Imagine relentlessly defending attempts to appeal to red states and conservatives as a viable electoral strategy, and then refer to Sanders support on this map as ‘empty land’.
/u/ZombiFrancis can correct me if I’m wrong but I think what they’re saying is that the DNC was unable to redefine what is perceived as electable; tha tis, the stale notion that progressivism is not palatable to rural working class voters despite evidence to the contrary. Instead, we fall for the same old trope of watering down OUR vision and OUR policy platform that we KNOW must be done (e.g., climate change as just one), and end up just looking bland to these voters. We don’t stand for anything, except for the progressive caucus of this party.
So in short, we need a 50 state strategy; but a national vision that brings that all together and is adapted to modern times. Not this incessant pivot to the “center” that is arbitrarily defined by Republican lines in the sand.
It was a conversation from a year ago, so without context I believe I was speaking then about a viable strategy that worked: bringing a left wing policy (at the time healthcare reform) to the conservatives and red states.
The Democratic Party abandoned that strategy since. They still made overtures to appeal to conservatives and red states, but they’ve done it through adopting rightwing, divisive policies. And then they don’t even run a US Senate race is Nebraska.
/u/ZombiFrancis can correct me if I’m wrong but I think what they’re saying is that the DNC was unable to redefine what is perceived as electable;
That would contradict their statements in response to my criticism
And yeah, I still support my own point, now and from a year ago, because I don’t dismiss the support as empty land.
At any rate the criticism in both cases is the rejection of those ‘empty land’ folks. It is consistent. I supported it then and I support it now. What I don’t support is then turning around and dismissing those people and states as empty land. This isn’t rocket surgery.
the stale notion that progressivism is not palatable to rural working class voters despite evidence to the contrary.
It’s literally not, though. As I’ve said numerous times before, the “Do you want [GOOD THING]?” polling that people so often point to ignores that a very large proportion of the people who respond positively to that will walk it back the moment you introduce any sort of the things that conservatives hammer as a downside.
The answer is, mind you, not to water down progressivism - it’s to stop trying to fucking bend over backwards for areas that vote 95%+ (not joking, I lived near districts with those numbers) GOP every fucking election. While going immediately full-throttle far-left on every issue may not be ideal, Clintonesque ‘triangulation’ is a clear and distinct failure, and needs to be abandoned, despite the DNC’s reluctance to let it go. We do, as you said, need a coherent and firm vision we can push going forward.
But don’t be fooled into thinking there’s some easy way to reach out and ‘convert’ these rural working class voters. They have fundamentally different values than progressives.
Finish the sentence and close the loop: “and then refer to Sanders support as ‘empty land.’” The comment makes sense as a complete thought. By cutting out the conclusion you definitely make it confusing.
…and did you just go through a years worth of my post history for a screenshot? I know you go through and downvote my post history, but man.
And yeah, I still support my own point, now and from a year ago, because I don’t dismiss the support as empty land.
Finish the sentence and close the loop: “and then refer to Sanders support as ‘empty land.’” The comment makes sense as a complete thought. By cutting out the conclusion you definitely make it confusing.
The clear implication is that your dreaded shitlib opposition is advocating the 50-state strategy when dismissing Sanders. Yet your criticism elsewhere is that your dreaded shitlib opposition is NOT advocating the 50-state strategy.
I’m sorry that you don’t like being called out for kettle logic?
…and did you just go through a years worth of my post history for a screenshot? I know you go through and downvote my post history, but man.
lmao. Lemmy has a search option. All I had to do was type in ‘50 state’ by user ZombiFrancis, since I vaguely remembered you simping for the 50 state strategy before. Sorry that you’re on record?
I’m flattered that you think I can read tens-of-thousands of words of your comment history inside ten minutes, but I promise, I read fast, but not that fast.
At any rate the criticism in both cases is the rejection of those ‘empty land’ folks. It is consistent. I supported it then and I support it now. What I don’t support is then turning around and dismissing those people and states as empty land. This isn’t rocket surgery.
I think you don’t understand what I initially said in this thread here, and have taken that personally.
At any rate the criticism in both cases is the rejection of those ‘empty land’ folks. It is consistent. I supported it then and I support it now. What I don’t support is then turning around and dismissing those people and states as empty land. This isn’t rocket surgery.
No, it’s not rocket surgery, yet you literally just restated the contradictory position without a hint of self-awareness. In one case, you acknowledge (and condemn) that your dreaded shitlib opposition aren’t working off the 50-state strategy; in this case, you pretend that your dreaded shitlib opposition are working off the 50-state strategy so you have an excuse to call them hypocrites.
They, by your own description, are not ‘turning around’ and dismissing those folks, because by your own description, they don’t support the 50-state strategy to begin with. But wouldn’t it be awful if you had to argue your points on the actual merits instead of accusing your enemies of being hypocrites as a replacement for putting in any sort of thought or substance to your usual reflexively reactionary takes?
I think you don’t understand what I initially said in this thread here, and have taken that personally.
Considering that I’m the one in this thread who’s objected to the map’s misleading nature by pointing out that most of it is empty land?
Your attempts at plausible deniability are, uh, not very plausible. Nor is your usual extensive intellectual disingenuity impressive.
Looks more like that comment is supporting Dean’s strategy of flipping purple states, not deep red ones.
But I’m here less to disagree than I am to witness in awe how you dived into that user’s history to dredge up something they said a full year ago, within 3 minutes of them posting their comment. I’m going to be very nice to you cause you fumkin scary lol
Lemmy has a search-by-user option. If you know political terms, it doesn’t take long to dig up someone’s opinions. Doubly so if you’ve had run-ins with them in the past and have a vague outline of their beliefs.
