To win elections, should you play to your base or should you pander to the other side?

Should politicians play to their base or should they pander to the other side?

  • Play to their base

  • Pander to the other side


Results are only viewable after voting.

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
We're going to see tomorrow, we know where you stand
Both. Follow what the base wants and find middle ground with the other side. You voting tomorrow?
Can't do both, both are diametrically opposed to each other, just like N/S on a magnet, can't have one with the other. The base wants a living wage, the other side wants to eliminate the federal minimum wage.. How do you reach a middle ground on that?
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
The OP's question is an artificially constrained choice with obvious bias built into it.

Not worthy of a therad.
Should Democrats pivot right and try to win Republican votes or should they pivot left and support the interests of their base?
 
Last edited:

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
concentrate on the swing voters.....the base of each party is pretty defined and divided. Go after those voters that voted Obama then trump....win them back. However I think trump is forcing them back....vote every republican out
How do you go after swing voters without alienating the base? What do the swing voters support?
 

zeddd

Well-Known Member
We're going to see tomorrow, we know where you stand

Can't do both, both are diametrically opposed to each other, just like N/S on a magnet, can't have one with the other. The base wants a living wage, the other side wants to eliminate the federal minimum wage.. How do you reach a middle ground on that?
Dumb analogy shit for brains, magnets are an example of how diametrically opposed entities can co exist.
 
Last edited:

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Should Democrats pivot right and try to win Republican votes or should they pivot left and support the interests of their base?
Ojeda is Manchin 2.0 while Ocasio-Cortez is possibly farther to the left than Sanders is. I think both are speaking from their own set of values and not playing a part as your question implies. I also think that they won their primaries and probably will win their seats because the people who live in their districts agree with what they are offering.

Your question is overly constrained and biased.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Indiana
Missouri
North Dakota
Florida

possibly Arizona (McSally currently 17K votes ahead with 63% reporting) and Montana (Rosendale is 2K votes ahead of Tester with 72% reporting)

The common theme among these incumbents is they're the most conservative members of the Democratic party Senate

Gillum lost to DeSantis after campaigning with Clinton and DWS and pivoting to the right

Same with O'Rourke

Meanwhile, Ojeda turned a +49% district to a +9% district in deep red WV
 

scumrot derelict

Well-Known Member
Indiana
Missouri
North Dakota
Florida

possibly Arizona (McSally currently 17K votes ahead with 63% reporting) and Montana (Rosendale is 2K votes ahead of Tester with 72% reporting)

The common theme among these incumbents is they're the most conservative members of the Democratic party Senate

Gillum lost to DeSantis after campaigning with Clinton and DWS and pivoting to the right

Same with O'Rourke

Meanwhile, Ojeda turned a +49% district to a +9% district in deep red WV
congrats the gop candidate with a debilitating bigfoot porn fetish on his new job as someone who gets to write laws we all apparently have to follow

-justice democratz
 
Top