It’s possible to tell the DNC to reach across the aisle, while acknowledging that they’re still the better of the two current options even if they don’t.
We have a phrase for when enforcing your demands hurts you the most: cutting off your nose to spite your face. Letting the actual fascists win hurts us more than the people you’re trying to strong-arm.
you want to get progressive action done? your primary goal is changing the democrats. you want to change the democrats away from neo liberalsm? you need leverage. you want leverage? the only leverage anyone has is their vote. but its not leverage if you don’t actually make your vote conditional.
“comon, just one more right wing candidate, just one more republican created bill” forever and forever until the end of time.
Again, that strategy hurts you more than it leverages them. It’s like burning down your house because it’s the only leverage you have over your mortgage lender: they lose one asset in their portfolio of thousands(which will be largely reimbursed by insurance anyway), you become homeless.
except that argument is at the same time, ‘progressives not having confidence in their chosen candidate cost democrats the election’, so no it’s not a single person choosing not to vote, it’s a critical mass choosing not to vote.
this was not a surprise, this was a calculated move on their part that they could bilk one more price of shit canidate, under the vote blue no matter who mantra,
also you sacrifice the future for stability now. i see that as the same greed that dammed us to this position by the previous generation. you argue for the continuation of the forever ratchet rightward, and yet we are in a position where the government is talking about selectively honoring people’s rights.
i would also like to point out that you are currently arguing against people conditionally withholding their vote… 2.5 years from a main election, in which the democratic party is preparing Gavin Newsome as their presidential front runner….
if there was ever a time you SHOULD be arguing with me instead of against me it’s right now. unless you want to wait until after the primary? in which i am guessing you would proudly spout “vote blue no matter who”
And Gavin Newsom, while terrible in his own way, will certainly be objectively better on every metric than whoever the GOP puts up. Now that I did not say good, I said better. Still bad, just lesser evil.
The potential for maybe good tomorrow is not worth the suffering that the GOP is causing today. I will not sacrifice LGBT, immigrants, and protesters for that high risk gamble.
If we don’t have a progressive with the support to win, then damn right I’m voting blue-no-matter-who. Vote in your primaries, and maybe blue will be someone I feel good voting for, instead of begrudgingly for damage control. But whoever it is, it’s better than fascism.
You’re arguing for bad, counterproductive strategy. If you’re dissatisfied with the DNC, tell them, not me. I don’t set DNC policy.
It’s possible to tell the DNC to reach across the aisle, while acknowledging that they’re still the better of the two current options even if they don’t.
We have a phrase for when enforcing your demands hurts you the most: cutting off your nose to spite your face. Letting the actual fascists win hurts us more than the people you’re trying to strong-arm.
you want to get progressive action done? your primary goal is changing the democrats. you want to change the democrats away from neo liberalsm? you need leverage. you want leverage? the only leverage anyone has is their vote. but its not leverage if you don’t actually make your vote conditional.
“comon, just one more right wing candidate, just one more republican created bill” forever and forever until the end of time.
Again, that strategy hurts you more than it leverages them. It’s like burning down your house because it’s the only leverage you have over your mortgage lender: they lose one asset in their portfolio of thousands(which will be largely reimbursed by insurance anyway), you become homeless.
The way to leverage your vote is in the primary.
except that argument is at the same time, ‘progressives not having confidence in their chosen candidate cost democrats the election’, so no it’s not a single person choosing not to vote, it’s a critical mass choosing not to vote.
this was not a surprise, this was a calculated move on their part that they could bilk one more price of shit canidate, under the vote blue no matter who mantra,
also you sacrifice the future for stability now. i see that as the same greed that dammed us to this position by the previous generation. you argue for the continuation of the forever ratchet rightward, and yet we are in a position where the government is talking about selectively honoring people’s rights.
i would also like to point out that you are currently arguing against people conditionally withholding their vote… 2.5 years from a main election, in which the democratic party is preparing Gavin Newsome as their presidential front runner….
if there was ever a time you SHOULD be arguing with me instead of against me it’s right now. unless you want to wait until after the primary? in which i am guessing you would proudly spout “vote blue no matter who”
And Gavin Newsom, while terrible in his own way, will certainly be objectively better on every metric than whoever the GOP puts up. Now that I did not say good, I said better. Still bad, just lesser evil.
The potential for maybe good tomorrow is not worth the suffering that the GOP is causing today. I will not sacrifice LGBT, immigrants, and protesters for that high risk gamble.
If we don’t have a progressive with the support to win, then damn right I’m voting blue-no-matter-who. Vote in your primaries, and maybe blue will be someone I feel good voting for, instead of begrudgingly for damage control. But whoever it is, it’s better than fascism.
You’re arguing for bad, counterproductive strategy. If you’re dissatisfied with the DNC, tell them, not me. I don’t set DNC policy.