As much as I’d like her, AOC has the same problem as Hillary. She draws more opposition than support. She would motivate the Republican base against her far more than the Democratic base for her.
In the states that actually matter, Hillary drew more Trump voters to the polls than Hillary voters. It doesn’t particularly matter that she won landslide victories in states where Democrats always win landslide victories.
In 2016, both parties tried to throw the election, and the Democrats succeeded.
The lesson (that should have been) learned is that a blue state Democrat can’t win if the red states are united. The solution is pretty straightforward: find a red state Democrat, and suddenly the former swing states that went red 20 years ago are now in play again.
Agreed. I would love for AOC to get the nomination, but I honestly don’t think she couldn’t this particular election. I think she’s been too polarized by the media and is considered a “radical pick”.
I would say that her problem is very different than Hillary’s. Hillary was not popular with Democrats and she was hated by Republicans. AOC is loved by some Democrats, liked by a bunch, and disliked by some while being absolutely reviled by Republicans. That would get AOC more support than Hillary got.
It’s the “absolutely reviled by Republicans” part that is the concern. It doesn’t matter how popular she is with Democrats. It matters how popular she is in the swing states, and whether she can be competitive in a red one.
Mark Kelly can win the swing states; AOC and Hillary cannot.
Many of the people you call “unaffiliated” most recently voted Republican, and refer to themselves as Republicans. When I speak of “Republican” voters, I mean the people who currently intend to vote for Trump, but would be willing to switch for the right candidate. You would probably call that group “unaffiliated”.
As much as I’d like her, AOC has the same problem as Hillary. She draws more opposition than support. She would motivate the Republican base against her far more than the Democratic base for her.
The same Hilary Clinton that won the popular election in 2016?
Exactly.
In the states that actually matter, Hillary drew more Trump voters to the polls than Hillary voters. It doesn’t particularly matter that she won landslide victories in states where Democrats always win landslide victories.
In 2016, both parties tried to throw the election, and the Democrats succeeded.
The lesson (that should have been) learned is that a blue state Democrat can’t win if the red states are united. The solution is pretty straightforward: find a red state Democrat, and suddenly the former swing states that went red 20 years ago are now in play again.
Agreed. I would love for AOC to get the nomination, but I honestly don’t think she couldn’t this particular election. I think she’s been too polarized by the media and is considered a “radical pick”.
I would say that her problem is very different than Hillary’s. Hillary was not popular with Democrats and she was hated by Republicans. AOC is loved by some Democrats, liked by a bunch, and disliked by some while being absolutely reviled by Republicans. That would get AOC more support than Hillary got.
It’s the “absolutely reviled by Republicans” part that is the concern. It doesn’t matter how popular she is with Democrats. It matters how popular she is in the swing states, and whether she can be competitive in a red one.
Mark Kelly can win the swing states; AOC and Hillary cannot.
I’m not familiar with how popular she is or is not among unaffiliated voters. That matters more than how Republicans feel about her.
Many of the people you call “unaffiliated” most recently voted Republican, and refer to themselves as Republicans. When I speak of “Republican” voters, I mean the people who currently intend to vote for Trump, but would be willing to switch for the right candidate. You would probably call that group “unaffiliated”.
I am unaffiliated.