Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I think that survives on a really local race, but it gets sized out pretty fast. If you have a community of like 7000 people and political engagement isn’t super high, then all you need is a couple of well targeted but realistic, seeming attacks and you can galvanize enough people who think one of you guys is a dirty, rotten so and so.

Swing a few hundred votes and you turn things.

• Being from the area vs having moved in.  People from the area tend to have more acquaintances in the area.  
• Having a larger family, especially if your family is from the area.  
• Being active in larger social organizations (churches, sports associations, clubs, etc).  

• 4,200 votes for @bayareabadger 
• 2,800 for @medinabuckeye1 

• 600 of the 1,500 (40%) would have voted for me anyway so that leaves
• 900 of the 1,500 (60%) would have voted for you.  

• 3,300 for @bayareabadger (4,200-900)
• 3,700 for @medinabuckeye1 (2,800+900)

• 16,800 votes for @bayareabadger 
• 11,200 votes for @medinabuckeye1 

• 15,300 for @bayareabadger 
• 12,700 for @medinabuckeye1 

We had 3300 residents where I lived in Cincy.  I'd guess 2,500 were of voting age, and most folks voted, call it 2,200 voting in a local election.  I had a friend who ran for mayor, with two other candidates.  It turned out that one of the other candidates had "extended" family in the village, hundreds, all voting for him.  It wasn't close.  She hadn't realized this, somehow.  (I didn't know it myself.)

The elected mayor was a fine fellow I thought, he had been head of the State Senate in Ohio before retiring.  He was pretty conservative but in a local election I don't think that was relevant (much).  I just checked, he's still mayor there.

• 15 from the class three years ahead (Seniors when he was a Freshman)
• 15 from the class two years ahead (Seniors when he was a Sophomore)
• 15 from the class ahead (Seniors when he was a Junior)
• 15 from his own class
• 15 from the class behind (Juniors when he was a Senior)
• 15 from two classes behind (Sophomores when he was a Senior)
• 15 from three classes behind (Freshman when he was a Senior)
• 105 total guys that he played football with

I would go back at least as far as Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America," and maybe further than that. As long as I can remember--and my political memories go back to the mid-to-late 80s--started voting in 1992--Democrats have complained internally about a lack of message discipline / unity as compared to the Republicans. I think part of the problem is the nature of "liberal" vs. "conservative." Liberal, by definition, seeks change; conservative seeks maintenance of the status quo (I'm painting with a broad brush, and, to be honest, I'm not sure that "conservative" is an accurate definition of the current state of the Republican party--but I'm a Democrat, so my opinion on that is highly suspect). It's naturally easier to coalesce around a message of don't screw things up, as opposed to agreeing on what kind of change is the right kind of change. The flip side of that is that people generally do want change, it's just a question of what kind of change.

I would go back at least as far as Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America," and maybe further than that. As long as I can remember--and my political memories go back to the mid-to-late 80s--started voting in 1992--Democrats have complained internally about a lack of message discipline / unity as compared to the Republicans. I think part of the problem is the nature of "liberal" vs. "conservative." Liberal, by definition, seeks change; conservative seeks maintenance of the status quo (I'm painting with a broad brush, and, to be honest, I'm not sure that "conservative" is an accurate definition of the current state of the Republican party--but I'm a Democrat, so my opinion on that is highly suspect). It's naturally easier to coalesce around a message of don't screw things up, as opposed to agreeing on what kind of change is the right kind of change. The flip side of that is that people generally do want change, it's just a question of what kind of change.

A lot of Republicans would say the opposite. @MikeDeTiger more-or-less did say the opposite.

Here is the reason, IMHO:
We all believe that our side is right or else we wouldn't be on that side. Consequently, when our side wins we don't go looking for reasons because we don't need an explanation it is just that the right side won. However, when the other side wins we need an explanation because we view them as wrong so we explain it with things like "better messaging" or whatever.

I'm not sure advocating "change" vs. "status quo" as a "liberal" or "progressive" party is the main issue.

I think it's more related to the path the Dems have chosen to try and be the "anti-Republicans" and not really have their own identity.  In an attempt to be "all things to everyone" (other than Republicans) they're confusing and alienating some of their traditional base.  For example, pushing a heavily trans-rights agenda on its face, is a good thing, IMO. I support trans rights and I support LBGTQ+ in general.  But when it means that people who represent your party are vocally advocating for biological males to be included in women's sports and to be allowed to undress in women's locker rooms, now you're starting to piss off the female feminists who have historically been an important part of your party and your message.  And what's more, the more militant of those folks are calling out women who are espousing classically feminist views, as being close-minded and trans-phobic and then one of the favorite words of the militant left-- "fascist."  It's pretty clear those idiots have no idea what that word even means but they love to throw it around.

That's just one example, but there are others. There's the case of a very vocal minority that come out in support of terrorist organizations like Hamas, that are also doing the party no favors.  But in the name of "inclusiveness" the Democrats have backed themselves into a corner where they sometimes get stuck defending such views and behaviors, which not only makes them easy targets for Republicans but also alienates plenty of people that might otherwise agree with or be sympathetic to the party platform.


Just some of my thoughts on what's happened, as an outside observer that socially leans more left than right.