Consider the map below:
Suppose you are the grand poobah of Democratic Party election strategy for the Senate. You are a sensible person, so you understand that nothing is going to change about Senate representation. Each state on this map gets two senators, and that's that.
Clearly, the gray and pink states are your main targets. Some of them (Colorado, Arizona) already have two Democratic senators while others are split (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania). Then there are the states controlled entirely by Republicans: Florida, North Carolina, Nebraska, Iowa, Kentucky, and Texas.
There are a few seats that can be picked up in the split states, and sometimes you can get lucky in red states, as Democrats did this year in Georgia. Then again, sometimes you'll get unlucky in blue states, so luck is hardly something to be relied on.
In the end, there's only one way to build any kind of long-term majority: you need to pick up seats in the states that are on the edge but have no Democratic senators: Florida, North Carolina, Nebraska, Iowa, Kentucky, and Texas. These states need to be persuaded to start electing Democrats.
So how do you do it?
Just have your candidates ignore or evade unpopular topics, and focus on popular ones. That helped get two Senate seats in Georgia.
So, you're saying, an All Cokes Are Bad strategy would have failed in the Peach State?
Pepsi Forever!
. . . Sorry, I don't actually believe that, and like Coca Cola products more.
But more seriously, yes. They had the Republicans keep trying to get them to comment on the whole "packing the Supreme Court" thing, and they all kept dodging on it. And it worked!
Like I said, talk about the bread-and-butter stuff that's popular, avoid talking about the stuff that isn't popular. That doesn't mean you can't do anything about the unpopular but morally right stuff in office, but you just don't make it the centerpiece of your campaign.
Sounds like a formula for more Manchins and Sinemas. Unfortunately with Actblue it's likely that Dem primaries will become more nationalized which isn't a winning formula in the red states.
Indeed.
And of course the Progressive Activists will insist that obviously if only Pure Pony agendas that are winners in NYC and DC etc. are the only truly Kosher ones....
Re: more Manchins and Sinemas
That's still a lot better than more Cottons and Hawleys.
Sinema is a Naderite!
I don't agree with the color coding of this map. Georgia -- where nearly 2/3rds of the population now resides in metro Atlanta -- is surely no longer "highly" conservative like Arkansas or Wyoming. And California* (and Rhode Island, and Connecticut) isn't "more liberal than conservative?" Really? Virginia and Colorado, too: they're not yet deep blue, but, aren't they now at minimum "less conservative than average?"
Anyway, I realize this is besides the main point, and no doubt Kevin in any event located a credible source for these characterizations.
*I've spent more time in California and Washington State than anyplace else in the US besides Massachusetts, and if anything west coast liberalism seems more muscular, unapologetic and "in your face" than its east coast cousin. Massachusetts pretty dependably leans Democratic, but there's still a whiff of old, school, Tip O'Neil-style, no nonsense, ethnic lunch bucket liberalism. Or, to put it another way, Massachusetts is pretty liberal. California is progressive.
(But sure, perhaps the hinterlands of west coast states lean much more to the right than their east coast equivalents -- the Berkshires and the Pioneer valley are lefty, and the Bay State has no equivalent of Shasta County -- and that's the difference-maker in state--to-state comparisons).
As to the answer to his question: nominate extremely well-vetted centrist (or liberals who give off a centrist, vibe, like Biden) types who have lots of natural political talent and can generate enough enthusiasm to raise boatloads of cash. And meanwhile do things at the national level that are popular with voters.
While I mostly agree with you regarding California I would point out that it wasn’t all that long ago that “we” voted in Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor (twice) and voted to ban gay marriage. Also, Donald Trump received more votes for a president in California than he did in any other state.
Just say’in.
“Also, Donald Trump received more votes for a president in California than he did in any other state.”
This is true for both the winner and the loser in most presidential elections. California’s massive population practically guarantees that any candidate who gets 40+% of the vote - which is to say both the Dem and the GOP candidate in the last few decades - will probably get more votes in CA than in any other state.
Yep. Not just elections. California leads the USA in lots of measurements for the obvious reason that there are more Californians than any other type of American! Anyway, Trump got 34% of the vote in California, and 32% in Massachusetts. Hardly noteworthy.
California also has more fire hydrants, refrigerators and love seats than any other state!
Also 6 million Trump lunatics:
“ I have also received a number of reports – from whatever reason, many in California – of local registrars of voting getting threats of various sorts tied to ballot fraud or Big Lie conspiracy theories. Most of these are pretty vague and nebulous. One instance is in San Luis Obispo County in California where Republicans have been targeting the Asian-American County Clerk-Recorder, Tommy Gong, demanding audits and recounts of the results. One speaker at a recent public meeting accused Gong of belonging the Chinese Communist party and another letter writer said “We The People are coming for your corrupt head.” Partly in response the County has reverted back to the pre-2020 voting system.”
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-growing-specter-of-violence
Trump supporters believe in “strength” aka violent rhetoric. Large numbers are heavily armed and have or believe they have, the support of law enforcement. They are very far from a majority, that’s for sure. But they are definitely a force to be reckoned with.
Except for that idiot white supremacist from Vantucky who brought a paintball gun to a gunfight in Portland last summer & ended up getting his shit wrecked by one of his left horseshoe cousins.
The map is outdated, it's from 2018 and likely before the 2018 midterm elections laid bare the collapse of the GOP in educated white suburbia.
"*I've spent more time in California and Washington State than anyplace else in the US besides Massachusetts, and if anything west coast liberalism seems more muscular, unapologetic and "in your face" than its east coast cousin."
It's about east coast and west coast demographics.
I find it hard to believe NM and KY are at all similarly easy (or hard) to get. Biden won NM by more than 10 points and lost KY by more than 25.
NM also has a D governor and 2 D senators. Geographically, the pink hue may be correct, but when adjusted for population it is totally wrong. NM at this point is a fairly solidly blue state.
That map is whack!
I think it may be using county-by--county data rather than adjusting for population. As I just commented above, NM leans heavily blue, but has many very low-population counties that lean red.
Being from Iowa, still having family and friends there...
I'm convinced that it's now a lost cause until cohort replacement (maybe, someday) counteracts the youth brain drain.
In real life, Isiah Whitlock's character in Cedar Rapids would have been shot at that house party.
There is no winning strategy. Democrats are never going to get filibuster proof majority and they will never get rid of the filibuster process so... its done. Personally I think it's time to dismantle the federal government. Democrats should just get out of the way and let it collapse claiming republicans won't cooperate.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
Americans must suffer the consequences of their choices. Democrats must allow this suffering to occur and make it clear that the fault lies with their opponents. Call it tough love. Addicts must hit bottom before they can reform themselves.
Sounds like somebody who is an avowed Brexiter, Calexiter, & Greater Idahoan. In other words, Russian.
+ + +
Nah, he's just a hard-core Bernie Bro is all. IOW, someone of small intelligence, little experience, and even less common sense.
If Democrats did as you said, it wouldn't matter if Americans "suffered the consequences of their actions" or not. They'd not be able to take action based on the painful lessons they'd learned, because the GOP would have installed an authoritarian, one party state. Indeed I'll go out on a limb and say authoritarianism is coming no matter who wins the presidential election in 2024, if Republicans take both houses of Congress.
I fully agree with this.
Simple: DEFEND THE RIGHT TO VOTE.
Do you think that Georgia would have two Dem Senators right now- the Dems would control the Senate- without Stacey Abrams?
Not only that Loxley, but also GET OUT THE VOTE! When we vote we win. That is what changed Virginia, getting out the vote from groups who had traditionally had lower turnout in the face of voting rules that had been setup by the VA GOP. Back in 2006 the GOP incumbent senator George Allen was defeated when BOPIC citizens of Virginia got mad and showed up to vote after Allen showed his contempt for the newer citizens of VA.
Just think: in the Trump GQP, a Macaca moment might have saved George Allen's reelection.
In fact, the Unusual Gang of Idiots like Chris Cillizza, Sam Stein, Dana Bash, & Bret Baier would be touting it as the Republican version of a Sister Souljah moment.
Kevin has written about this before: recent history shows vote suppression actually hasn't been that big a factor. Not saying it isn't troubling, but I'm not sure what can be done about it in states where the GOP has a legislative majority. Rely on federal courts to strike down measures? You can't be serious.
In any event the bigger worry in my view is out and out election nullification. GOP/MAGA lawyers were taking notes in November/December/January, and in 2024 they won't allow a legitimate Biden reelection victory to go through, if they have the votes. (At least that's my belief). Unless federal courts block the coup, (vanishingly unlikely) it'll all go smoothly, because it'll all be eminently constitutional (the constitution tasks the House with choosing a president, after all, if an Electoral College majority cannot be secured by a candidate; it's right there in writing!).
I agree 100% with this concern. I can easily see that happening in my state of Pennsylvania where the state house and senate are led by rabid Trumpers....I have no doubt they will have « legal » systems in place by 2024 to be able to override the will of the voters if need be to give our electoral votes to Trump (or whomever) even if Biden or Harris are the clear dinners.
Biden won't secure a second term -- despite winning the election fair and square -- if Republicans win decent majorities* in both chambers of Congress.
*I suppose if the Senate is 51 v. 49 in favor of the GOP, a legitimate Biden victory might be allowed to proceed; but it seems quixotic in the extreme to dare hope that more than one or two Republican senators would be willing to stand up to MAGA and do the right thing, especially given the absolute certitude that a GOP constitutional coup will be turbocharged by high decibel (albeit completely false) accusations of Democratic voter fraud.
& those accusations amplified from the left by screechers still insisting the Institutional Democrat Party by 2024 will have rigged three primaries against Bernie.
I agree 100% with this concern. I can easily see that happening in my state of Pennsylvania where the state house and senate are led by rabid Trumpers....I have no doubt they will have « legal » systems in place by 2024 to be able to override the will of the voters if need be to give our electoral votes to Trump (or whomever) even if Biden or Harris are the clear winners
.
I believe Einstein advised Kurt Godel not to bring this up during his immigration review.
I will keep beating this drum as well: as long as blatant Propaganda is not only legal, but profitable, you can expect things to continue to get worse.
I've been beating this drum longer than you, and I don't even have the price of a cup of coffee to show for it.
Stop hitting Kevin!
If I were Grand Poobah of the Democratic party, I would begin by building infrastructure for get-out-the-vote operations in all of the gray and pink states. If the gray states elected one, they can elect two Senators. If the pink states are trending Democratic, then Democrats can pick up one seat there.
Find young, popular and centrist candidates to run against Republicans. And run them against Republicans by appealing to the issues important to the people in that state. All politics is local, so the folks in gray Minnesota aren't worried about the same things as the people in pink Florida.
Be willing to address the big cultural issues by finding common ground and criticizing obvious excesses of the far left. It would be great for a Democrat to say in a pink state: "I agree with my opponent that there are too many abortions in this country, but the answer isn't some simplistic law that turns women and doctors into criminals. Their is a reason why there are fewer abortions in Boston than in Baton Rouge. It is because women in Massachusetts have decent healthcare, a better economic outlook and and access to high quality early care and education while Republicans in Louisiana block expansion of the affordable care act. If we want to reduce abortion in this country, we need to start addressing the reasons women make the choice to do so." Come up with similar pitches on gun control, cancel culture and the rest of the right's favorite talking points.
Be seen praying. It may be true that the country is becoming less religious, but most folks identify as "spiritual not religious," so they like it when they see their elected leaders doing spiritual things.
Have some message discipline. Basically: it's the economy, stupid. Since most Americans lean libertarian in their principles but want social programs in their actions, the message needs to be about opportunity and growth, not give-aways, even when the social programs being advocated give something away. Early Care and Education, Healthcare and access to Higher Education are all about opportunity, don't let them be cast as handouts.
Finally, for God's sake, sing the praises of your accomplishments. The ACA was the biggest social program in the country. There is almost certainly not a single person in this country who hasn't benefited directly or who doesn't know someone who has benefited from the ACA. Yet liberals bash it because it doesn't fit their pre-conceived notion of "single payer." Democrats need to stop doing that.
All good points
A problem there - abortion isn't about abortion. Conservatives are cool to arguments that left of center solutions to reduce abortions is solving the problem. The problem as they see it is that women should not have the right to their own medical decisions about the baby they are carrying.
Re abortion, yes. It's an extension of the "authority" and "purity" aspects of morality (MFT fan here). Men have the authority and women are subordinate, and fetuses are pure and hence inviolable. Abortion violates both of those and hence is doubly immoral. That's the beginning and end of it. Other pertinent social issues, like poverty and access to medical care, are irrelevant background noise to the crazies.
And to make it worse, Republican political leaders don't want the issue to go away, because it keeps the simple-minded crazies all riled up and voting Republican. They'll oppose sensible ways of reducing abortion rates, focusing instead on whining about them and insisting on authoritarian (and hence moral) ways to declare they no longer exist.
It's still a useful issue for discouraging "sane" Republicans, and of course it's a worthy policy goal in itself. But beyond that, it shouldn't be a particular focus for Dems.
Yes, this the Cavalier view, the view of the guys that colonized the South and wanted to replicate the slave society of the West Indies (They have always been with us ... and in probability, always will be.)
Agreed with HokieAnnie only it goes even further than that. Conservatives just don’t think women should ever be having consequence-free sex. They don’t even own their own bodies when they aren’t pregnant, which explains the whole father-daughter promise ring creepiness.
Lolz, they hump bourgeois morality, just like you do. Ownership is a government illusion. Tribal ways is more important. See Nazi/Soviet 4 child rules. Socialism sees women as cattle.
Shootie's already well into his second bottle of the day. Say hi to the worm for me, willya?
Is Bourgeois Morality what Matt Gaetz calls that hot piece of ass at the driver's ed class?
Yep you are correct Austin, I was just keeping my post short and simple. I went to Catholic HS back in the 1980s you betcha the "right to life" issue is about shaming women who have sex. In my HS if you got pregnant and secretly had an abortion, you could return to school but if you wanted to keep your baby or carry it to term to put it up for adoption, nope you had to leave school.
I don't disagree that for conservatives abortion isn't about abortion, but the message isn't targeted toward convincing conservatives. It is targeted toward those who are uncomfortable with abortion but willing to vote for Democrats.
If I were to have used the gun rights instead of abortion, I would do the same thing. "I agree with my opponent that the answer to gun violence isn't some simplistic law that turns gun owners into criminals. But that doesn't mean we have to accept the status quo, because I think we can all also agree that over 30,000 gun deaths each year is too many. As an American, I don't think we have to settle. We can do better by addressing mental health, given that a significant number of gun deaths are the result of suicide. We can invest in education. Let's provide evidence based safety training to new gun owners. And we can ask gun manufacturers and gun sellers to take responsibility for whom they sell guns too through tort reform and getting tough on those bad owners who sell to criminals and straw purchasers."
Here's pro tip - the folks you speak of are actually Pro-Choice! They are already Democrats unless they are gun nutz or billionaires who want lowest taxes evah.
So what's the solution? How do you convince those who can be convinced?
Ejthag - we've already convinced those who can be convinced now it's more about getting those who support our line of thinking to vote even in local elections.
Do not the atheist Ronald Reagan & very much not churchgoing Jefe Maximo being the lodestars of the GQP disprove the idea that RILMURICAN voters favor piety in their leaders?
Too, look at the GQP response -- including among some Catholic bishops -- to Babykiller Biden attending services regularly, sometimes even multiple times a week.
Their party identity lets Republicans be seen as Christianity-friendly by default. The Democratic party identity doesn't come with that expectation, so a Democratic candidate needs to be overtly religious or at least respectful of Christianity to be seen as friendly to Christians.
Yeah but Padre Maximo in Rome told the Bishops to knock it off and get their heads outta politics.
Peron Francisco is a sleeper agent of Sodom & Gomorrah at the Holy See!
DON'T run "centrist' candidates. Given a choice between a real Republican and a Republican-lite, the real Republican is much more likely to win. What's needed is to give people a real choice.
LOL.
Paula Jean Swearingen says, "What!?""
It's not about ideology. It's about average level of development of consciousness (mindfulness and awareness) and the potentials for human development unlocked by the practices that lead to high development and achievement.
Political hacks that are unable to deal with the complexities of politics should be fired and replaced by others.
This map is a trap--as Drum probably knows, but fails to mention. Think about the game this way and you're bound to lose. There are only 52 cards in a deck, but most of our political geniuses couldn't win a game of solitaire.
So, the first thing you'd ask for, at least, is a map that labels everything the other way--on a scale from highly liberal to more conservative than liberal. If that doesn't blow your mind, we'll give you a seat at the table and see if you can win a hand or two.