Looks more like that comment is supporting Dean’s strategy of flipping purple states, not deep red ones.
That’s the opposite of what the 50-state strategy is, though. Trying to flip purple states is standard practice. You literally can’t win a presidential election without it.
Imagine relentlessly defending attempts to appeal to red states and conservatives as a viable electoral strategy, and then refer to Sanders support on this map as ‘empty land’.
Isn’t focusing on liberal and swing states exactly what you criticize the DNC for?
In fact, here’s you explicitly praising the 50-state strategy.
So you’re… imagining yourself?
/u/ZombiFrancis can correct me if I’m wrong but I think what they’re saying is that the DNC was unable to redefine what is perceived as electable; tha tis, the stale notion that progressivism is not palatable to rural working class voters despite evidence to the contrary. Instead, we fall for the same old trope of watering down OUR vision and OUR policy platform that we KNOW must be done (e.g., climate change as just one), and end up just looking bland to these voters. We don’t stand for anything, except for the progressive caucus of this party.
So in short, we need a 50 state strategy; but a national vision that brings that all together and is adapted to modern times. Not this incessant pivot to the “center” that is arbitrarily defined by Republican lines in the sand.
It was a conversation from a year ago, so without context I believe I was speaking then about a viable strategy that worked: bringing a left wing policy (at the time healthcare reform) to the conservatives and red states.
The Democratic Party abandoned that strategy since. They still made overtures to appeal to conservatives and red states, but they’ve done it through adopting rightwing, divisive policies. And then they don’t even run a US Senate race is Nebraska.
That would contradict their statements in response to my criticism
It’s literally not, though. As I’ve said numerous times before, the “Do you want [GOOD THING]?” polling that people so often point to ignores that a very large proportion of the people who respond positively to that will walk it back the moment you introduce any sort of the things that conservatives hammer as a downside.
The answer is, mind you, not to water down progressivism - it’s to stop trying to fucking bend over backwards for areas that vote 95%+ (not joking, I lived near districts with those numbers) GOP every fucking election. While going immediately full-throttle far-left on every issue may not be ideal, Clintonesque ‘triangulation’ is a clear and distinct failure, and needs to be abandoned, despite the DNC’s reluctance to let it go. We do, as you said, need a coherent and firm vision we can push going forward.
But don’t be fooled into thinking there’s some easy way to reach out and ‘convert’ these rural working class voters. They have fundamentally different values than progressives.
Finish the sentence and close the loop: “and then refer to Sanders support as ‘empty land.’” The comment makes sense as a complete thought. By cutting out the conclusion you definitely make it confusing.
…and did you just go through a years worth of my post history for a screenshot? I know you go through and downvote my post history, but man.
And yeah, I still support my own point, now and from a year ago, because I don’t dismiss the support as empty land.
What was the point of that?
The clear implication is that your dreaded shitlib opposition is advocating the 50-state strategy when dismissing Sanders. Yet your criticism elsewhere is that your dreaded shitlib opposition is NOT advocating the 50-state strategy.
I’m sorry that you don’t like being called out for kettle logic?
lmao. Lemmy has a search option. All I had to do was type in ‘50 state’ by user ZombiFrancis, since I vaguely remembered you simping for the 50 state strategy before. Sorry that you’re on record?
I’m flattered that you think I can read tens-of-thousands of words of your comment history inside ten minutes, but I promise, I read fast, but not that fast.
At any rate the criticism in both cases is the rejection of those ‘empty land’ folks. It is consistent. I supported it then and I support it now. What I don’t support is then turning around and dismissing those people and states as empty land. This isn’t rocket surgery.
I think you don’t understand what I initially said in this thread here, and have taken that personally.
No, it’s not rocket surgery, yet you literally just restated the contradictory position without a hint of self-awareness. In one case, you acknowledge (and condemn) that your dreaded shitlib opposition aren’t working off the 50-state strategy; in this case, you pretend that your dreaded shitlib opposition are working off the 50-state strategy so you have an excuse to call them hypocrites.
They, by your own description, are not ‘turning around’ and dismissing those folks, because by your own description, they don’t support the 50-state strategy to begin with. But wouldn’t it be awful if you had to argue your points on the actual merits instead of accusing your enemies of being hypocrites as a replacement for putting in any sort of thought or substance to your usual reflexively reactionary takes?
Considering that I’m the one in this thread who’s objected to the map’s misleading nature by pointing out that most of it is empty land?
Your attempts at plausible deniability are, uh, not very plausible. Nor is your usual extensive intellectual disingenuity impressive.
Look, I know you’ve long ago tagged me the tankie and yourself as the chad, it’s whatever. But you need to stop calling yourself a shitlib.
Removed by mod
Ew. What rude way to talk to people.
Looks more like that comment is supporting Dean’s strategy of flipping purple states, not deep red ones.
But I’m here less to disagree than I am to witness in awe how you dived into that user’s history to dredge up something they said a full year ago, within 3 minutes of them posting their comment. I’m going to be very nice to you cause you fumkin scary lol
Lemmy has a search-by-user option. If you know political terms, it doesn’t take long to dig up someone’s opinions. Doubly so if you’ve had run-ins with them in the past and have a vague outline of their beliefs.
That’s the opposite of what the 50-state strategy is, though. Trying to flip purple states is standard practice. You literally can’t win a presidential election without it.
Yeah I assumed both that you were doing some power search and that the two of you have a bit of history :P