Read on Twitter
Almost certainly wrong, but her skill at framing and public communication is impressive. People underestimate her at their peril https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1324694301234921474
Right. Issue salience>ad campaigns, digital or otherwise. Look at $ spent and you see the problems with devolving it all down to tactics. https://twitter.com/landsunseen/status/1324720813107392515
The other way to look at it is to see how most of these districts where Dems lost seats had turn out *larger* than in 2018 or 2016, on *both* sides of the aisle. They got their people out. But so did the GOP, and that is the problem.
Increased digital doesn't solve the Dem problem: the GOP was enormously effective at getting people out this election, in an election that should have been a complete route for them.
So really the question is: was the GOP just *tactically* better than the Dems, as AOC seems to suggest here? Possible, but she doesn't provide evidence for the claim. Or was there a set of issues that got an abnormal number of people *engaged*?
The fact that R Reps did better in their house elections than Trump did in the general (except, apparently, on Rio Grande Texas border, which split tickets *for* Trump) is an important signal here, IMHO.
But none of this diminishes AOC's rhetorical brilliance. She claims she's responding to TV, whereas she is actually responding to Abigail Spanberger's comments on the Democratic House Caucus Call. Rhetorical stroke of brilliance 1
Rhetorical stroke of brilliance 2 https://twitter.com/Scholars_Stage/status/1324727597448744962
There is a lot more I could mention here--from responding on twitter instead of somewhere else, to the tone of the report, to focusing on the canvassing of Squad allies in safe seats--but it is all brilliant.
I have incredible respect for AOC's mastery of the art. I don't think there is a better politician in America at it, to be honest.
