Undecided voters are who will determine whether Talarico or Paxton becomes senator. While Talarico has had an impressive fundraising operation, it is no match for the hundreds of millions out-of-state Republicans are funneling into the race. The next best thing to matching that level of fundraising is a continuous stream of widely-distributed reports documenting Paxton’s corruption.
You can’t underestimate the people who will choose not to vote.
The race is so close that the Republicans that are fed up with the bullshit Maga - hats are pulling are likely to stay home.
Not a huge percentage, but enough to make a difference and those ads help support that. I just think the ads suck. They are so cut and paste, that they may as well be fake
Weʻre in the time period where money basically doesnʻt matter any more. And no, its not undecideds who will determine who is Senator, its turnout. Preference doesnʻt determine elections, and hasnʻt since the year 2000. Only turnout determines elections. So since you failed to answer the question: *Who is this headline engineered to operate on? What is its purpose?"
While I assume that most readers of this article will already have been convinced Talarico voters, its potential impact is moreso preventing Paxton votes than enticing Talarico votes.
Focusing on turnout alone assumes that if all eligible voters voted that the less conservative candidate would win, something that cannot be assured for Republican strongholds in the South and Midwest. Increasing turnout without convincing voters of who will best serve their interests in the Senate will just mean that many of the undecided voters overwhelmed by a deluge of anti-‘socialist’ propaganda (for candidates who aren’t socialist to begin with) will vote Republican merely because they are lied into believing that even the most conservative Democrat wants to turn the U.S. into Cuba. While the lifelong impact of anti-socialist propaganda is difficult to counteract, demonstrating that candidates like Paxton are corrupt and untrustworthy can at the very least prevent Republican votes, if not encourage votes for Democrats like Talarico.
A mixture of ‘push’ (to dissuade Republican voters) and ‘pull’ (to entice Democratic voters) strategies will be necessary to win the Senate seats in Texas, Kansas, Iowa, Michigan, Alaska, and Maine and secure a Democratic majority in the Senate (with a comfortable margin to account for traitors like Fetterman). Turnout is part of the picture, but not all of it.
As bad as it seems, every time you see a headline you ask “who is this for and who does it work on”.
If you are a ken Paxton voter in Texas last week you are a ken Paxton voter in Texas this week. This headline isn’t for Paxton voters. so who remains?
People who are going to vote Talitico, they’re postivists. People who vote on negative sentiment are already voting for Paxton. So who is left?
This headline is for liberals and coasters.
Undecided voters are who will determine whether Talarico or Paxton becomes senator. While Talarico has had an impressive fundraising operation, it is no match for the hundreds of millions out-of-state Republicans are funneling into the race. The next best thing to matching that level of fundraising is a continuous stream of widely-distributed reports documenting Paxton’s corruption.
You can’t underestimate the people who will choose not to vote.
The race is so close that the Republicans that are fed up with the bullshit Maga - hats are pulling are likely to stay home.
Not a huge percentage, but enough to make a difference and those ads help support that. I just think the ads suck. They are so cut and paste, that they may as well be fake
Weʻre in the time period where money basically doesnʻt matter any more. And no, its not undecideds who will determine who is Senator, its turnout. Preference doesnʻt determine elections, and hasnʻt since the year 2000. Only turnout determines elections. So since you failed to answer the question: *Who is this headline engineered to operate on? What is its purpose?"
While I assume that most readers of this article will already have been convinced Talarico voters, its potential impact is moreso preventing Paxton votes than enticing Talarico votes.
Focusing on turnout alone assumes that if all eligible voters voted that the less conservative candidate would win, something that cannot be assured for Republican strongholds in the South and Midwest. Increasing turnout without convincing voters of who will best serve their interests in the Senate will just mean that many of the undecided voters overwhelmed by a deluge of anti-‘socialist’ propaganda (for candidates who aren’t socialist to begin with) will vote Republican merely because they are lied into believing that even the most conservative Democrat wants to turn the U.S. into Cuba. While the lifelong impact of anti-socialist propaganda is difficult to counteract, demonstrating that candidates like Paxton are corrupt and untrustworthy can at the very least prevent Republican votes, if not encourage votes for Democrats like Talarico.
A mixture of ‘push’ (to dissuade Republican voters) and ‘pull’ (to entice Democratic voters) strategies will be necessary to win the Senate seats in Texas, Kansas, Iowa, Michigan, Alaska, and Maine and secure a Democratic majority in the Senate (with a comfortable margin to account for traitors like Fetterman). Turnout is part of the picture, but not all of it.