Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dems need to realize that you need to connect to working class voters of all races to win a general election. Wonky urbanites with graduate degrees and UMC suburban moms only make up a small fraction of the population. That Bill Maher New Rules segment about it it not being about artisan but Art and Stan was very instructive, but Dems won’t listen and will obsess over courting Twitter likes over winning by focusing on meat and potatoes issues in a tone that builds a bigger tent and doesn’t exclude 70 percent of the country.

Case in point is how they treated Tulsi. A party that cared about winning national elections and not virtue signaling to a shrinking, increasingly bourgeoisie and elitist base would protect and build up a woman candidate with Tusli’s military background and working class appeal.

Not only are these solidly Democratic groups you mention a small %-age of the population, they are painfully concentrated in a few enclaves. While the Democrats whine about the electoral college, they should instead be trading some of their overwhelming majorities in these enclaves for substantial votes elsewhere. That this never occurs to them says volumes about what the Democrats are actually about.

You can't appeal to rural Americans without giving up on people of color.

Trump managed to expand his support among "people of color" while winning rural America.

In other words, what you claim is a fallacy. And one that will cripple the Democrats in the next elections as nonwhites continue to flock to the Republicans. But I suppose they don't count as real "people of color."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dems need to realize that you need to connect to working class voters of all races to win a general election. Wonky urbanites with graduate degrees and UMC suburban moms only make up a small fraction of the population. That Bill Maher New Rules segment about it it not being about artisan but Art and Stan was very instructive, but Dems won’t listen and will obsess over courting Twitter likes over winning by focusing on meat and potatoes issues in a tone that builds a bigger tent and doesn’t exclude 70 percent of the country.

Case in point is how they treated Tulsi. A party that cared about winning national elections and not virtue signaling to a shrinking, increasingly bourgeoisie and elitist base would protect and build up a woman candidate with Tusli’s military background and working class appeal.

Not only are these solidly Democratic groups you mention a small %-age of the population, they are painfully concentrated in a few enclaves. While the Democrats whine about the electoral college, they should instead be trading some of their overwhelming majorities in these enclaves for substantial votes elsewhere. That this never occurs to them says volumes about what the Democrats are actually about.

You can't appeal to rural Americans without giving up on people of color.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dems need to realize that you need to connect to working class voters of all races to win a general election. Wonky urbanites with graduate degrees and UMC suburban moms only make up a small fraction of the population. That Bill Maher New Rules segment about it it not being about artisan but Art and Stan was very instructive, but Dems won’t listen and will obsess over courting Twitter likes over winning by focusing on meat and potatoes issues in a tone that builds a bigger tent and doesn’t exclude 70 percent of the country.

Case in point is how they treated Tulsi. A party that cared about winning national elections and not virtue signaling to a shrinking, increasingly bourgeoisie and elitist base would protect and build up a woman candidate with Tusli’s military background and working class appeal.

Not only are these solidly Democratic groups you mention a small %-age of the population, they are painfully concentrated in a few enclaves. While the Democrats whine about the electoral college, they should instead be trading some of their overwhelming majorities in these enclaves for substantial votes elsewhere. That this never occurs to them says volumes about what the Democrats are actually about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many minorities who have extreme homophobia. Won't work.

Especially when being gay is literally the only reason anyone is talking about him.

If he were a regular old straight white dude with the same resume nobody would even know his name.

Anonymous wrote:Mayo Pete.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Race, Class and Gender are why.

Yes, it is the same criteria that made Harris VP. Ignore ability and experience in favor of checking identity boxes.

Pete was the mayor of a small city who was made Sec of Transportation to step out of the way of Biden's coronation.

He isn't remotely qualified for his current job and the idea of him moving up is laughable.

Anonymous wrote:1. In the abstract, no one would think a mayor from South Bend, Indiana is a plausible presidential contender.

2. There was nothing remarkable about his mayorship to change that.

3. Despite that, he tried to run for president anyway. He lost.

4. As a direct result of his loss, he was given a cabinet post.

5. No one actually trusted him with an especially important cabinet post, so they gave him Transportation. Presidents have felt comfortable giving the Secretary of Transportation position to members of the opposing political party (Obama, Dubya) or politicians’ spouses (Bob Dole’s wife and Mitch McConnell’s wife have both held the position).

6. Despite his position’s obscurity, Pete has attracted outsized national attention. And not because he’s crushing it, but because he’s getting blamed for stuff. Sure, you can dispute whether that’s fair or not. But no one wanted it to play out this way.

7. Ultimately, you’re left with a guy who lacks the conventional qualifications about whom the best you can say is “c’mon, that criticism is unfair.” That’s not a recipe for winning the presidency.

Anonymous wrote:Dems need to realize that you need to connect to working class voters of all races to win a general election. Wonky urbanites with graduate degrees and UMC suburban moms only make up a small fraction of the population. That Bill Maher New Rules segment about it it not being about artisan but Art and Stan was very instructive, but Dems won’t listen and will obsess over courting Twitter likes over winning by focusing on meat and potatoes issues in a tone that builds a bigger tent and doesn’t exclude 70 percent of the country.

Case in point is how they treated Tulsi. A party that cared about winning national elections and not virtue signaling to a shrinking, increasingly bourgeoisie and elitist base would protect and build up a woman candidate with Tusli’s military background and working class appeal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many minorities who have extreme homophobia. Won't work.

Mmhm - as well as 60% of the white vote saying no thanks. They'd hang him out to dry just like they did HRC for being an audacious woman.

Anonymous wrote:There are many minorities who have extreme homophobia. Won't work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Race, Class and Gender are why.

Yes, it is the same criteria that made Harris VP. Ignore ability and experience in favor of checking identity boxes.

Pete was the mayor of a small city who was made Sec of Transportation to step out of the way of Biden's coronation.

He isn't remotely qualified for his current job and the idea of him moving up is laughable.

Anonymous wrote:There are many minorities who have extreme homophobia. Won't work.

Anonymous wrote:Bringing up Gabbard in anything like a positive light reveals this as the ravings of an insane person.