I'm sorry but I agree with those tweets. Explain to me why all these Trump district Republicans who are neolib cucks lost, but Jared "Medicare 4 All" Golden won by double digits?
And please spare me the Crafts was a bad candidate argument. That wouldn't result in him so massively underperforming Trump.
Seriously, we know that the Dems' economic agenda is very popular per opinion polls and that things like "decency" or whatever it is that Blue Dogs run on aren't. All the Blue Dogs went down.
The argument of which ideology is more "electable" is always misguided, because it relies on tons of cherry-picking, and ignores the swaths of voters who don't vote based on ideology at all.
Correct. They vote on policy. And both Porter and Golden ran on popular Dem policies and won. It's why Bernie Sanders is the most popular Senator in the entire Senate. I don't get what people don't get about this? You run on policies that 70% of the population want like min. wage and you win.
The tweet disproves itself. Sure, Brindisi lost and Porter won, but Brindisi outperformed by 11 and Porter underperformed by 4. That's a 15 point difference in Brindisi's favor.
The (very obvious) reason the "neolib cucks" lost is that they held all the most vulnerable seats. They overperformed in the hardest territory we held, while porter underperformed in the blue-trending suburbs.
I also think it's funny that you're trying to cite Golden as being in the "progressive" camp and not the "neolib cuck" camp. Have you seen the way he votes? Signing onto a meaningless M4A bill doesn't suddenly make him super liberal. He voted against one of the articles of impeachment, voted against the stimulus package, and wouldn't endorse the Democrat in Maine's Senate race.
