Red Mosquito

The ‘basement strategy’ is working for Democrats

Hobbs embraced the same strategy that served Joe Biden as a candidate and continues to serve him as president: almost entirely avoiding the media, shunning any interviewer who may ask a tough question and rejecting the opportunity to debate an opponent. Hobbs did all three, got some benign criticism for it and still won a razor-thin victory. 

“It’s clear that Kari Lake is much more interested in creating a spectacle and having the spotlight than actually having a substantive discussion about the issues,” Hobbs recently told NBC’s “Meet the Press” when asked why she would not debate Lake. The answer got little pushback from the moderator. 

So, imagine that: Telling voters you want to have a substantive discussion about the issues while simultaneously running from the debate stage that would facilitate such a discussion. And doing so with a straight face. Hobbs topped Lake, a Trump-backed election denier, anyway.

This is a pretty solid strategy. Accept and exploit the partisan divide because when 35-40% of voters will vote for you based solely on the color of your stripes, you don't need to campaign or debate or do anything that might cost you the election, you just need to ensure your ground game is on point so they vote early so they can't change their mind later. If they red team doesn't get on board with this they will never win again.

Bi_3 wrote:The ‘basement strategy’ is working for Democrats

Hobbs embraced the same strategy that served Joe Biden as a candidate and continues to serve him as president: almost entirely avoiding the media, shunning any interviewer who may ask a tough question and rejecting the opportunity to debate an opponent. Hobbs did all three, got some benign criticism for it and still won a razor-thin victory. 

“It’s clear that Kari Lake is much more interested in creating a spectacle and having the spotlight than actually having a substantive discussion about the issues,” Hobbs recently told NBC’s “Meet the Press” when asked why she would not debate Lake. The answer got little pushback from the moderator. 

So, imagine that: Telling voters you want to have a substantive discussion about the issues while simultaneously running from the debate stage that would facilitate such a discussion. And doing so with a straight face. Hobbs topped Lake, a Trump-backed election denier, anyway.

This is a pretty solid strategy. Accept and exploit the partisan divide because when 35-40% of voters will vote for you based solely on the color of your stripes, you don't need to campaign or debate or do anything that might cost you the election, you just need to ensure your ground game is on point so they vote early so they can't change their mind later. If they red team doesn't get on board with this they will never win again.

isnt this already true for both parties?

Does a modern debate actually "facilitate substantive discussion about the issues?". I'd say "fuck, no."

that time when trump walked up behind hillary all close was sort of like substantive discussion

warehouse wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:The ‘basement strategy’ is working for Democrats

Hobbs embraced the same strategy that served Joe Biden as a candidate and continues to serve him as president: almost entirely avoiding the media, shunning any interviewer who may ask a tough question and rejecting the opportunity to debate an opponent. Hobbs did all three, got some benign criticism for it and still won a razor-thin victory. 

“It’s clear that Kari Lake is much more interested in creating a spectacle and having the spotlight than actually having a substantive discussion about the issues,” Hobbs recently told NBC’s “Meet the Press” when asked why she would not debate Lake. The answer got little pushback from the moderator. 

So, imagine that: Telling voters you want to have a substantive discussion about the issues while simultaneously running from the debate stage that would facilitate such a discussion. And doing so with a straight face. Hobbs topped Lake, a Trump-backed election denier, anyway.

This is a pretty solid strategy. Accept and exploit the partisan divide because when 35-40% of voters will vote for you based solely on the color of your stripes, you don't need to campaign or debate or do anything that might cost you the election, you just need to ensure your ground game is on point so they vote early so they can't change their mind later. If they red team doesn't get on board with this they will never win again.

isnt this already true for both parties?

100% yes, but only the blue team is smart enough to understand the implications and use them to win. For now.

warehouse wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:The ‘basement strategy’ is working for Democrats

Hobbs embraced the same strategy that served Joe Biden as a candidate and continues to serve him as president: almost entirely avoiding the media, shunning any interviewer who may ask a tough question and rejecting the opportunity to debate an opponent. Hobbs did all three, got some benign criticism for it and still won a razor-thin victory. 

