Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick
Maybe, but it took the NRSC less than a day to run ads in Georgia on his "Now we take Georgia, then we change the world" comments. And given today's hyper negative partisanship, that is more likely to get out R vote than many of the people who just voted anti-Trump and may stay home for a Senate runoff.
Giving people an opening like that to say they want to enact AOC's agenda doesn't seem smart, but perhaps you are right.
|
IMO, and I'm not alone, the essence of conservatism is reaction to the mainstream. Conservatives are often highly motivated to vote against Democrats, much more so than Democrats. Schumer is essentially correct that winning the Senate is important to getting significant legislation through. If that motivates people to turn out for Republicans, that's the way it always is. If Democrats can't motivate their own people with the promise of "changing the world," then the election is not going to go well for them.
I just posted a couple of days ago that Democrats focus too much on policy proposals that do not resonate with a significant part of the population, not because it's bad policy, but because many voters do not go to the polls motivated to back a particular policy agenda. I think I was responding to something that Warrren and GGG said, but it easily could have been Schumer. Democrats often miss the expressive aspect of voting. Obama got it. But that's not the way Schumer is wired. But if he was, the NRSC would find something that Pelosi said, or Warren, or Soros. With Trump losing, the surest best for conservatives to rally each other is to find something objectionable that someone on the left has said and to foment outrage and reaction.
