Elections are won in the primaries

RAZD responds to me

quote:

---

quote:

---

Could such a candidate even win? After all, the Republican machine will tear a "progressive" candidate to shreds and the Republicans in the Republican district will vote for the "real" Republican. So what's the point of running such a candidate?

---

Yes -- if he gets every democrat/liberal/progressive in the district to register republican for the primary and vote for him, while the republicans split the ticket.

---

In a gerrymandered district? You seem to think that there would be enough Democrats to do this. That's the point behind the gerrymandering: There aren't enough.

quote:

---

He can change party.

---

Which would mean he wouldn't win the primary: People would figure it out beforehand and not vote for him.

quote:

---

He could also lose to the democrat candidate. Goal achieved either way.

---

Wait...what Democratic candidate? All the Democrats voted in the Republican primary.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Exactly what is the point of running a "progressive" Republican?

---

To win the republican primary against republican candidates who split the republican votes, with the votes of democrats, independents, progressives, etc who register to vote in the republican party

---

Which will never happen. Such a candidate will be torn to shreds during the primary season and in a gerrymandered district, there aren't enough votes. You are presuming that there are sufficient alternative candidates and that they are equally appealing such that there would be a split vote.You seem to forget how incumbency works in practice.An awful lot of assumptions there.

quote:

---

It really is a simple concept.

---

Which is why it doesn't work. The world is not simple.

DC85 responds to me:

quote:

---

Actually he was talking about literal Democrats trying to act like Republicans to win (like they do in the south today) Not at all the same thing.

---

And so is RAZD. Truman was not talking about merely "acting" like a Democrat. He wants, to quote Truman in reverse, "a Democrat in Republican clothing."When Truman was talking about, as you put it, "acting like a Republican," what did he mean? He didn't mean political tactics. He was talking actual policy: He gave as an example oil rights for states with coastline drilling. Where should the oil go? The Republican policy was to let the state keep it despite the fact that they belong to the entire United States. He could understand how congresscritters from Texas or California might go that way, but what about the rest of the country? They shouldn't give those rights away even though they don't have coastline and aren't directly involved in the drilling.In other words, don't be a phony Democrat. Don't be a Republican in Democratic clothing.And that's what RAZD is advocating: A person who would normally be running in the Democratic Party registering as a Republican in order to run in the Republican Party.The Republican voters would sniff him out immediately. He ignores what the electorate would do once they found out of the shenanigans (and he doesn't even start in on the question of who is actually going to run in the Democratic primary and how that candidate doesn't then siphon off the votes that he needs to get the phony Republican to win the Republican primary where he assumes the rest of the Republican field is large enough that they would be fractured.)It doesn't work. It never has. Why should this time be any different?

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

I did. ...

---

Cop out, it should be easy peasy to repeat.

---

Cop out. It should be easy peasy to read the posts before you respond. Especially when it becomes clear that you have missed out on quite a lot. Yeah, I could repeat Ossoff's name, but that isn't going to convince you to read the post this time. You didn't last time.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Did you not read the post? ...

---

Nope

---

Cognitive dissonance for the loss!You need to do your homework, RAZD, if you ever want to have any hope of having something intelligent to say.For crying out loud...it's your own argument. Are you incapable of defending it?Who's going to run for the Democratic candidacy? How are you going to prevent the liberals whom you want to vote for your phony Republican from voting for the Democrat? After all, the district is gerrymandered: There aren't that many Democratic voters to begin with. You are proposing running two strong liberal candidates: One as a Republican and one as a Democrat. How does that not immediately split the liberal vote?

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

Seems you still fail to understand.

---

Says who? You? Why should we believe you? You admit you don't read the posts to which you are replying, so by what criteria do you justify this claim?Who's running for the Democratic position, RAZD? You've got a district where liberals are in the minority and you want two liberals to run: One a Democrat and one a Republican. Assuming the conservative voters are all idiots and don't immediately see what you're doing and adjust their strategy (asking people to drop out in order to prevent splitting the vote), you need all the liberals to vote for the Republican.How do you stop them from voting for the Democrat?It seems you still fail to understand.

quote:

---

Sometimes a simple plan is all you need.

---

It's good to have an open mind...but not so open that your brain falls out.It's never worked before, RAZD. Why would now be any different?How do you stop the liberals from voting for the Democrat? How do you stop the conservatives from catching on to what you're doing and rally around one candidate?