Adam Parsons -

Adam Parsons -



Finally read 1-2-3-4 and with minimal knowledge of NYC, my take: 1, 2, 4.1, 4.3, and 4.4 are fine. 3 is interesting but clunky and doesn't really belong with the rest. 4.2 is a place I really want us to be & we could be more urgent about but a hard rule seems counterproductive.

Re: 4.2 - In general I think that by the time you're close enough to the election to be doing major field, you're too close to shake voters' partisan ID at any real scale, especially when your electorate is registered Democrats.

There's I think still this core disagreement about whether Bernie 2016 was replicable or sui generis, and about whether 2020 was ended by conspiracy or by self-imposed limits. If you lean toward the first options, then 4.2 makes more sense IMO.

But if you think 2016 was sui generis and 2020 always had a ceiling of support lower than 2016 (as I do), then the question of how you deal with partisan self-ID seems much more difficult to crack, and placing hard preemptive constraints on it seems suboptimal.

The right word above is probably "collusion," not "conspiracy," but you get what I mean - the idea that if not for the coordinated consolidation around Biden post-Super-Tuesday those losses would have been a minor obstacle but not functionally campaign-ending.

I also tend to lean toward the position that "Democratic Socialist" deals with a lot of the same problems that are solved by "Democrat" and my crank opinion is that I'd almost rather have unified branding than unified messaging.

Follow us on Twitter

to be informed of the latest developments and updates!

You can easily use to @tivitikothread bot for create more readable thread!
Donate 💲

You can keep this app free of charge by supporting 😊

for server charges...