Democrats are Surrounded by Low Hanging Fruit: Get To It
Democrats are Surrounded by Low Hanging Fruit: Get To It
Yesterday my colleague Kate Riga noted a trap Senate Democrats keep falling...
You're viewing a single thread.
Yesterday my colleague Kate Riga noted a trap Senate Democrats keep falling into: in an effort to court Republican defectors they temper their criticism of the various Trump nominees. But since there are and will be no defectors they lose on both sides of the equation, gaining no defectors and making their critiques tepid and forgettable. This is unquestionably true. But we can go a step further still. Far from courting potential defectors, they should be attacking them.
If trying to court Republican defectors is a futile effort, who should the Democrats be trying to court? This article seems deliberately vague on that point. The article implies that the Democrats should make less tepid, less forgettable critiques of Trump nominees, that they should attack them, even, but for what reason? Seemingly, it's to court people other than Republican defectors, but who would that be? Relatively moderate, neoliberal technocrats? Do any still exist?
I think you're targeting people that have become apathetic and disengaged from the political process because they don't see anyone actually fighting for them. Someone willing to attack the existing power structure on your behalf is a very appealing proposition to most people in our political climate.
Well we know Democrats aren't up to the task
Silence, nonvoter
Hey what's it feel like seeing Trump come down on Israel and end the genocide you spent the last year telling folks like me to shut up and accept?
Get back to me in a few months
In a few months, Joe Biden will still be complicit in Israel's child-killing operation and we'll all still be mocking the people who defended or ignored it for the cowards they are.
This happened sooner than I expected: https://x.com/disclosetv/status/1883347960421118348
JUST IN - Trump says he is pressing Jordan and Egypt to take in Palestinians from Gaza, floats plan to "just clean out" territory — AP
Good thing I didn't vote for him...
You didn't vote for anyone. If you actually cared about not supporting genocide, you could've voted third party.
Anyways, my point was that Trump isn't going to be any better for Palestine. And yet, you're accusing Harris voters of supporting genocide, when they just wanted to prevent the other atrocities Trump is committing elsewhere.
Your election logic is ridiculous and you need to get over yourself. It's clear that you don't care about genocide at all, but you care whether someone votes for a third party or not at all? THAT'S your priority?
Listen to yourself 😂😂😂 Do you lick your windowsill or something? Did you put a Q-tip in there a little too deep?
Most people never defended or ignored it. They simply believed Trump to be a worse choice, and not voting to be equivalent to not caring which choice is chosen.
Most people never defended or ignored it. They simply believed Trump to be a worse choice
"No your honor, I was not beating that person, I was merely moving my arm up and down in a beating sort of motion. If that resulted in that person being beaten, thats simply not my fault"
Come on now @feathercrown, There needs to be a reconning with the Dem leadership having funded a genocide in order for things to move forward. Or we can continue marching toward our own extinction. You're trying to win elections here, that means swaying large groups of people-- not pointing fingers on social media posts.
And as to your other assertion:
not voting to be equivalent to not caring which choice is chosen
OR, people wouldnt actively participate in immorality of that magnitude. Both candidates obviously broke major laws and so are criminals who belong behind bars, at minimum. We should all be insisting our laws be followed rather than simply gaming for the criminal wearing our parties colors to win. This isnt football. But hey, keep following your plan, its working so well.
A people are a nation. I thought we had agreed that we are a nation of laws?
I wrote a very long response but it appears to have vanished into the ether when I sent it so I'll summarize here: Don't assume how I vote, and voting is a relative choice, not a wholehearted personal endorsement. I legitimately believe Trump to be a bigger threat on the whole than Harris would be, to Palestine, Ukraine, and the US itself. Not voting isn't choosing "none of the above", and makes you complicit in the result that everyone else has chosen, since you have not reduced the chance of either candidate winning. The only legitimate protest against two equally bad options is voting third party. That's all the points with none of the arguments, so if you disagree, I can explain in more detail.
Like so.
They should be courting the public by making it really clear how awful Trump's nominees and policies are.
The defectors the article is talking about are Republican senators. The author links to the piece about the trap:
When I followed up, asking whether Republican senators had voiced any qualms about Patel, he said they had “at first” but that he hadn’t followed up because he’s being “very careful” in a “delicate period of time.”
This is the trap Democrats keep falling into. They don’t want to come out against a Trump nominee too aggressively, out of fear of alienating Republican fence-sitters. But in the same breath, they’ll tell you that Republicans aren’t actually open to listening to what they say, as they’re determined to pass Trump’s fealty tests. So Democrats land in a place where they can neither mount an aggressive campaign, perhaps at least incurring some cost to the Republicans senators and the Trump administration, nor have any hope of swaying their GOP colleagues to their side.
Instead of worrying about the sensitivities of their colleagues, go all out against the nominee so they think confirming the nominee is an electoral risk. It's a play to their voters.
The article implies that the Democrats should make less tepid, less forgettable critiques of Trump nominees, that they should attack them, even, but for what reason?
Because they are objectively awful choices, several of which are severe national security threats in and of themselves?
who should the Democrats be trying to court?
If they bothered to have a platform at all anymore itd be pretty obvious who to court. But they dont stand for issues anymore-- they stand for a smug low performing sort of centrism as if that was in itself a goal.