Consider this, the ‘centrists’ in the swing districts are the ones that are the “Majority Makers”
This is why I contrast “tactical victories” with “strategic victories.” When the Party tacks to the center this much, they end up with a majority that is incapable of doing anything. What use is a majority that refuses to consider impeaching this President?
And, as always, the centrists are only focused on the next election. There is never any consideration of how attacking the brand hurts the party in the long run.
– It isn’t the firebrands from safe districts.
And there you go, attacking the brand.
IMO loosing the majority would be a disaster for the country.
(eyeroll)
Maybe holding the majority is something you consider short-term tactical but if the Dems didn’t have the majority there would be zero investigations into donald right now. They would be investigating Bengazi again, or Hillary’s emails.
Yes, any approach that focuses solely on counting seats without any long-term plan as to how the electorate should be moved in a given direction is going to lose to an opponent that does focus on how the electorate should be moved. That should be the take-home message from the current state of the Democratic Party, in which we have a caucus with a majority in the House that refuses to consider impeaching the most criminal and least popular President in modern history.
Seems pretty simple to me: if you don’t like the outcome, then something is wrong with the process.
The centrist counter-argument is to blame the voters for not supporting their leadership, no matter how ineffectual it becomes.
As for “investigations of Donald”, the only investigation we’ve seen thus far was the one ordered and directed by Republicans. It’s two months past the Mueller report’s publication and the House Dems haven’t actually investigated anything, have they? They are deeply engaged in the process of Doing As Little As Possible because the leadership is frightened of impeachment.