In that case, 100% of the time don’t use your own judgment, just do the exact opposite he says, no matter what.
The point of these ads should be to get value for money, and not piss into the wind. The people you want to convince that things were shit 4 years ago are already going to vote for you.
So your idea of how to respond to your opponent raising the question to voters of if they are better off than they were 4 years ago is to put your fingers in your ears and ignore it? Just let them score easy points on an issue you can actually win?
Also understand that a very effective strategy of the Biden team going back to the 2020 election has been to take Trump’s criticisms and turn them back on him in a mocking way. It is a core pillar of their campaign strategy that an angry Donald is a mistake making Donald, and they have a great track record of having these responses really get under his skin.
There is a lot of play being made of a Trump backed candidate winning in Ohio fornthe Republican Senate nomination but the interesting part is that a lot of money in his campaign came from the Democrats - they want to run against Trump and his crazies, because they have a track record of beating them in states that would otherwise be reliably Red.
Because that totally worked for them with J.D. Vance…
The effective strategy would be to highlight your strengths. Biden has shown in the past that he is different to Trump, so stop getting into the gutter with him as its not a place where you are going to get points. The response is not going to get points, because as I have already mentioned, the people who think (or know) they were better off 4 years ago, will not change their minds so the response is flogging a dead horse.
Yip, that was one of the main arguments for the senate and house losses (winning but no landslide). He needs to play to the crowd, so should not support very conservative candidates in more moderate areas.
It will be interesting to see who the republicans choose for West Virginia as I think someone that is closest (ideologically) to Joe Manchin will win. So if democrats put forward a very liberal and republicans put forward a very conservative, then I’m not sure. Not sure if any WV candidates have been put forward yet.
The primary is in May. The Democratic candidates would likely be Republicans in most other states. But the Democrats are very, very unlikely to be able to hold on to WVa no matter their pick. Manchin was kind of unique, having held on despite a Democratic Party heading in one direction and a state demographic heading in the opposite. A lot of Democrats disliked how difficult he was at times, but the reality is that no other Democratic was worth as many percentage points in their state versus Presidential popularity in any of the elections he ever ran in. West Virginia should be a safe GOP state.
I was just looking at the democratic potentials as you were typing this up, and yes, they look very, very weak.
Tim Ryan, who he ran against, was a very weak candidate so that one is kind of the outlier. Democrats have done very well in races against extremists in the last few election cycles, it makes sense they would want to continue to fight them as their extreme views push away the middle ground.
I expect rather than scold Trump about his rhetoric they’ll be encouraging him to go further and further in the hope it minimises his supporter base.
WV is unwinnable in today’s climate. 2010 is not that long ago in human years, but is a lifetime ago in terms of the ideological shifts that have occurred in the country. He was able to win reelections there not because Democrats had any constituency, but because incumbency is powerful and with a long record of statewide office (first as governor before being elected to the Senate) he’d demonstrated to the people he wasnt one of those Democrats. There simply is not a person in the party who can make the same argument to an overwhelmingly Republican electorate. That is precisely why Manchin had so much power in a party that fucking hated him and who he didnt much like either.
So the only thing interesting about the race is what sort of candidate they nominate and what sort of support the candidate gets. One option is a “fuck it” candidate, someone who goes in knowing they cannot win, but tries to start a conversation that if continued might bear fruit 10-20 years down the line. The other is to find some test-tube created doofus intended to replicate as much as Manchin’s “charm” as is possible who pathetically thinks they can win, gets support from DC, but loses by 30 points and does absolutely nothing to advance the brand of the party in the state.
Essentially, do they pull a Beto or an Amy McGrath. They are 1000% going to pull an Amy McGrath
So, if he says ‘vote for me’, vote for the other guy?
I believe that is what opposite means, but then again I’m not from down under 
They don’t give a shit about his supporter base, its immovable, they interested in the independents. This reply assumes I am interpreting you correctly.
Manchin always struck me as a WV first, party second type of senator. This is exactly how I feel any senator’s loyalties should be divided. I think there are way too many that are party aligned before state.
1 Like
There is no Democratic Party left in West Virginia - Blankenship should not be a remotely credible candidate, he may well be the frontrunner for the nomination.
Potential pool of voters then, rather than supporter base. The more extreme he is, or can be portrayed, the more people who aren’t die-hard supporters will be put off.
That to me is always the most important in many matters especially when it comes to elections. And it might be frustrating to people who say why cant they see the facts? The fact is, what are facts nowadays? Statistics are manipulated on all sides to present only a certain side and every supporter of each side will believe they have got the right statistic. It then come to a point where a neutral or usually disengaged citizen will just go with their feelings because they do not want to look at the statistics because they perceived that its all fake anyway.
Voters vote for all sorts of reasons, in Singapore, there was a particular election where the ruling party still won the elections pretty convincingly but alot lower than the previous one and some of the reasons given by people were “oh they are going to win anyway so I thought I will vote for the opposition just to sort of balance things out” Strange logic but it happens when it comes to elections.
Agree, the facts could be manipulated to show the economy is good or bad, yet it’s much more difficult to manipulate how I feel when seeing how much I am paying for gas/groceries.
Just had a good laugh.
I am really, really curious to see who Trump chooses as his VP. I think some of the suggestions have been fantastic, while other are a mistake waiting to happen. This is what was said about, who I would consider is the absolute worst choice.
PROS: Standing next to two-term Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene could make Trump look sane and measured.
1 Like