Let the bitching begin:
“How is it that someone who did raise $80 million but then lost against Ted Cruz, how is it that, all of a sudden, he thinks he’s qualified?” she asked.
Well, let's see:
“Beto has the potential ― alone among the Democratic nominees ― to put Texas into play,” Rice University political scientist Mark Jones said. “If Trump is forced to go on the defense in Texas, that really complicates the rest of his election strategy. There’s almost no way for him to win mathematically if he loses Texas the way things are looking today.”
The Democrats already have: California (Harris); New York (Gillibrand); Vermont (Sanders); and Massachusetts (Warren). Who else is going to bring Texas?
Indeed, the main gripe seems to be that Beto is a man, not a woman.
I'm imagining Hillary Clinton giving the same quote and wondering about the reaction. https://t.co/KYvLJvBJt6— Kasie Hunt (@kasie) March 13, 2019
Which may make some pundits and guardians of the public discourse bristle, but complaining about it is not exactly a winning political strategy. "Don't be sexist, vote for Harris/Gillibrand/Warren" is not a bumper sticker anybody needs to see. And frankly, if the Democrats want to split so badly over a non-issue as that, they deserve to lose again in 2020.
Which is not to say I'm committed to Beto come hell or high water; but who else is likely to bring Texas to the Democratic column? That alone is worthy of serious consideration. But right now, in a field of 15, everyone has their partisans, and the only way to climb is to stand on somebody's shoulders. Preferably with cleats on.
Let the games begin.
No comments:
Post a Comment