Slotkin invoking Reagan has a lot of (correct) dunking on it, but it's making me think of my old hobbyhorse: dem leadership and strategists seem to truly believe that there is an infinitely renewing supply of Reagan -> Clinton republicans. and not that they got pretty much all of them already - ThreadSky

spacetwinks.bsky.social • 23 hours ago

Slotkin invoking Reagan has a lot of (correct) dunking on it, but it's making me think of my old hobbyhorse: dem leadership and strategists seem to truly believe that there is an infinitely renewing supply of Reagan -> Clinton republicans. and not that they got pretty much all of them already

Comments

snoutmaster.bsky.social•22 hours ago

They seem to think there's an army of Hank Hills they can make their base, but all the Hank Hills switched to Dems years ago. The Trump voters are broadly half bigots, half Buck Stricklands.

spm1961.bsky.social•21 hours ago

they think that as the republican party gets more and more extreme, "reasonable" conservative voters need somewhere to go - but over 90% of registered republicans who voted have voted for trump in the last 3 elections - DERP!

77tapes.bsky.social•19 hours ago

My Generation Jones parents were petty AF educating me about every last sick thing Reagan did.

gulliverfoyle.bsky.social•23 hours ago

Donors believe that. It doesn’t matter what the individual Dems think

tifosiotaku.bsky.social•21 hours ago

Bernie Bros will never take responsibility for this.

whowhatnow56.bsky.social•22 hours ago

Also really frustrated that they seem to forget Ross Perot was a spoiler for both of Clinton’s electoral wins! Clinton wasn’t actually that popular and very likely would’ve lost to even Dole if Perot didn’t take huge numbers of conservatives away.

spm1961.bsky.social•21 hours ago

clinton would've beaten dole but there is no doubt that perot helped clinton immeasurably in '92 - regardless how difficult it was to pigeonhole him on policy, perot (with his crewcut and cornball accent) definitely scanned to casual observers as a conservative - perot's announcement in '92 caused

spm1961.bsky.social•21 hours ago

bush to immediately drop 6 points in every poll. clinton took a hit too, but i am pretty sure not as bad.

spacetwinks.bsky.social•22 hours ago

people have gone back and forth on how much impact perot had but for me it just comes down to "you do not want to gamble on being able to replicate the exact same dynamic for 30 fucking years as if nothing has changed"

spacetwinks.bsky.social•22 hours ago

maybe perot didn't actually tip things in clinton's favor. say i'm willing to accept that: is this really the kind of bet you'd want to make for over 30 fucking goddamn years to get the same result every time

evanka.bsky.social•23 hours ago

And the rest are retired or dying off.

spacetwinks.bsky.social•23 hours ago

how dem seniority and every strategist and consultant imagine targeting and winning over the bushels of Reagan republicans for over *30* fucking years works:

voicesbyzane.bsky.social•23 hours ago

Whoa, infinite chocolate. Hang on I'm gonna go post this on Tumblr and see what they think

katzratz.bsky.social•22 hours ago

completely unrelated but I still have no idea how that geometry puzzle works, it's just witchcraft

hotlineaguirre.bsky.social•22 hours ago

the wedge-shaped pieces subtly expand over the course of the animation

spacetwinks.bsky.social•22 hours ago

akin to businesses working with a mindset of infinite growth, dem leadership and strategists see Reagan republicans and think that, even after they've captured the entirety of a suburb of them, there are somehow even more of them lying in wait to be won over, respawning like enemies in a video game

spacetwinks.bsky.social•22 hours ago

they need for there to be an infinite number of reagan republicans because if they accept that there isn't then that means they'd have to do something other than "pretend it's 1992 forever"

katzratz.bsky.social•22 hours ago

chasing after ronald reagan types when the younger voters at this point were born AFTER reagan died...

spacetwinks.bsky.social•22 hours ago

it's something that once you notice becomes impossible to ignore - that for all the talk of "we gotta win over right leaning voters", the group for this the dems target is always extremely specific and small: suburban well to do conservatives. "fond of mitt romney" types.

snoutmaster.bsky.social•22 hours ago

"Even gun owners want more gun control" is a common lib talking point but for a lot of the poorer, younger, often queerer more libertarian cohort of us in red states who don't trust cops to keep us safe, theres not a lot of love for it.

snoutmaster.bsky.social•22 hours ago

"You can carry a pistol and have more than 10 rounds in a centerfire rifle but you need a permit and police approval" is a pretty common belief among wealthier, suburbanites, more pro gun Dems and anti gun Republicans - Who trust cops to keep people safe.

spacetwinks.bsky.social•22 hours ago

at no point do they ever go for the poorer right leaning voters, even as they vote overwhelmingly, in deep red states, for things like $15 minimum wage and legalized weed. they want the "SALT cap repeal is my number one issue" conservatives.

spacetwinks.bsky.social•22 hours ago

and there's no reflection on "hey maybe we got pretty much all we're going to get of this group. they're not getting any bigger, we've been targeting them for decades, maybe we're trying to tap an empty well here", because accepting that would mean having to change, and... man they hate that.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply