And notice how much doublespeak and contradiction there is in their actions and arguments on this: centrists can’t win in a state like Kentucky, let alone a leftist, so let’s sink a ton of money and resources into the centrist’s campaign! After all, we know how to appeal to these southern voters, whom we call degenerate backwoods yokels, unlike leftists who think poors are capable of caring about their material interests.
I know, that's their contradiction that they don't even realize.
I had this argument with a liberal about Alabama and was using Doug Jones as an example. Jones is about to lose to Tommy Tuberville, who is a goddamn football coach with zero real political experience, to the point that all Jones ever attacks him with is "he just moved to Alabama 5 months ago. He isn't even from this state". Tuberville beat a pro-Trump candidate back in the primaries and these same liberals were wetting their pants laughing over the idea of a football coach beating one of Trump's guys, but the excuse to him polling way higher against a Democrat like Jones is to just whine and moan about how dumb people in Alabama are and "they vote against their own best interests".
Jones has been the one Dem senator who votes with Trump more than any other Dem senators (over 77% of the time). Jones only barely won back in 2016 cause his opponent was Roy Moore who was a pedophile. Jones is widely hated in AL, not just by Republicans, but everyday people which is what has depressed turnout and why he is so far behind in polls and looking to lose to a football coach. Jones basically ran on being this civil rights candidate and then as soon as he won, he started voting with the GOP on everything and libs just defend this cause he's a centrist, therefore it's OK.
The lib I was arguing with just tried to smugly tell me "well, if a centrist like Jones can't win, I don't know what makes you think the racist morons of Alabama would vote for some far leftists. It's clear that they don't want Dems, they absolutely wouldn't deal with a leftist". I have family there and lived in AL before. The main thing they talk about the most is MEDICAID. Medicaid expansion is the biggest deal cause the GOP there have been gutting it for years and Dems just throw their hands up and do nothing about it. They could run on healthcare in that state and raising the minimum wage and it would get them a ton of support, but that would upset all the middle class Republicans that they cater to and wish would vote for them.
I have lived my entire life in southern states and I can say this from experience, the Dems in those states ARE FUCKING USELESS. In Alabama and Florida, the Dems don't even bother running house district candidates outside their comfy big cities. The house districts in the rural areas are always a race between 2 Republicans and sometimes a Libertarian candidate. So by default, the GOP takes those districts. The Dems don't care as long as they aren't challenged in their big cities. This is the Dems way of directing a huge middle finger directly towards anyone living in the rural south, and libs just defend this by saying it's "deep red states" anyway and they wouldn't have a chance. I guess if people like me want to earn the respects of smug liberals, we need to go thousands of dollars in debt and move to a big city that is a liberal utopia where the costs of commodities, taxes and everything is far more expensive.
A lot of that goes back to the Democrats simply not putting any effort, outside of stronghold states and urban areas, into state and local politics. The party ends up with a skeleton operation until the DCCC decides that some district looks competitive now, then they helicopter in a bunch of money and resources, mostly out of DC, into the race of some neoliberal picked for their ability to fundraise. And if they lose, the money and resources disappears as quickly as it arrived. There’s no building of a strong local party that can serve as a foundation for switching seats because that’s hard work that can’t be accomplished by throwing money at DC consultants.
I think a lot of that smug, urban liberal attitude about the hinterlands is really a rationalization for the party being one giant grift.
That history goes back a long ways. In the 90s, that's when the party under the 'New Democrats' (Clintons) started to turn their back on the labor movements in the south and rural areas. There was a time when the deep south had strong unions and workers rights that they had fought for through decades. The Dems turned their backs on them and Clinton was able to get rid of unions that not even Reagan could touch. Those states became "deep red" states as liberals love to call them, as a result of Dems turning their backs on them and slowly pulling away.
Howard Dean's 50 state strategy was seen as too radical by the Dem party back in 2004 and they are just too lazy to really lift a finger and campaign in all 50 states. They whine and moan about gerrymandering but they're not going to do anything about it.
And notice how much doublespeak and contradiction there is in their actions and arguments on this: centrists can’t win in a state like Kentucky, let alone a leftist, so let’s sink a ton of money and resources into the centrist’s campaign! After all, we know how to appeal to these southern voters, whom we call degenerate backwoods yokels, unlike leftists who think poors are capable of caring about their material interests.
I know, that's their contradiction that they don't even realize.
I had this argument with a liberal about Alabama and was using Doug Jones as an example. Jones is about to lose to Tommy Tuberville, who is a goddamn football coach with zero real political experience, to the point that all Jones ever attacks him with is "he just moved to Alabama 5 months ago. He isn't even from this state". Tuberville beat a pro-Trump candidate back in the primaries and these same liberals were wetting their pants laughing over the idea of a football coach beating one of Trump's guys, but the excuse to him polling way higher against a Democrat like Jones is to just whine and moan about how dumb people in Alabama are and "they vote against their own best interests".
Jones has been the one Dem senator who votes with Trump more than any other Dem senators (over 77% of the time). Jones only barely won back in 2016 cause his opponent was Roy Moore who was a pedophile. Jones is widely hated in AL, not just by Republicans, but everyday people which is what has depressed turnout and why he is so far behind in polls and looking to lose to a football coach. Jones basically ran on being this civil rights candidate and then as soon as he won, he started voting with the GOP on everything and libs just defend this cause he's a centrist, therefore it's OK.
The lib I was arguing with just tried to smugly tell me "well, if a centrist like Jones can't win, I don't know what makes you think the racist morons of Alabama would vote for some far leftists. It's clear that they don't want Dems, they absolutely wouldn't deal with a leftist". I have family there and lived in AL before. The main thing they talk about the most is MEDICAID. Medicaid expansion is the biggest deal cause the GOP there have been gutting it for years and Dems just throw their hands up and do nothing about it. They could run on healthcare in that state and raising the minimum wage and it would get them a ton of support, but that would upset all the middle class Republicans that they cater to and wish would vote for them.
I have lived my entire life in southern states and I can say this from experience, the Dems in those states ARE FUCKING USELESS. In Alabama and Florida, the Dems don't even bother running house district candidates outside their comfy big cities. The house districts in the rural areas are always a race between 2 Republicans and sometimes a Libertarian candidate. So by default, the GOP takes those districts. The Dems don't care as long as they aren't challenged in their big cities. This is the Dems way of directing a huge middle finger directly towards anyone living in the rural south, and libs just defend this by saying it's "deep red states" anyway and they wouldn't have a chance. I guess if people like me want to earn the respects of smug liberals, we need to go thousands of dollars in debt and move to a big city that is a liberal utopia where the costs of commodities, taxes and everything is far more expensive.
A lot of that goes back to the Democrats simply not putting any effort, outside of stronghold states and urban areas, into state and local politics. The party ends up with a skeleton operation until the DCCC decides that some district looks competitive now, then they helicopter in a bunch of money and resources, mostly out of DC, into the race of some neoliberal picked for their ability to fundraise. And if they lose, the money and resources disappears as quickly as it arrived. There’s no building of a strong local party that can serve as a foundation for switching seats because that’s hard work that can’t be accomplished by throwing money at DC consultants.
I think a lot of that smug, urban liberal attitude about the hinterlands is really a rationalization for the party being one giant grift.
That history goes back a long ways. In the 90s, that's when the party under the 'New Democrats' (Clintons) started to turn their back on the labor movements in the south and rural areas. There was a time when the deep south had strong unions and workers rights that they had fought for through decades. The Dems turned their backs on them and Clinton was able to get rid of unions that not even Reagan could touch. Those states became "deep red" states as liberals love to call them, as a result of Dems turning their backs on them and slowly pulling away.
Howard Dean's 50 state strategy was seen as too radical by the Dem party back in 2004 and they are just too lazy to really lift a finger and campaign in all 50 states. They whine and moan about gerrymandering but they're not going to do anything about it.