I’m saying that having depressed turnout with a group that you didn’t campaign for, and adopted policies that are antithetical towards their value, is a completely predictable outcome. Are you going to pretend you were saying the same thing when you said:
according to you, the loss was caused by progressives not being enthused enough because they weren’t pandered to.
or:
Your argument is that progressives chose to sit out and not vote over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism, because the Dem wasn’t progressive enough for them.
or:
So your argument is, then, that progressives decided that fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal?
You’re going to pretend that we were saying the same thing? And that what you were saying wasn’t entirely framed around blaming leftists for the campaign’s actions? You’re honestly going to pretend that you’re not assigning motivation and intent in your statements that I’m not making when you say progressives, “chose to sit out and not vote over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism,” and that “fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal,” you absolute joke?
I’m saying that having depressed turnout with a group that you didn’t campaign for, and adopted policies that are antithetical towards their value, is a completely predictable outcome.
So yes, you are saying that progressives didn’t turn out because they weren’t campaigned for, correct?
You’re really desperate to avoid stating your position in plain terms.
LOL, nice sidestep on the second half of that comment. Anyway, sorry if my language hasn’t been plain enough for you, but I really can’t simplify it any further. Maybe you could have a friend explain it to you, 'cause I really can’t waste anymore time on this.
You say that progressives didn’t turn out because they weren’t campaigned for.
The opposition is literal fascism.
Yet, according to you, that DOESN’T mean that progressives didn’t turn out against literal fascism because they weren’t campaigned for.
It’s like magnets repulsing each other, as soon as the two parts come near, the doublethink forces the two conclusions apart in your mind, even as you hold both of them to be true simultaneously. Fascinating.
At this point, writing is a waste of my time, so I’ll just copy-and-paste the parts of the my comments that you’re avoiding in order to maintain your narrative:
You’re going to pretend that we were saying the same thing? And that what you were saying wasn’t entirely framed around blaming leftists for the campaign’s actions? You’re honestly going to pretend that you’re not assigning motivation and intent in your statements that I’m not making when you say progressives, “chose to sit out and not vote over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism,” and that “fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal,” you absolute joke?
And by the way, if stopping, “literal fucking fascism” was so important to the Harris campaign, maybe Harris shouldn’t have waited until two weeks before election day to actually use the word, “fascism.” Seems like, if the entire pitch to progressive groups was going to be, “my policy’s don’t matter, you have to vote for me to stop fascism,” they probably should have spent some time talking about fascism!
You’re going to pretend that we were saying the same thing? And that what you were saying wasn’t entirely framed around blaming leftists for the campaign’s actions?
I didn’t realize the campaign’s actions were “Failing to cast the votes for the progressives who stayed home”, fascinating how voters have no agency.
You’re honestly going to pretend that you’re not assigning motivation and intent in your statements that I’m not making when you say progressives, “chose to sit out and not vote over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism,” and that “fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal,” you absolute joke?
That’s literally what you’re claiming.
You’re claiming progressives chose not to vote for Harris because Harris didn’t appeal to them, as a corporate Dem.
The opposition was literal fascism.
Thus, progressives who chose not to vote for Harris preferred not voting over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism.
Like, this isn’t complex. It’s actually incredibly simple. There are only two pieces to this, and you accept both of them. It’s really astounding that you’re continually insisting otherwise just because it hurts your feelings to think about.
And by the way, if stopping, “literal fucking fascism” was so important to the Harris campaign, maybe Harris shouldn’t have waited until two weeks before election day to actually use the word, “fascism.” Seems like, if the entire pitch to progressive groups was going to be, “my policy’s don’t matter, you have to vote for me to stop fascism,” they probably should have spent some time talking about fascism!
Oh, okay, so because Harris waited too long to say the word ‘fascism’, THAT’S why the progressives chose, in your worldview, to let fascism win. Makes perfect sense.
I didn’t realize the campaign’s actions were “Failing to cast the votes for the progressives who stayed home”, fascinating how voters have no agency.
