillary's performance in '16 with rural folks has literally zero to do with a typical Dem's performance with rural folks in '18. Literally zero. Please, I'm begging you, follow the guys at 538 on Twitter for like - two weeks. You'll understand all of this stuff much better.

You never have a cogent point. It's literally apples and oranges, but as we found out with the caucuses discussion, you can't tell the difference.

And yet his positions are extremely moderate. He also won with such a small margin that the rural vote mattered.

Like in PA-whatever district it is now and Conor Lamb did? Ah, I see.

Who's talking about Hillary here besides you? Get a new hobby. It's 2018.

This

So then what credibility would you give me? Someone who literally talks to voters in Iowa all day, every day, for 10 to 12 hours a day and - wait for it - has spent time in every single state (37 since 2016).

So you also think it's likey Ocasio better understands the midwest than the Senator from Illinois? Do you all listen to yourselves?

Holy shit. I'm not relitigating this. There is literally no metric that proves your position. None. There is a metric ton of oppo on Bernie that never got dropped. I guess we'll see what happens in 2020. But holy shit.

NO. NOT PERIOD. A CAUCUS IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SET OF VOTERS THAN A PRIMARY OR A GENERAL. This is such basic shit. Seriously.

Also, I just roared in my office. This is the work my team, along with a bunch of others, has been doing over the past month. Holy. Crap. https://iowastartingline.com/2018/07/02/registered-democrat-numbers-surge-in-iowa-after-primary/

It's a fucking awful point. Caucuses =/= General Electorate. PERIOD. Jesus y'all. Go take one Poly Sci class.

You realize caucuses have absolutely ZERO reflection on the general election electorate right? Caucuses are insanely non-Democratic, though they're fun as hell to participate in. There's a reason that in states where there were BOTH caucuses and primaries, that Hillary lost the former and won the latter. Caucuses are all activists, primaries include EVERYONE. There are more everyones than activists.

You've gone off the deep end. A woman who grew up in the Bronx telling a sitting Senator - and VERY respected one at that - that she doesn't understand her own part of the country and her home state? And doing so before Ocasio has even been seated as a Congresswoman? You see nothing at all wrong with that? It's hubris of epic proportions, and it's pretty badly informed hubris at that. People like you are why I don't respect the DSA and the Bernie wing. Somehow it's sexist to attack Ocasio for her Bernie-bro-splaining attack on an incredibly respected sitting female Senator. Like, y'all just don't even live in the real world anymore.

Well this was fun while it lasted. You don't tweet back at war hero and Senator Tammy Duckworth about how you know more than she does about the Midwest when you haven't even won your general election yet. Wow. (Also, comparing caucuses to general elections is very basic stuff that she should understand better)

I'm literally basing that narrative off election results. What better metric is there?

Because those fringe elements exist in the activist class in the midwest as well, and they're just as loud in trashing our Dem candidates on social media as they were in 2016. They haven't learned, and it's maddening.

Mainstream moderate Dems are winning throughout middle America at the moment, and that's the only REAL way to fight Trump - at the ballot box.