As noted above, things differ markedly from place to place, but three fairly constant things are (1) work all the time, not just around elections, on organizing Democrats and Dem-affiliated groups, which means getting out of the DC / consultant trap and giving more authority and money to state parties, (2) identifying, registering and turning out Dems and Dem leaners, especially non- and infrequent voters, and (3) chipping away at "sane" Republicans by reminding them constantly of how crazy the rest of their party is, not to get them to vote Dem (they won't) but to become discouraged and stay home. Obviously all these things require activism, messaging, and concrete issue work, and a clear understanding that while working on issues helps set a mood and establish individual images, they are by no means sufficient for victory, nor is neglecting them going to lead to defeat -- look at how consistently Republicans vote against their own interests from an issues PoV and instead vote emotions and identity.
What are they? The Loyal Order of Water Buffaloes?
Well, in #OurRevolution, they would recommend marginalizing (if not fully eliminating) #identitypolitics from the Democrat platform, & instead emphasizing the kitchen table concerns of white, male workingmen, the same way Franklin Delano Roosevelt once made America great.
Of course, how #OurRevolution & their vanguard in El Escuadron Radical square their anti-#idpol schtick with their ethnicized carping & caping over Southwest Asian violence on the parts of the dirty, money-grubbing ((( repatriators ))) is beyond me, but I have to figure in their Greenwaldian world, antiwar trumps antiminority.
First I think this map isn't useful. To start with Dems should focus on states which have a split Senate delegation where the Republican is up for reelection and the state has most recently elected a Democrat.
They should work full time on getting out the vote and campaigning about voter suppression. They also need to really pound on the idea that the Republicans are voting against all of the good stuff, the recovery payments, child tax credits, minimum wage increase, any and all financial issues.
The biggest problem issue is going to be the southern border/immigration. Progressives aren't going to like that whatever they would consider progress isn't happening is going too slowly, while the Conservatives are going to complain that anything short of an iron dome over the entire country is the same as open borders.
Not rocket science. On immigration/border, every Democratic candidate simply needs to repeat this ad nauseam;
I’m committed to making sure that every last child and baby separated by President Trump’s administration is returned to his parents. I’m committed to robust border security and the humane treatment of asylum seeking immigrants as prescribed by law. It’s a shame Republicans are raping goats and having sex with underage girls.
Problem is, the amount of children separated is very small than illegally in the US, which Trump/Russia helped spur via trafficking.
Kids so drunk he doesn't know he's already been beaten senseless. I nominate him as a contestant for Twit of the Year.
Why did Mitchell Young do him like that?
"So how do you do it?"
The obvious answer is move to the right. But many lefties would rather lose elections. And of course if you win elections you become responsible for stuff which can be harder than carping from the sidelines.
Nonsense. "Republican lite" doesn't work any more. The large majority of Republicans are crazy or have decided they need to pander to the crazies, and the remainder will vote Republican anyway if they vote at all, because something something the economy something security something something antifa. Republicans simply don't believe that anyone who is not a Republican can legitimately be elected to office.
Eight years of Obama trying earnestly to "move to the center" and "reach across the aisle" yielded nothing, and that's not just because McConnell is basically inhuman. Republican voters approved of 100% obstruction. And after 4 years of The Former Guy, it's worse than ever.
Independent voters also exist. And you don't need a lot of Republican votes in a swing state, you just need to peel off a sliver.
Or just have them not show up at all ...
Exactly. Encourage Republican "leaners" to exercise their Freedom of Choice™ to stay home and not vote at all.
Yea I saw a red headed woodpecker once about 15 years ago. The folks you speak of have already chosen sides for the most part in 2018 and 2020 so the lowest hanging fruit to pick now is getting causal voters to show up at the polls and to eliminate barriers to voting.
Funny how "Indepenent" voters always seem to vote for the Republican.
I don’t see a viable policy based strategy since it’s increasingly clear that given a choice between preserving the filibuster and preserving their majority, the Democratic Party is going to preserve the filibuster. They will presumably be relying on their now traditional approach of hoping that Republican insanity will serendipitous coincide the emergence of Democratic senatorial candidates who already enjoy significant statewide support.
