Author | Lightnews

Guachi

Guachi

@guachi.bsky.social

1.1K followers 260 following 7.6K posts

I like cycling and US policy/public policy. It's great because there is zero overlap and makes for a very interesting feed. Great to see so many of you move here from Twitter! Keep Bluesky great.

Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 3h

Jeffries is such an atrocious communicator. It really is embarrassing.

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 3h

I think the people recommending this course of action don't really care too much about the Democratic party brand.

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 6h

At least, I assume Nichols would support anti-SSM candidates as it really is the same logic and same support levels we are talking about as with abortion rights, which have been consistently around 60% for decades.

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 6h

Actual abortion restricting candidates. He thinks they were forced out of the party rather than retired/voted out in the general.

The "accept pro-life candidates" logic applies equally to SSM but no one seriously suggests Ds should run SSM opponents, except Nichols but he's being a clown about it.

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 6h

"If a drug costs $100 and you reduce its price by 500%, what's its new price?"

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 7h

Why was a non-profit administering the program?

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 7h

As a bike racing fan it was so obnoxious for people (either side) who knew nothing about the sport to suddenly care about women's pro cycling. Name one female pro cyclist. One!

"Don't rise to the bait on sports" is great advice.

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 7h

It makes as much sense running against SSM as it does abortion rights as both have similar approval ratings. And abortion rights have been at around 60% for decades.

If Tom thinks Ds should accept pro-life candidates then he should accept anti-SSM candidates for the same reason.

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 7h

You keep missing the point. Repeatedly. Nichols says Ds should accept some pro-life candidates when abortion rights have ~60% approval.

Gay rights *also* have ~60% approval now. Why wouldn't the same logic apply to accepting anti-gay marriage candidates?

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 8h

Surely, there must be *some* district where being anti-gay marriage is a "good fit for the district". Which districts do you think those are?

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 8h

Yes, he is or he never, ever would have replied to a post about running against gay marriage *now*. The post never mentioned Obama or 2008 at all, but Nichols brought up both on his own volition.

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 8h

Gay marriage had 35% approval in 2008. It has 65% approval now. What Obama did in 2008 regarding gay marriage has no actual relevance to what Democrats should do now on gay marriage.

Do you think Ds should run against gay marriage in 2025?

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 8h

Then Nichols is wrong and being pro-life or pro-choice was irrelevant. The D was going to lose either way.

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 8h

Gay marriage in 2008 had an approval of about 35%. It's now about 65%. It's not even the same universe.

Exactly which districts in the US in 2025 should Ds run anti-gay marriage candidates?

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 8h

Of course 2008 was nearly two decades ago. But Nichols is the one who brought 2008 up in direct response to running anti-gay marriage candidates in 2025. You may not think 2008 has any relevance to today but Nichols sure does.

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 8h

Nichols thinks that Ds should run "pro-life" candidates when abortion rights have ~60% approval nationwide. Why wouldn't he also Ds should run anti-gay marriage candidates when its at the same approval rating? It's the exact same logic.

When asked he approvingly cited Obama's stance in 2008.

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 8h

"Pro-life" Democrats ran in the South and got slaughtered. Being "pro-life" didn't save them and it wasn't D voters that drove them out. It was Republicans.

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 8h

That is a summary of the exact sequence of posts that got us to where we are.

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 8h

Nichols: Ds should have run "pro-life" candidates when abortion had a 60% nationwide approval.

Reply: Then should Ds run anti-gay marriage candidates today when gay marriage has 60% approval nationwide?

Nichols: Obama ran against gay marriage in 2008!

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 8h

No. They didn't. When abortion rights were on the ballot as a standalone measure they won. It's just that abortion rights aren't a big enough mover of votes to the D column to be meaningful in general elections. It's why Ds running "pro-life" candidates doesn't matter and rarely ever did.

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 8h

He has to be saying that or he wouldn't have replied to a post specifically talking about now. If Ds should've had pro-life candidates in the past when abortion rights had 60% approval then he must saying they should have pro-life candidates in 2025 with 60% approval. Same with anti-gay marriage.

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 8h

The electorate agrees with Ds on abortion rights and gay marriage in 2025. (about 60%). The electorate has been in favor of legal abortion rights for decades and decades. Abortion rights won in Kansas(!) of all places.

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 8h

Gay marriage and abortion have roughly the same approval in 2025. Nichols thinks Ds should run "pro-life" candidates. When the idea of Ds running anti-gay marriage candidates in 2025 is raised he brings up Obama's stance from 17 years ago.

It is a terrible argument.

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 8h

Nichols is saying times haven't changed or he wouldn't have brought up Obama's stance on gay marriage in 2008 as relevant to the electoral politics of gay marriage in 2025.

Guachi @guachi.bsky.social · 8h

But, rather than address gay marriage support NOW he brought up Obama in 2008, which is completely irrelevant to electoral politics in 2025. Should Ds accept anti-gay marriage candidates in 2025?