Oh piss off. Yours is infantile and naive, and you’re not even a voter. People stop taking you seriously when you make this shit personal, and your sentence would have conveyed the same meaning without the invective.
pandering to the elderly is not going to be a winning strategy.
But an analysis like this will only lead to losing.
Like what? Surveying likely voters? I pointed to actual poll numbers. The numbers are there if you care to look, and they’re likely the same numbers Biden’s team is reviewing to chart the best path forward in an election year.
The fact that you seem so unwaveringly sure of yourself without a shred of evidence makes me significantly less inclined to engage, by the way. I might not respond further, so if you don’t want to waste your time formulating another quippish, vapid response, don’t.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
You are still thinking that winning elections is about convincing the center.
That was true up to about 2008.
Now, in the US, it’s about turning up the base.
Your analysis is weak, and pandering to the elderly is not going to be a winning strategy.
Up until now, Biden has been smarter than that. And I have some faith he will find a winning strategy.
But an analysis like this will only lead to losing.
No, I’m saying elections are about convincing likely voters. And with Biden’s continued edge with independents, I might be right. Others who have done deep dives into the data agree with me, too. Clinton had a 30-point edge in the 18-29 demographic and exactly the same support in the 30-49 demographic, which means she did better among younger voters than Biden, and she still lost.
Oh piss off. Yours is infantile and naive, and you’re not even a voter. People stop taking you seriously when you make this shit personal, and your sentence would have conveyed the same meaning without the invective.
Nope, but pandering to likely voters might be. 68% of Jewish voters said they’ll vote Biden over Trump, and only 11% were undecided. Hell, even Bernie won’t call for a cease fire. And there’s a stupid amount of money that gets thrown at any Democrat who steps out of line to criticize Israel. Might depressed youth/base turnout lose him the election? Sure. Might also alienating a very powerful (and wealthy) ally who could further depress turnout among a hitherto reliable voting bloc? You fucking betcha.
Like what? Surveying likely voters? I pointed to actual poll numbers. The numbers are there if you care to look, and they’re likely the same numbers Biden’s team is reviewing to chart the best path forward in an election year.
The fact that you seem so unwaveringly sure of yourself without a shred of evidence makes me significantly less inclined to engage, by the way. I might not respond further, so if you don’t want to waste your time formulating another quippish, vapid response, don’t.
I think it’s better you don’t respond. It’s not particularly productive to read your bad takes.
You put way too much effort in providing links instead of actually thinking.
Removed by mod
Lol, devolving to ad hominems.
Good night.
deleted by creator
Removed, rule 3:
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!