To keep it short: Stacey Abrams' ground game and registration push in perennially underrepresented (in voting) communities.
Abrams was a loser in 2018, in weak Republican turnout.
You mean the one where the winner got to count the votes? Tsk, Tsk, Shootie, have you forgotten again what I told you about how heavy drinking kills your memory?
Where is the Block Button for this asshole, Kevin?
I think it was Kamala Harris being on the ballot.
It would be interesting how many white New Dealers are still down south. My guess more than you would expect. A big part of the problem since 2000 has been turnout in Tennessee, Arkansas and Missouri. With the latter almost won by Barry in 2008 and Gore in 2000. 2020 was weird were both parties blew up turnout to negate other advances. Biden made a small gain vs Clinton in Missouri, but fascinating, lost some Clinton voters. What was seen in Missouri, was seen over the entire country. Why was Ohio still lost by 8 points??? A stunning amount of Clinton voters flipping despite Biden regaining a nice chunk of Reagan Democrats. A lot of these voters were all in on Gore, Kerry as well. This rattled Obama and the dncc so much, is why they returned powers to the states.
The point is, nobody likes gun grabbers. Nobody likes race baiting policies like reparations(look at the courts killing the ridiculous farmer reparations in the ARA). Democratic party has too much NYC control. Heck, let's remember 1970's Bernie Sanders was anti gun control, anti affirmative action, thought women were cattle leftist while being against institutional racism. Vermont "liberalism" vs NYC " liberalism). If I am running in Ohio, you better believe I think workers have the right to unionize, believe we have too much immigration that hurt workers, working people have a path to owning semiautomatic weapons, support government social programs expanding access to health care. Look at Brown in 2018 vs Biden. Brown is in general more liberal than say a Tim Ryan candidate. But he won the white vote. Didn't need one darkie.
Nobody likes morons either, but they still get to vote and shoot their mouths off. A gun license is not "gun grabbing".
> Didn't need one darkie.
And yet "Nobody likes race baiting policies like reparations"
In Florida there needs to be a better organized Democratic Party and we need to put up good candidates. Florida votes more red than it is. On the other hand if Repugs can keep felons from voting maybe they can hang onto power a while longer.
The #1 priority is making sure that D voters can vote, then do vote. This requires more than the usual ground game because of Republicans' national voter suppression campaign.
Although Democrats are usually reluctant to do this, they have to nationalize the campaign. They need broad themes centered on Biden's most popular programs and the Republicans' o obstruction.
Some liberal minded money people need to put a PAC together that will run non stop ads showing that particular Republicans are just evil & crazy. Ron Johnson should be an easy target. This needs to be separate from the party & candidate campaigns. Americans for Sanity or something. Lincoln Project ads appear to have had no effect on Trump voters, but those type of ads may work against senators and congress creatures.
For a long-term strategy: Howard Dean had the right idea. Compete in all 50 states.
That doesn't mean investing equally, of course--you do want to put extra into the battlegrounds. But there should be a baseline level of recruiting and funding that happens everywhere. That allows the party to build its organization in red states, learn what appeals to voters in those states, and capitalize on opportunities when they appear. You never know when some red-state Republican is going to have a Todd Akin moment.
In the short term: Make sure our infrastructure bill has lots of red-state goodies in it. Every Republican who votes against it--which is to say, every Republican--should be made to regret that vote in 2022. They have made their strategy crystal clear. If we can't use that knowledge against them, shame on us.
How about we just start with a more accurate map:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states#/media/File:Red_States_and_Blue_States.png
We could also consider "ideology" in a more nuanced way:
https://twitter.com/gabeguidarini/status/1317596900753899522
Most interesting thread I've ever seen on Twitter.
My strategy for the Senate?
How about we take a page from their book and just don't allow Republicans to vote? I don't think we're going to have even the faux democracy we now have much longer. I don't see how a free society can endure when nearly half the voting population has willingly abandoned democracy or at least supports the party that has, and votes for a mindless, narcissistic authoritarian thug.
I wouldn't bet a plug nickel on the future of this country.
You do it the same way we always do it: by using fact-based, evidence-based policy. And showing respect for humans and diversity. Maybe you don't win the racists over, but you hold the moral high-ground, and you set a good example. And it also helps if you purge corruption out of your party.