Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Blue_true

(31,261 posts)

2. Your OP.

Reply to LBM20 (Original post)

Fri Jun 23, 2017, 10:56 PM

Jun 2017

Doesn't match up to the fairy dust, revisionist mindset. The claim is that loud loudly embracing singer payer and free college tuition is the path to victory. Three Democratic special election candidates did exactly that before Ossoff and lost by larger bargains in red districts. The people
making that claim ignore that reality.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

19 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A Dem further to the left would NOT have won GA-6. Ossoff got about as close as possible for a Dem. [View all] LBM20 Jun 2017 OP

If that's as close as possible for a democrst FBaggins Jun 2017 #1

No, Ossoff got a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton. Let me explain: LBM20 Jun 2017 #4

"Close" is how close you are to winning... not raw percentages FBaggins Jun 2017 #17

Your OP. Blue_true Jun 2017 #2

Right. Single payer and free tuition work in SOME places but NOT in others. LBM20 Jun 2017 #6

A fair point, but the other elections did not get Voltaire2 Jun 2017 #13

Ossoff was the Daily Kos backed candidate long before the jungle primary. LonePirate Jun 2017 #3

Because they wanted a shot at a win, not because Ossoff was a far left progressive. LBM20 Jun 2017 #5

to me that election just showed runnnig in deep red districts/states is a waste of time Takket Jun 2017 #7

So you don't believe in the 50 state strategy? Don't you think we should compete everywhere and LBM20 Jun 2017 #8

nope Takket Jun 2017 #10

Well, I disagree. We need to compete hard everywhere and put them on defense everywhere. LBM20 Jun 2017 #14

What it showed me BannonsLiver Jun 2017 #9

The expectation in these deep red districts was that we would get closer but winning was unlikely. LBM20 Jun 2017 #16

It was for me and you BannonsLiver Jun 2017 #19

well, I assumed Hillary Clinton was going to trounce trump last November and since I m-lekktor Jun 2017 #11

Well we know for a fact that a center right Democrat list. Voltaire2 Jun 2017 #12

We know for sure that he got very close in a DEEP RED district, so let's please get real. LBM20 Jun 2017 #15

Probably correct. kentuck Jun 2017 #18