The campaigns actions were, “Failing to motivate progressives who stayed home.” That’s how campaigns work. Candidates go out and get people to vote for them. It’s the most fundamental aspect of an election. If you fail to get people to vote for you, ya did a bad job.
You’re claiming progressives chose not to vote for Harris because Harris didn’t appeal to them, as a corporate Dem.
The opposition was literal fascism.
Thus, progressives who chose not to vote for Harris preferred not voting over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism.
I’m claiming unenthusiastic people don’t vote. Your assigning the intent on what they preferred. Maybe some of them chose to stay home in protest. Maybe some of them wanted to vote for Harris, but low motivation and poor access to polling made them decide one vote didn’t matter. That’s why getting your base excited is so important, and why I’m calling bullshit when you call it, “pandering,” and assigning them motivations. Do you get the difference yet? Do you see how you’re reframing what I’m saying to absolve the Democrats of blame and places it on voters? Is that clear yet? Cause there’s no other possible way I can say it.
(And don’t think I missed that little goal post move from, “that progressives decided that fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal,” to “preferred not voting over voting for a corporate Dem.” Real cute.)
Oh, okay, so because Harris waited too long to say the word ‘fascism’, THAT’S why the progressives chose, in your worldview, to let fascism win. Makes perfect sense.
You’re entire fucking argument is, “progressives decided that fascism was better than voting for Harris.” If that’s the case, shouldn’t someone have told the voters that was the case? Everyone knew they were choosing between a centrist and a fascist, even though the centrist didn’t tell anybody that was the case?
The campaigns actions were, “Failing to motivate progressives who stayed home.” That’s how campaigns work. Candidates go out and get people to vote for them. It’s the most fundamental aspect of an election. If you fail to get people to vote for you, ya did a bad job.
Okay?
At no point did I say the campaign did a good job? In fact, I’m pretty sure I explicitly lambasted them.
I’m claiming unenthusiastic people don’t vote.
Yes, in this case, your argument centered around progressives. So your argument was that progressives, not being enthused enough by Harris, decided not to vote, even though the opposition was literal fascism.
This isn’t complex.
Your assigning the intent on what they preferred. Maybe some of them chose to stay home in protest.
Oh, so if it was a PROTEST abstain in favor of fascism, that makes it… okay in your eyes?
That still doesn’t actually contradict what I’ve been characterizing your argument as, by the way.
You’re claiming progressives chose not to vote for Harris because Harris didn’t appeal to them, as a corporate Dem.
Maybe some of them wanted to vote for Harris, but low motivation and poor access to polling made them decide one vote didn’t matter.
So they wanted to vote for Harris, but decided that the threat of fascism wasn’t motivating enough.
That’s why getting your base excited is so important, and why I’m calling bullshit when you call it, “pandering,”
Literally what it is, whether you like it or not. My argument isn’t that campaigns shouldn’t pander to voters; it’s the idea that not being pandered to justifies whatever they do, up to and including welcoming literal fucking fascism into the country.
and assigning them motivations.
You were the one who assigned them motivations; namely, that they were unexcited for Harris et co. All I did was point out that that argument would mean that they necessarily considered their lack of excitement sufficient to stand by and allow fascism to win.
Do you get the difference yet? Do you see how you’re reframing what I’m saying to absolve the Democrats of blame and places it on voters? Is that clear yet? Cause there’s no other possible way I can say it.
“Acknowledging that people are responsible for how they vote or not vote is absolving Democrats of blame”
Yes, you’re saying progressives didn’t show up at the ballot box because they weren’t campaigned for, right?
I’m saying that having depressed turnout with a group that you didn’t campaign for, and adopted policies that are antithetical towards their value, is a completely predictable outcome. Are you going to pretend you were saying the same thing when you said:
or:
or:
You’re going to pretend that we were saying the same thing? And that what you were saying wasn’t entirely framed around blaming leftists for the campaign’s actions? You’re honestly going to pretend that you’re not assigning motivation and intent in your statements that I’m not making when you say progressives, “chose to sit out and not vote over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism,” and that “fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal,” you absolute joke?
