I think there likely was already a need for more more moderate candidates (i.e., more of them, and more moderate) than we've seen. And for moderation of the brand. Yes, moving away from *my* policy preferences.
But I don't think that Josh Barro is the most credible messenger on this. He was already preaching this message before Callais. The question is not quieter he can say that same thing again to the same audience. The question is whether anyone who used to think otherwise is now willing to say this.
I don't think anyone is going to be convinced by Josh Barro repeating an old message in a new circumstance.
How does one come up with the list of things it's okay for Democrats to compromise on versus those that it's not okay, without falling for the pundit's fallacy ("taking up the pundit's policy positions is the best possible move")?
Josh - liked the post, but curios you wrote: "To win a majority in the Senate, we have to consistently win states like Georgia and be competitive in even more conservative states like Ohio and Iowa. It is a high and unfair hurdle... What is unfair, I did not see an explanation for what you thought was unfair, can you explain?
Thank you for your response, could we discuss this a bit further? What is unfair about Republican Senators winning their elections in the years a Republican President happens to win the Presidency but loses the national popular vote?
I truly hope this happens! I also hope that a bunch of those who voted for our leader will stay home this time around thinking it isn't important enough to vote. Many of those just vote for the President every 4 years. So I'm going to do a fingers cross move both in the primaries and general election this year.
This post is simple, direct, and clearly correct. And it's good to see it written in the first person plural.
Josh is right. And the need is more emphatic than ever before.
Will Dems seize the opportunity? It’s not clear. But I hope so.
Now, more than ever?
I think there likely was already a need for more more moderate candidates (i.e., more of them, and more moderate) than we've seen. And for moderation of the brand. Yes, moving away from *my* policy preferences.
But I don't think that Josh Barro is the most credible messenger on this. He was already preaching this message before Callais. The question is not quieter he can say that same thing again to the same audience. The question is whether anyone who used to think otherwise is now willing to say this.
I don't think anyone is going to be convinced by Josh Barro repeating an old message in a new circumstance.
How does one come up with the list of things it's okay for Democrats to compromise on versus those that it's not okay, without falling for the pundit's fallacy ("taking up the pundit's policy positions is the best possible move")?
Josh - liked the post, but curios you wrote: "To win a majority in the Senate, we have to consistently win states like Georgia and be competitive in even more conservative states like Ohio and Iowa. It is a high and unfair hurdle... What is unfair, I did not see an explanation for what you thought was unfair, can you explain?
It’s unfair because Republicans will typically be able to hold the senate even if they lose the national popular vote by something like 4 points.
Thank you for your response, could we discuss this a bit further? What is unfair about Republican Senators winning their elections in the years a Republican President happens to win the Presidency but loses the national popular vote?
I truly hope this happens! I also hope that a bunch of those who voted for our leader will stay home this time around thinking it isn't important enough to vote. Many of those just vote for the President every 4 years. So I'm going to do a fingers cross move both in the primaries and general election this year.