Input | Output |
---|---|
Link | YouTube |
Published | 2022/11/19 |
Theme | |
Status | article incomplete |
Beau says:
Democratic Party strategically elevates certain Republican candidates in key places for electoral success but should be cautious about adopting it as a long-term strategy to prevent unintended consequences.
Political Strategists
The full transcript provides an in-depth analysis of the Democratic Party's electoral strategy involving elevating Republican candidates and the potential risks associated with adopting this tactic as a long-term strategy.
Well, howdy there, internet people.
It's Beau again.
So today we are going to talk about
the Democratic Party's strategy tactic.
We've had this conversation before on this channel.
Their tactic of elevating certain candidates,
certain Republican candidates during the primaries
because they believed they would be easier to beat.
What the Democratic Party did was find some way
to assist the Trump-endorsed, MAGA, election-denying,
extreme Republican candidate during the Republican primaries
to elevate them.
They used this tactic in six high-profile places,
six places that matter.
And those places were Arizona, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan,
New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.
So now we get to the part after the election.
Did it work?
It worked in Arizona, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New
Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.
Yeah, it worked.
It worked really well.
It worked incredibly well.
It handed them some incredibly important victories.
And it played a part in stopping that red wave.
So should this tactic become strategy?
No.
No, there's a risk associated with this.
The first is the immediate, that the far-right,
Trump-endorsed, MAGA candidate actually wins.
In the current political climate,
heading into the midterms, that was really unlikely.
So it made sense to do it then.
Now, as far as adopting it as a strategy
that they're going to use a lot, that's a different story.
Because the other risk is that by elevating
these candidates, you condition Republicans
to actually be used to and become
in favor of their wild policies, because they
want to support their policies.
We saw time and time again throughout the election
that there were a whole bunch of people
who voted solely based on the letter after the person's name,
whether they were a Republican or a Democrat.
Once you vote for somebody, if they win and they take office,
there is a habit to want to support their policies,
even if they are less than adequate.
So they shouldn't adopt this as a strategy, something
that they do across the board.
But as a tactic in key places, it makes sense.
The only time it would make sense to do it as a strategy
is if, well, if Trump actually wins the nomination
and decides to run again in 2024.
Then it would make sense as a strategy.
But other than that, it worked.
It delivered a lot of key wins.
But we have to draw that line between tactic and strategy.
Tactic is something that you can use occasionally,
something that is immediate, on the ground,
dependent on the situation at the time,
versus a strategy that is all-encompassing.
The all-encompassing strategy is to deliver for the people
that put you into office.
Anyway, it's just a thought.
Y'all have a good day.
{{Shirt}}
{{EasterEgg}}