There are no mental gymnastics, and unless you’ve been absent in the debate since it began in 2023, it’s been one conversation regarding the direction of the Democratic party, with effectively two camps.
The first camp, effectively taking the party line and acting as cheerleaders of the DNC, have taken a “No critisism of the Democratic Party is acceptable; voters need to move to the positions of the DNC” approach.
The second camp took a “The DNC needs to be better and acknowledge it’s shortcomings, and make changes when necessary. The DNC needs to align itself with DNC voters and the party base.”
The first camp, for the first 8 months of 2024, insisted we had to run Joe Biden. That there were no other possibilities, options, or potential outcomes. They defended the approach the DNC took to the primary process, which was by any measure, the least democratic primary they party had ever held.
The second camp raged at the preposterous farce which was the DNC primary. They pointed out that Bidens poll numbers were so bad he basically had no chance of winning. That by insisting on this losing strategy we were losing critical time.
Bans were made, here, regarding this debate. And the first camp was wrong. There was another way possible.
After the candidates were swapped the first camp further insured that people just needed to move to where the DNC was, after taking effectively a pro genocide, Republican lite campaign philosophy as an outcome of the convention.
The second camp pointed out that this would lose the DNC the election, that we needed our focus to be on moving the candidate to a more popular, more electable position.
The first camp won the argument and lost us all the war, because their fundamental belief in what is being argued and whom they are arguing with is wrong. The first camp is responsible for the millions of votes difference between Kamala and Biden, because they insisted on this losing strategy.
I’m sure the first camp exists, but you should not imply that everyone who voted Democrat and wanted people to vote Democrat was that. I did that, and I encourage everyone to criticize their horrible decisions and actions, of which there are depressingly many.
I’d love it if we pressured them to not be quite as horrible, but at the same time I did not want the Republican party to win control because I knew they’d be worse for people in almost every way. And now, as a trans person, I have to worry about what I won’t be allowed to do anymore, or how they’ll try to make my life worse just for existing. Sending a signal or whatever you think Democrats losing does does not justify the new shit minorities will face now.
Sending a signal or whatever you think Democrats losing does does not justify the new shit minorities will face now.
I just want to point out, that you are making this about me as the rhetorician, when I haven’t even weighed in with my position. Its not me you are arguing with when it comes to the application of strategy; its the millions of voters for whom them sacrificing their ideals to get a milquetoast Democrat, pro-genoicde, draconian border policy, democrat into office doesn’t work.
This is about a basic understanding of how the table is set, and no amount of willing the environment one finds themselves in changes that. Its like '16 Hillary supporters whining about winning the popular vote. The people who were out their using the argument of “strategic voting” to shield the candidates deeply unpopular positions among democratic voters did real significant harm this election cycle. If your strategy doesn’t or can’t result in a specific outcome, can we really call it strategic?
My point is that the chiding of voters for not doing the job of the candidate is a way of morally washing ones hands of a strategy that genuinely hurt the candidates ability to get elected.
That division is much, much older. The beltway is full of people who benefit from corporations or come from wealthy families and are materially aligned against the working class, and their ideology reflects this. These people as a group stand to lose more from the democrats moving to the left and hurting the bourgeoisie than winning than staying in the middle and losing.
This is a common dynamic historically; liberals in power need the people to maintain power, but their interests aren’t aligned with the people, so they pass policies that marginalize their own base of support, and so the conservatives take power and then do counterrevolution.
There are no mental gymnastics, and unless you’ve been absent in the debate since it began in 2023, it’s been one conversation regarding the direction of the Democratic party, with effectively two camps.
The first camp, effectively taking the party line and acting as cheerleaders of the DNC, have taken a “No critisism of the Democratic Party is acceptable; voters need to move to the positions of the DNC” approach.
The second camp took a “The DNC needs to be better and acknowledge it’s shortcomings, and make changes when necessary. The DNC needs to align itself with DNC voters and the party base.”
The first camp, for the first 8 months of 2024, insisted we had to run Joe Biden. That there were no other possibilities, options, or potential outcomes. They defended the approach the DNC took to the primary process, which was by any measure, the least democratic primary they party had ever held.
The second camp raged at the preposterous farce which was the DNC primary. They pointed out that Bidens poll numbers were so bad he basically had no chance of winning. That by insisting on this losing strategy we were losing critical time.
Bans were made, here, regarding this debate. And the first camp was wrong. There was another way possible.
After the candidates were swapped the first camp further insured that people just needed to move to where the DNC was, after taking effectively a pro genocide, Republican lite campaign philosophy as an outcome of the convention.
The second camp pointed out that this would lose the DNC the election, that we needed our focus to be on moving the candidate to a more popular, more electable position.
The first camp won the argument and lost us all the war, because their fundamental belief in what is being argued and whom they are arguing with is wrong. The first camp is responsible for the millions of votes difference between Kamala and Biden, because they insisted on this losing strategy.
I’m sure the first camp exists, but you should not imply that everyone who voted Democrat and wanted people to vote Democrat was that. I did that, and I encourage everyone to criticize their horrible decisions and actions, of which there are depressingly many.
I’d love it if we pressured them to not be quite as horrible, but at the same time I did not want the Republican party to win control because I knew they’d be worse for people in almost every way. And now, as a trans person, I have to worry about what I won’t be allowed to do anymore, or how they’ll try to make my life worse just for existing. Sending a signal or whatever you think Democrats losing does does not justify the new shit minorities will face now.
I just want to point out, that you are making this about me as the rhetorician, when I haven’t even weighed in with my position. Its not me you are arguing with when it comes to the application of strategy; its the millions of voters for whom them sacrificing their ideals to get a milquetoast Democrat, pro-genoicde, draconian border policy, democrat into office doesn’t work.
This is about a basic understanding of how the table is set, and no amount of willing the environment one finds themselves in changes that. Its like '16 Hillary supporters whining about winning the popular vote. The people who were out their using the argument of “strategic voting” to shield the candidates deeply unpopular positions among democratic voters did real significant harm this election cycle. If your strategy doesn’t or can’t result in a specific outcome, can we really call it strategic?
My point is that the chiding of voters for not doing the job of the candidate is a way of morally washing ones hands of a strategy that genuinely hurt the candidates ability to get elected.
Makes sense; sow further division in the groups who don’t like Trump so there’s less opposition to him.
That division is much, much older. The beltway is full of people who benefit from corporations or come from wealthy families and are materially aligned against the working class, and their ideology reflects this. These people as a group stand to lose more from the democrats moving to the left and hurting the bourgeoisie than winning than staying in the middle and losing.
This is a common dynamic historically; liberals in power need the people to maintain power, but their interests aren’t aligned with the people, so they pass policies that marginalize their own base of support, and so the conservatives take power and then do counterrevolution.