So yes, you are saying that progressives didn’t turn out because they weren’t campaigned for, correct?
You’re really desperate to avoid stating your position in plain terms.
LOL, nice sidestep on the second half of that comment. Anyway, sorry if my language hasn’t been plain enough for you, but I really can’t simplify it any further. Maybe you could have a friend explain it to you, 'cause I really can’t waste anymore time on this.
It’s hilarious.
You say that progressives didn’t turn out because they weren’t campaigned for.
The opposition is literal fascism.
Yet, according to you, that DOESN’T mean that progressives didn’t turn out against literal fascism because they weren’t campaigned for.
It’s like magnets repulsing each other, as soon as the two parts come near, the doublethink forces the two conclusions apart in your mind, even as you hold both of them to be true simultaneously. Fascinating.
At this point, writing is a waste of my time, so I’ll just copy-and-paste the parts of the my comments that you’re avoiding in order to maintain your narrative:
I didn’t realize the campaign’s actions were “Failing to cast the votes for the progressives who stayed home”, fascinating how voters have no agency.
That’s literally what you’re claiming.
You’re claiming progressives chose not to vote for Harris because Harris didn’t appeal to them, as a corporate Dem.
The opposition was literal fascism.
Thus, progressives who chose not to vote for Harris preferred not voting over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism.
Like, this isn’t complex. It’s actually incredibly simple. There are only two pieces to this, and you accept both of them. It’s really astounding that you’re continually insisting otherwise just because it hurts your feelings to think about.
Oh, okay, so because Harris waited too long to say the word ‘fascism’, THAT’S why the progressives chose, in your worldview, to let fascism win. Makes perfect sense.
The campaigns actions were, “Failing to motivate progressives who stayed home.” That’s how campaigns work. Candidates go out and get people to vote for them. It’s the most fundamental aspect of an election. If you fail to get people to vote for you, ya did a bad job.
I’m claiming unenthusiastic people don’t vote. Your assigning the intent on what they preferred. Maybe some of them chose to stay home in protest. Maybe some of them wanted to vote for Harris, but low motivation and poor access to polling made them decide one vote didn’t matter. That’s why getting your base excited is so important, and why I’m calling bullshit when you call it, “pandering,” and assigning them motivations. Do you get the difference yet? Do you see how you’re reframing what I’m saying to absolve the Democrats of blame and places it on voters? Is that clear yet? Cause there’s no other possible way I can say it.
(And don’t think I missed that little goal post move from, “that progressives decided that fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal,” to “preferred not voting over voting for a corporate Dem.” Real cute.)
You’re entire fucking argument is, “progressives decided that fascism was better than voting for Harris.” If that’s the case, shouldn’t someone have told the voters that was the case? Everyone knew they were choosing between a centrist and a fascist, even though the centrist didn’t tell anybody that was the case?
Okay?
At no point did I say the campaign did a good job? In fact, I’m pretty sure I explicitly lambasted them.
Yes, in this case, your argument centered around progressives. So your argument was that progressives, not being enthused enough by Harris, decided not to vote, even though the opposition was literal fascism.
This isn’t complex.
Oh, so if it was a PROTEST abstain in favor of fascism, that makes it… okay in your eyes?
That still doesn’t actually contradict what I’ve been characterizing your argument as, by the way.
So they wanted to vote for Harris, but decided that the threat of fascism wasn’t motivating enough.
Literally what it is, whether you like it or not. My argument isn’t that campaigns shouldn’t pander to voters; it’s the idea that not being pandered to justifies whatever they do, up to and including welcoming literal fucking fascism into the country.
You were the one who assigned them motivations; namely, that they were unexcited for Harris et co. All I did was point out that that argument would mean that they necessarily considered their lack of excitement sufficient to stand by and allow fascism to win.
“Acknowledging that people are responsible for how they vote or not vote is absolving Democrats of blame”
Okay.