• Tinidril@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    That’s an impressive writeup. Here is the problem. This is 2024, not 1992. Clinton’s strategy has not aged well.

    2008 - Hillary and McCain both ran a centrist strategy and lost to Obama who ran as a disruptor. Obama gets a mandate.

    2010 - Democrats lose Congress and the mandate on a centrist strategy.

    2012 - Obama almost loses to Mit Romney with both running centrist strategies.

    2016 - Hillary loses on a centrist strategy against Trump who is clearly not a centrist.

    2020 - Biden barely moves towards a disruptor position and barely beats Trump who should have been easily beatable.

    2024 - Need I say it?

    • kandoh@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Out of your 6 examples half of them involve Democratic victories and you noticeably left 2018 and 2022 for not fitting in with your straw man

      • Tinidril@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        I didn’t have time to write a book. The examples I gave were more than sufficient to get the point across. A couple of minor exceptions don’t disprove the rule. COVID and abortion dominated in 2022, and Trump looked more like the status quo than a disruptor in 2018.

        The half that were victories are when the Republicans took the more centrist approach and Democrats ran as disruptors. Remember Obama’s “Change!” slogan? Too bad he didn’t mean it.

        I note that you only used one election from over a quarter of a century ago to support your argument.