After yesterday, it's pretty obvious Castro should've been picked.
That might well have been the difference of 210,000 votes...the other secret number that would've flipped Arizona and held Florida, regardless of the Midwest.
I've always found your insistence that the Democratic Party pursue a direction that would seemingly go in the opposite of your preferred politics interesting.
Four things
1. I'm a pragmatist at heart, even if I don't see 95% of what the Democratic Party establishment and outlets like MSNBC considers "pragmatic" to be such.
2. I'm not above playing the devil's advocate once in awhile, and given what the normal, non IceSpear position of tactics seems to be, that is the DA position amongst the red-avvies.
3. I saw how the midterms went, where the gains and losses were, which didn't seem rooted in support/backlash against a candidates acting like a Democrat [Humphrey/LBJ/Sanders/Edwin Edwards] or a DINO [the general median since 1978 or so] exclusively, and that leads me to believe that perhaps that path isn't so opposite necessarily.
4. While I would've preferred Warren or Sanders, I recognize that the campaign thought trying to outdo Trump would come up something short and they thought a Silent Majority sort of strategy would've been better. Given how big immigration was as an issue, given the need for someone young and noncontroversial, and given the need to find someone that could really move turnout, I recognize that Castro wouldn't have bad.
