What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

116th Congress: F-cker WAS Impeached. Still not enough.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Yeah, and Hoarse makes a great point. "Winning a D+30 district isn’t exactly the proof of concept for how to carry Missouri either."

We can rag on actual conservadems all we want. Until a cogent strategy for winning a D+25 district is put together, AOC, Trix, and the rest of the far left dems can sit the fuck down on this. I haven't seen a socialist dem win an R+20 seat despite the protestations from the proletariat.

Yes, progressive policies might be winners. But progressive politicians aren't the same.
 
Yeah, and Hoarse makes a great point. "Winning a D+30 district isn’t exactly the proof of concept for how to carry Missouri either."

We can rag on actual conservadems all we want. Until a cogent strategy for winning a D+25 district is put together, AOC, Trix, and the rest of the far left dems can sit the **** down on this. I haven't seen a socialist dem win an R+20 seat despite the protestations from the proletariat.

Yes, progressive policies might be winners. But progressive politicians aren't the same.

Conservadems who trash liberals are just as wrongheaded as liberals who trash conservadems.

The difference is conservadems who trash liberals have the networks, the DNC, and its trained pundits hooting along with them.

My modest proposal is conservadems and liberals should join together when either is attacked from the outside, and then should shut up about each other except when they are in direct competition in a primary.

We need both, and when either slags the other they are being selfish.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, and Hoarse makes a great point. "Winning a D+30 district isn’t exactly the proof of concept for how to carry Missouri either."

We can rag on actual conservadems all we want. Until a cogent strategy for winning a D+25 district is put together, AOC, Trix, and the rest of the far left dems can sit the **** down on this. I haven't seen a socialist dem win an R+20 seat despite the protestations from the proletariat.

Yes, progressive policies might be winners. But progressive politicians aren't the same.

I really liked this point about Katie porter

https://mobile.twitter.com/CorkusBucksuth/status/1324359440192151556
 
I really liked this point about Katie porter

https://mobile.twitter.com/CorkusBuc...59440192151556

It's not as red as people make it out to be. Nor is she splitting tickets. That district has clearly gone blue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califo...ompetitiveness

It went for Feinstein twice, Boxer, and Obama. In 2016 it went for Clinton (+5) and Harris (+32). In 2018 it went almost straight blue except for Governor.

Porter took it by +7 this year. Biden took it by 9.3. So let's not pretend that Porter did anything unique or special. She's amazing. We need about a hundred more of her in the House. But it's not a good example of what a progressive candidate can do in a historically R district. Not without a sea change.

Edit: And the quip about her doubling her margin? BIden doubled Clinton's margin, so Porter's gains are entirely in line.
 
Last edited:
So what I'm hearing is, this woman in VA-7 who was screaming at the other reps in her caucus to shut-up about socialism should expect to be primaried in 2022. ;-)

I think she is mostly right. The Dems need to educate the public on the differences between what they are proposing vs. actual socialism. Defund the police is also a loser and is what likely cost some suburban seats. Not because the ideas behind it are bad, but because the catchphrase allows the GOP to paint the picture that it means they just want to reduce the size of the police force without changing anything else.

Over the past few weeks down here in Texas I saw thousands of attack ads, most tieing Dem candidates to California/NY or Pelosi and AOC. My district (TX-24) is still close and counting, but it looks like Beth Van Duyne will win. Her campaign flooded the airwaves with ads targeting Candance Valenzuela's support of "defund the police" which I'm guessing resonated with the more affluent suburbs in the north part of the district.
 
Yeah but she is right. If they have a bunch of money left over they should do something with it that helps the people not just pocket it and get richer ya know?

Plus when they flip back she is going to be a major target for them.
 
Good pic showing how the more conservative Dems didn’t fare well

https://mobile.twitter.com/MaxKenner...84432763539456

I think that's a flawed and extremely simplistic analysis by him. This is more a function of them being strangers in a strange land. Colin Peterson was an aberration. A DFLer isn't going to win that district, regardless of their platform or messaging, for 20+ years. They were holding on for the most part because of longevity and name recognition. Incumbents have had a massive advantage over the last 50 years. That's coming to an end as people hold career politicians in contempt.

I mean, c'mon. THis doesn't show anything.
EmKQVKiXYAI64T4




Meanwhile, the data showing sincerely progressive candidates winning in R+20 districts...
__opt__aboutcom__coeus__resources__content_migration__mnn__images__2016__06__tumbleweed-on-road-fa3b23dafafa43daa8ce5229542a0189.jpg
 
Yeah but she is right. If they have a bunch of money left over they should do something with it that helps the people not just pocket it and get richer ya know?

Plus when they flip back she is going to be a major target for them.

Yeah, fine. I get that. Don't necessarily disagree.

We barely eked out a win against a party of Nazis. The Nazis won pretty much every battle but three. Hey, great we wont those three!! But maybe let's wait to kill Stalin's army until after the Nazis are dead? Just a thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top