@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:
True, even though we lost in Georgia (it is a very conservative district, it would have been quite a coup to have won it)I think, the DNC is on the right track with courting the more centrist voters (moderate republicans) in mid America where we lost the presidential election. It might take a few years, but I think the electors are changing.
Yes it would have been quite a coup and yet all along we kept hearing about how close it was and how Ossoff was going to pull out an upset or force a recount. Now, I would expect the Democrat Party to paint as rosy a picture of the race as possible but the MSM?
More flawed polling? Wishful thinking? An effort to influence turnout? It's hard to imagine a truly sinister reason for getting it wrong (yet again) so it seems to come down to incompetent election intelligence, or a complete alignment with the interests of the Democrat Party. In either case it's lousy journalism.
The problem with the cynical and basically deceitful strategy of running candidates who mimic Republicans, is that today's Democrat Party has a well established brand and it's not
Republican Lite, it's
Resistance!. Unless the faux centrist candidates are prepared to denounce a good number of planks in the Democrat platform and not only distance themselves from nationally recognized party figures like Pelosi, Shumer, Waters, Franken etc, but actually venture into criticism of them (Tying Ossoff to Pelosi who had a 98% name recognition factor and was well underwater with Favorable/Unfavorable ratings within the contested district seems to have been a very effective strategy for the GOP) the Democrat brand will stick to them. I'm sure there are plenty of Republican voters across the nation who are not big fans of Trump, but the chances are excellent that they like
The Resistance Democrats even less.
Even if it were to work in enough states to make a difference, without the party changing its brand in a meaningful way, it will be a very temporary achievement. The Democrats tried this strategy in the not so distant past and the number of Blue Dog Democrats elected in traditionally red districts amounted to a success. The problem was that the party continued on it's well left of center path in DC and the Blue Dogs were forced to go along with it or risk irrelevancy within the party. As a result very few, if any, Blue Dogs remain in the House.
If you are going to be a left-wing party you need to sell yourself as such. It's hard to imagine that all the true Democrats in a red district or state are going to welcome a faux Republican candidate with the secret understanding that it's simply a ploy to gain power and once elected, the red to purple candidate will suddenly reveal he or she was true blue all along, and people are not as easily fooled a second time as they were the first. It's the people in these districts and states who have had the Blue Dog experience.
Besides, aside from the fact that this strategy is intellectually dishonest, and there is no chance whatsoever that new Blue Dogs will turn the party's ideological course (Ossoff campaigned with rhetoric about putting an end to wasteful spending, but what possible chance did he have in organizing his party's efforts towards that end: Zero), why wouldn't it bother True Blue Democrats that their party doesn't have enough faith in the principles they are committed to, to obtain the power necessary to implement policies based on them? Would you and other Democrats really feel comfortable with a party that is willing to deceive voters in order to obtain power? I would think it would cause you to want to take a shower, but then
The End Justifies the Means has long been a left-wing mantra.