“It’s clear that Kari Lake is much more interested in creating a spectacle and having the spotlight than actually having a substantive discussion about the issues,” Hobbs recently told NBC’s “Meet the Press” when asked why she would not debate Lake. The answer got little pushback from the moderator. 

So, imagine that: Telling voters you want to have a substantive discussion about the issues while simultaneously running from the debate stage that would facilitate such a discussion. And doing so with a straight face. Hobbs topped Lake, a Trump-backed election denier, anyway.

This is a pretty solid strategy. Accept and exploit the partisan divide because when 35-40% of voters will vote for you based solely on the color of your stripes, you don't need to campaign or debate or do anything that might cost you the election, you just need to ensure your ground game is on point so they vote early so they can't change their mind later. If they red team doesn't get on board with this they will never win again.

isnt this already true for both parties?

In Iowa, Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds, U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley and U.S. Reps. Randy Feenstra, Ashley Hinson and Mariannette Miller-Meeks skipped the Des Moines Register event, which takes place at the state fair. Feenstra never attended a single debate, and Kim Reynolds refused invitations, eventually agreeing to a single last minute debate in mid-October.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine refused to debate Republican challengers in the primary and went on to refuse to debate his Democratic challenger, former Dayton mayor Nan Whaley.

In Nebraska, GOP governor candidate Jim Pillen never agreed to or attended a single debate.

Indiana Secretary of State nominee Diego Morales, 2nd Congressional District nominee Rudy Yakym and U.S. Rep. Jim Banks all refused to debate. All five Republican invitees decided not to attend the premier debate event for statewide races.

In North Carolina, Ted Budd skipped the Republican primary debates for no reason other than he was ahead in the polls.

In Florida, House candidate Anna Paulina Luna refused to debate her Democratic opponent. So did Cory Mills.

Kristi Noem, Herschel Walker, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio all skipped more debates than they attended, this year.

So yes. This is a trend affecting both parties.

18 to 1. Equally affects Republicans and Democrats.


Democrats are evil geniuses.

Just examples. Not a comprehensive list. An illustrative one.

Literally no one was saying that the red team didn't also do it and that wasn't even what warehouse's question was about. But congrats on your continued undefeated streak against that shampoo bottle in the shower.

Is refusing to participate in debates when you're leading the new version of analytics in baseball?

Bi_3 wrote:Literally no one was saying that the red team didn't also do it and that wasn't even what warehouse's question was about. But congrats on your continued undefeated streak against that shampoo bottle in the shower.

Is that some new, beltline way of pointing out a strawman argument?

warehouse: isn't this true of both parties?
Bi: 100% yes.
B: 9UP just gave 18 Republican examples to your 1 Democratic example.

Is it really a strawman to question your implication that both parties equally shuff off debates?

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Literally no one was saying that the red team didn't also do it and that wasn't even what warehouse's question was about. But congrats on your continued undefeated streak against that shampoo bottle in the shower.

Is that some new, beltline way of pointing out a strawman argument?

warehouse: isn't this true of both parties?
Bi: 100% yes.
B: 9UP just gave 18 Republican examples to your 1 Democratic example.

Is it really a strawman to question your implication that both parties equally shuff off debates?

He bolded the part of the text he was referring to.

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Literally no one was saying that the red team didn't also do it and that wasn't even what warehouse's question was about. But congrats on your continued undefeated streak against that shampoo bottle in the shower.

Is that some new, beltline way of pointing out a strawman argument?

warehouse: isn't this true of both parties?
Bi: 100% yes.
B: 9UP just gave 18 Republican examples to your 1 Democratic example.

Is it really a strawman to question your implication that both parties equally shuff off debates?

He bolded the part of the text he was referring to.

Then my apologies to you, good sir.