It looks like a lot of folks here want to stay with the "you HAVE to!" approach to seeking votes. [View all]
We're all disappointed with the result and we all want to do better in 2018 and 2020-so what argument is there for staying with an approach(simply demanding that people vote for our ticket, and not making a positive argument for voting for it based on the good things we have to offer, and that we especially had to offer this year) that, time and again, has been shown not to work?
It's not as though we're ever going to convert anyone just by waiting around for people to say "yeah, we were idiots not to vote for the Democratic ticket in 2016, and we'll vote for it no matter what in 2020-even if it runs on a platform to the right of the one we ran on this year".
What possible harm can come from trying a different approach in how we talk to people?
Is there anyone here who thinks we COULDN'T win by running a campaign in which we actually made a case for voting FOR our ticket and our platform? Or who thinks we have something to lose by trying to generate real grassroots enthusiasm rather than simply calling on a dour sense of obligation?
This isn't about who we should have nominated or who we should nominate. I actually don't KNOW who we should nominate in 2020 yet. I'm just saying we need to be open to different approaches to communication
= new reply since forum marked as read