(February 24, 2019 at 2:15 pm)Brian37 Wrote:(February 24, 2019 at 1:55 pm)Yonadav Wrote: You realize that you aren't being logical, right? Reagan pulled it off, and that's completely irrelevant to the point of Harris bringing electoral votes to the table that Dems will win regardless.
So give up? Yea that's a strategy.
Any nominee will have to choose a VP. That can act as a bridge gap to appeal not only to the base, but swing voters in swing states. Stop assuming who can and cannot win.
Even outside a presidential election, when you look at how close Wendy Davis, Beto and Abrams came in red states, it isn't impossible with the right strategy. 20 years ago none of them would have come as close as they did. Just like there was a time when nobody thought a black man, even liberals, thought a black man would be president.
Yes Reagan pulled it off in a liberal state. Obama also won Iowa and North Carolina in one election.
Keep being pessimistic and remember that every time the bully kisses up to tyrants, vilifies journalists and shits on minorities.
How on earth you construed my point about selecting a candidate with rustbelt appeal as 'giving up' is beyond me.
When you compared Harris to Reagan, I made the logical assumption that you were talking about them both bringing no electoral votes to the table from their home state. In 1980, California had been voting for Republican presidents in every election for quite a long time. So Reagan was bringing electoral votes to the table that were already probably going to go to the Republican nominee. Similarly, Harris is bringing electoral votes that the Dem nominee is going to win regardless of who that nominee is.
I was making a point about how badly we need the rustbelt. We have almost no path forward without them. So rustbelt appeal is vital. We have some people with rustbelt appeal. Harris probably isn't one of them. Heck, rustbelters don't even like Californians.
We do not inherit the world from our parents. We borrow it from our children.
