Literally the only thing I said is that its getting increasingly out of date because establishment candidates, in the 11 years since the Bernie campaign, have become aware of how insurgent campaigns organize, and have adjusted accordingly.
Then I provided an example of exactly that happening in a recent race.
You can just engage with the point, but instead you chose to masturbate.
That’s an ongoing issue that’s addressed in detail and mitigated in the documentary.
Also the number of non voters means there is plenty of opportunity for grass roots campaigns to outreach the outreach of incumbents. The notion that incumbents being prepared for challengers makes primarying them impossible is a non sequitur.
No you didn’t. Put the fuck up or shut the fuck up.
That’s an ongoing issue that’s addressed in detail and mitigated in the documentary.
Then why are insurgent campaigns not winning across the board? They’re by and large ALL following variations of the exact playbook outlined in the documentary (which is based largely on the Bernie Blueprint, a document we made after the 2016 primary, where we meticulously documented everything that made the campaign work)
What is it they failed to do? Why aren’t we always getting the “right results” if insurgent campaigns are (and they by and large are) doing what the documentary identifies as appropriate strategy?
Its because the environment has shifted as a result of the establishment recognizing their vulnerabilities. And thats not to say all of it isn’t working, but as a result of the success of insurgent campaigns, establishment campaigns are changing how they operate as well.
Also the number of non voters means there is plenty of opportunity for grass roots campaigns to outreach the outreach of incumbents. The notion that incumbents being prepared for challengers makes primarying them impossible is a non sequitur.
I never said it was impossible, but because of the successes of campaigns like Bernies, AOC, Talib, Omar, Bush, Bowman, and I could go on, because of the success of those campaigns, incumbents recognize the need to change their approaches. And some of those same campaigns, they just lost back in '24 (Bush, Bowman). And, I’m sorry to say, the lost because establishment strategists have had the time to analyze how grassroots campaigns work, and have adjusted accordingly.
Campaigning and campaign strategy is in an arms race, and yes, the suite of 2018 candidates made huge advances on the grassroots side, but the basic outline is hardly a panacea. And if you aren’t constantly updating your strategies and also adapting and localizing those strategies to a particular district, you’re gonna get smoked. You could not run AOC’s 2018 campaign today and expect the same outcome. You need to adapt to the moment.
Also the number of non voters means there is plenty of opportunity for grass roots campaigns to outreach the outreach of incumbents.
Are you suggesting that if a grassroots campaign doesn’t win its because they didn’t do enough outreach? Why don’t you try and be more precise here? You talk like someone who has never been on a campaign, but you said you have, so what campaigns were you a part of?
Bruh no one is “crashing out”, you just wont engage with the fact that the world has changed since 2018. Which you could just acknowledge, but for some reason you’ve decided a documentary made to inspire highschoolers and to convince NPR liberals they know more than they do is the high watermark for political campaign strategy.
Like, you genuinely have to address the issue that, by and large, all insurgent campaigns since Bernies initially run have… pretty much entirely adopted the political calculus which the documentary outlines. But in 2026 thats not enough. Establishment candidates know you’ll be using those strategies, and they have built up tools and strategies to try and counter those strategies. If you don’t update, you lose.
There are not answers to those question in the documentary, because when it was being made, those candidates didn’t face the same battles current candidates do. And current candidates face these challenges, in part, because of the success of candidates like AOC, Talib, Omar. The environment is fundamentally different.
1: 10 mil was the early estimate. AIPAC spent 31 mil to stop the progressive.
Editing in some more detail… because this is fun and its fun to run dunks, but its also good to prep for more competent opponents than you.
I don’t believe that you watched it based on what you say about it. Sorry.
Literally the only thing I said is that its getting increasingly out of date because establishment candidates, in the 11 years since the Bernie campaign, have become aware of how insurgent campaigns organize, and have adjusted accordingly.
Then I provided an example of exactly that happening in a recent race.
You can just engage with the point, but instead you chose to masturbate.
I already refuted that point x2
That’s an ongoing issue that’s addressed in detail and mitigated in the documentary.
Also the number of non voters means there is plenty of opportunity for grass roots campaigns to outreach the outreach of incumbents. The notion that incumbents being prepared for challengers makes primarying them impossible is a non sequitur.
No you didn’t. Put the fuck up or shut the fuck up.
Then why are insurgent campaigns not winning across the board? They’re by and large ALL following variations of the exact playbook outlined in the documentary (which is based largely on the Bernie Blueprint, a document we made after the 2016 primary, where we meticulously documented everything that made the campaign work)
What is it they failed to do? Why aren’t we always getting the “right results” if insurgent campaigns are (and they by and large are) doing what the documentary identifies as appropriate strategy?
Its because the environment has shifted as a result of the establishment recognizing their vulnerabilities. And thats not to say all of it isn’t working, but as a result of the success of insurgent campaigns, establishment campaigns are changing how they operate as well.
I never said it was impossible, but because of the successes of campaigns like Bernies, AOC, Talib, Omar, Bush, Bowman, and I could go on, because of the success of those campaigns, incumbents recognize the need to change their approaches. And some of those same campaigns, they just lost back in '24 (Bush, Bowman). And, I’m sorry to say, the lost because establishment strategists have had the time to analyze how grassroots campaigns work, and have adjusted accordingly.
Campaigning and campaign strategy is in an arms race, and yes, the suite of 2018 candidates made huge advances on the grassroots side, but the basic outline is hardly a panacea. And if you aren’t constantly updating your strategies and also adapting and localizing those strategies to a particular district, you’re gonna get smoked. You could not run AOC’s 2018 campaign today and expect the same outcome. You need to adapt to the moment.
Are you suggesting that if a grassroots campaign doesn’t win its because they didn’t do enough outreach? Why don’t you try and be more precise here? You talk like someone who has never been on a campaign, but you said you have, so what campaigns were you a part of?
Bro you’re crashing out cuz I’m telling you to watch a documentary.
Also leading with a logical fallacy doesn’t incentivize me to read your rant.
Bruh no one is “crashing out”, you just wont engage with the fact that the world has changed since 2018. Which you could just acknowledge, but for some reason you’ve decided a documentary made to inspire highschoolers and to convince NPR liberals they know more than they do is the high watermark for political campaign strategy.
Like, you genuinely have to address the issue that, by and large, all insurgent campaigns since Bernies initially run have… pretty much entirely adopted the political calculus which the documentary outlines. But in 2026 thats not enough. Establishment candidates know you’ll be using those strategies, and they have built up tools and strategies to try and counter those strategies. If you don’t update, you lose.
65.3 % of americans voted in 2024.
I think previously you were… something something non-sequiters?
Whats your answer for when AIPAC helicopters in
1031mil1 in PAC money to the house race you are managing? When they start setting up shell PAC’s like Elect Chicago Women, and use it to run ads for the zionist candidates? What do you do when AIPAC shells are paying TikTokers 1500 a post to say something negative about a candidate, per post?There are not answers to those question in the documentary, because when it was being made, those candidates didn’t face the same battles current candidates do. And current candidates face these challenges, in part, because of the success of candidates like AOC, Talib, Omar. The environment is fundamentally different.
1: 10 mil was the early estimate. AIPAC spent 31 mil to stop the progressive.
Editing in some more detail… because this is fun and its fun to run dunks, but its also good to prep for more competent opponents than you.
In 2018, AOC raised 600k from small dollar donors to fund her campaign. She left the campaign with 370k banked. In Kat Abughazaleh’s recent race (which she lost), she raised nearly 3.5 million from the same class and size of donation as AOC.