The Pennsylvania Democrat recalled his time serving as a Hillary Clinton surrogate in 2016, even after he supported Bernie Sanders in the primary.
The Pennsylvania Democrat recalled his time serving as a Hillary Clinton surrogate in 2016, even after he supported Bernie Sanders in the primary.
In the primaries, I supported progressive candidates like Sanders and Warren because I think their policy prescriptions would make for a better America. In the general, I voted for Biden. That was a harm-reduction vote.
What I don’t like to hear, in the primary, is the ‘you have to vote for the candidate who can win’ line of argument, which begs the question it pretends to answer- if everyone who says “I’d vote for x but x can’t possibly win” just voted for x, x would actually win. This gives whoever tells you that “x can’t possibly win” the power to get you to give up on voting for what you want, which seems to wag the dog.
In the general, between dem and gop control, it’s not a close contest for me; it’s between a party afraid to do progressive things the voters want and a party that will do whatever the fuck it wants no matter that nobody wants that.
Yes, our electoral system of first-past-the-post demands that we hedge our bets and compromise in order to avoid the calamity of electing a fascist in this election cycle, but it’s hard to support with evidence the idea that what makes a progressive candidate “risky” isn’t just a self-fulfilling misperception that causes the party to spend (or not-spend) money to prevent progressives from becoming party nominees. After all, research consistently shows that politicians of both parties routinely overestimate the conservatism of the voters.
I’m glad to see the Biden admin embracing the progressive changes it has been able to get to, but I’m also sooo tired of being told ‘we can’t nominate a progressive, they’ll be called a communist’ when no matter who we nominate they’ll be called a communist and decades of voting a harm-reduction ticket has rolled back much of the New Deal
Not really. It means that person does not have the votes to win. Even if every supporter of X exclusively voted for X, plus a few supporters of Y, X would not win against Z. However, if every supporter of Y voted for Y, plus a few supporter of X, he would win against Z. So we should shift our support to Y because he has more supporters and is more likely to win against Z.
I think what you’re trying to say is that if every Biden voter just voted for Bernie, Bernie would have won. Which…sure, but you could say that about anyone.
It’s a difference between core voters (“I’m only excited about X”) vs swayable voters (“I like X but I think Y has a better chance of winning against Z”).
The point is that Biden has more core supporters than Bernie. Biden has a bigger, more reliable group of people who want to vote for him and only him.
It means that people who want to vote a certain way are being pressured to vote a different way.
This in turn means the way the votes went is not a measure of what people want, but rather of what they can be pressured into doing. These are different things, even if it’s convenient to dismiss it as a distinction without a difference.
You just straight up didn’t read my comment huh
No I read it, I just thought you missed my point and wanted to clarify
The subtext of the point I was trying to make was about whether or not your politics leave people feeling understood or respected. NGL I wasn’t feeling either