Yes. That op-ed perhaps made some good points about supermajority thinking, but it was obscured by the claim that MAGA’s television ad campaign WAS the Harris strategy. That is just bonkers and so counter to what we all just witnessed that it borders on gaslighting. This was a campaign that made appealing to the “center” its…center. We h…
Yes. That op-ed perhaps made some good points about supermajority thinking, but it was obscured by the claim that MAGA’s television ad campaign WAS the Harris strategy. That is just bonkers and so counter to what we all just witnessed that it borders on gaslighting. This was a campaign that made appealing to the “center” its…center. We had a Glock toting, border defending, all but silent on trans issues candidate who campaigned with a Cheney, or was I hallucinating that? I live in PA and saw at least five MAGA tv ads for every one Dem ad. And yes, the MAGA ads were all focused on anti trans and anti immigrant sentiment, often combining the two. Harris and Casey ads were all about the economy and how Trump won’t help middle class voters and by the way is also unhinged. That was the Harris strategy. And it didn’t work and we must talk about why, but discussing a campaign that didn’t exist isn’t the way to go about it. Why accept that the things your opponent strategically manufactured about your positions are your actual weaknesses? And given that these were actually small shifts in votes with many different causes, it is sickening to me to see so many claim that the main thing we need to do is jettison our values so our values can win.
"Why accept that the things your opponent strategically manufactured about your positions are your actual weaknesses?" ⬅️ This!
Or, similarly: When your anti-trans, anti-immigrant opponent relentlessly accuses you of not being prejudiced enough and then wins the election, don't react by embracing his prejudice. Instead, figure out how to better educate the public about his prejudice (it's the real reason they shouldn't have voted for him) and lean harder into your own values as your strengths (it's the real reason they should have voted for you).
I agree. I also thought that the Gaza issue was a perfect example. The campaign didn’t emphasize the issue or elevate it in the way activists wanted them to do. They tried to play it down the middle, which was impossible on such a controversial subject, but Harris basically was following Gentlesen’s advice. What happened? The Pro-Palestinian group voted for Trump or stayed home. Anyone think they didn’t make a disastrous difference in Michigan, for example? And what does the group itself have to show for this? Nothing, of course. But Harris basically followed the advice of the NYT editorial and it sure didn’t help her to earn a win in that swing state. I know we need to figure out how to do better, but I’m getting awfully tired of pundits gaslighting us about what the campaign supposedly did wrong, rather than looking at their own role and trying to do better themselves.
Yes. That op-ed perhaps made some good points about supermajority thinking, but it was obscured by the claim that MAGA’s television ad campaign WAS the Harris strategy. That is just bonkers and so counter to what we all just witnessed that it borders on gaslighting. This was a campaign that made appealing to the “center” its…center. We had a Glock toting, border defending, all but silent on trans issues candidate who campaigned with a Cheney, or was I hallucinating that? I live in PA and saw at least five MAGA tv ads for every one Dem ad. And yes, the MAGA ads were all focused on anti trans and anti immigrant sentiment, often combining the two. Harris and Casey ads were all about the economy and how Trump won’t help middle class voters and by the way is also unhinged. That was the Harris strategy. And it didn’t work and we must talk about why, but discussing a campaign that didn’t exist isn’t the way to go about it. Why accept that the things your opponent strategically manufactured about your positions are your actual weaknesses? And given that these were actually small shifts in votes with many different causes, it is sickening to me to see so many claim that the main thing we need to do is jettison our values so our values can win.
"Why accept that the things your opponent strategically manufactured about your positions are your actual weaknesses?" ⬅️ This!
Or, similarly: When your anti-trans, anti-immigrant opponent relentlessly accuses you of not being prejudiced enough and then wins the election, don't react by embracing his prejudice. Instead, figure out how to better educate the public about his prejudice (it's the real reason they shouldn't have voted for him) and lean harder into your own values as your strengths (it's the real reason they should have voted for you).
I agree. I also thought that the Gaza issue was a perfect example. The campaign didn’t emphasize the issue or elevate it in the way activists wanted them to do. They tried to play it down the middle, which was impossible on such a controversial subject, but Harris basically was following Gentlesen’s advice. What happened? The Pro-Palestinian group voted for Trump or stayed home. Anyone think they didn’t make a disastrous difference in Michigan, for example? And what does the group itself have to show for this? Nothing, of course. But Harris basically followed the advice of the NYT editorial and it sure didn’t help her to earn a win in that swing state. I know we need to figure out how to do better, but I’m getting awfully tired of pundits gaslighting us about what the campaign supposedly did wrong, rather than looking at their own role and trying to do better themselves.