Iām saying that having depressed turnout with a group that you didnāt 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 werenāt 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 wasnāt progressive enough for them.
or:
So your argument is, then, that progressives decided that fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal?
Youāre going to pretend that we were saying the same thing? And that what you were saying wasnāt entirely framed around blaming leftists for the campaignās actions? Youāre honestly going to pretend that youāre not assigning motivation and intent in your statements that Iām not making when you say progressives, āchose to sit out and not vote over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism,ā and that āfascism was preferable to a moderate liberal,ā you absolute joke?
Iām saying that having depressed turnout with a group that you didnāt campaign for, and adopted policies that are antithetical towards their value, is a completely predictable outcome.
So yes, you are saying that progressives didnāt turn out because they werenāt campaigned for, correct?
Youāre 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 hasnāt been plain enough for you, but I really canāt simplify it any further. Maybe you could have a friend explain it to you, 'cause I really canāt waste anymore time on this.
You say that progressives didnāt turn out because they werenāt campaigned for.
The opposition is literal fascism.
Yet, according to you, that DOESNāT mean that progressives didnāt turn out against literal fascism because they werenāt campaigned for.
Itās 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 Iāll just copy-and-paste the parts of the my comments that youāre avoiding in order to maintain your narrative:
Youāre going to pretend that we were saying the same thing? And that what you were saying wasnāt entirely framed around blaming leftists for the campaignās actions? Youāre honestly going to pretend that youāre not assigning motivation and intent in your statements that Iām not making when you say progressives, āchose to sit out and not vote over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism,ā and that āfascism was preferable to a moderate liberal,ā you absolute joke?
And by the way, if stopping, āliteral fucking fascismā was so important to the Harris campaign, maybe Harris shouldnāt have waited until two weeks before election day to actually use the word, āfascism.ā Seems like, if the entire pitch to progressive groups was going to be, āmy policyās donāt matter, you have to vote for me to stop fascism,ā they probably should have spent some time talking about fascism!
Youāre going to pretend that we were saying the same thing? And that what you were saying wasnāt entirely framed around blaming leftists for the campaignās actions?
I didnāt realize the campaignās actions were āFailing to cast the votes for the progressives who stayed homeā, fascinating how voters have no agency.
Youāre honestly going to pretend that youāre not assigning motivation and intent in your statements that Iām not making when you say progressives, āchose to sit out and not vote over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism,ā and that āfascism was preferable to a moderate liberal,ā you absolute joke?
Thatās literally what youāre claiming.
Youāre claiming progressives chose not to vote for Harris because Harris didnāt 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 isnāt complex. Itās actually incredibly simple. There are only two pieces to this, and you accept both of them. Itās really astounding that youāre continually insisting otherwise just because it hurts your feelings to think about.
And by the way, if stopping, āliteral fucking fascismā was so important to the Harris campaign, maybe Harris shouldnāt have waited until two weeks before election day to actually use the word, āfascism.ā Seems like, if the entire pitch to progressive groups was going to be, āmy policyās donāt matter, you have to vote for me to stop fascism,ā they probably should have spent some time talking about fascism!
Oh, okay, so because Harris waited too long to say the word āfascismā, THATāS why the progressives chose, in your worldview, to let fascism win. Makes perfect sense.
I didnāt realize the campaignās actions were āFailing to cast the votes for the progressives who stayed homeā, fascinating how voters have no agency.
The campaigns actions were, āFailing to motivate progressives who stayed home.ā Thatās how campaigns work. Candidates go out and get people to vote for them. Itās the most fundamental aspect of an election. If you fail to get people to vote for you, ya did a bad job.
Youāre claiming progressives chose not to vote for Harris because Harris didnāt 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.
Iām claiming unenthusiastic people donāt 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 didnāt matter. Thatās why getting your base excited is so important, and why Iām calling bullshit when you call it, āpandering,ā and assigning them motivations. Do you get the difference yet? Do you see how youāre reframing what Iām saying to absolve the Democrats of blame and places it on voters? Is that clear yet? Cause thereās no other possible way I can say it.
(And donāt think I missed that little goal post move from, āthat progressives decided that fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal,ā to āpreferred not voting over voting for a corporate Dem.ā Real cute.)
Oh, okay, so because Harris waited too long to say the word āfascismā, THATāS why the progressives chose, in your worldview, to let fascism win. Makes perfect sense.
Youāre entire fucking argument is, āprogressives decided that fascism was better than voting for Harris.ā If thatās the case, shouldnāt someone have told the voters that was the case? Everyone knew they were choosing between a centrist and a fascist, even though the centrist didnāt tell anybody that was the case?
The campaigns actions were, āFailing to motivate progressives who stayed home.ā Thatās how campaigns work. Candidates go out and get people to vote for them. Itās 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, Iām pretty sure I explicitly lambasted them.
Iām claiming unenthusiastic people donāt 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 isnāt 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 itā¦ okay in your eyes?
That still doesnāt actually contradict what Iāve been characterizing your argument as, by the way.
Youāre claiming progressives chose not to vote for Harris because Harris didnāt 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 didnāt matter.
So they wanted to vote for Harris, but decided that the threat of fascism wasnāt motivating enough.
Thatās why getting your base excited is so important, and why Iām calling bullshit when you call it, āpandering,ā
Literally what it is, whether you like it or not. My argument isnāt that campaigns shouldnāt pander to voters; itās 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 youāre reframing what Iām saying to absolve the Democrats of blame and places it on voters? Is that clear yet? Cause thereās no other possible way I can say it.
āAcknowledging that people are responsible for how they vote or not vote is absolving Democrats of blameā
Yes, youāre saying progressives didnāt show up at the ballot box because they werenāt campaigned for, right?
Iām saying that having depressed turnout with a group that you didnāt 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:
Youāre going to pretend that we were saying the same thing? And that what you were saying wasnāt entirely framed around blaming leftists for the campaignās actions? Youāre honestly going to pretend that youāre not assigning motivation and intent in your statements that Iām not making when you say progressives, āchose to sit out and not vote over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism,ā and that āfascism was preferable to a moderate liberal,ā you absolute joke?
So yes, you are saying that progressives didnāt turn out because they werenāt campaigned for, correct?
Youāre 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 hasnāt been plain enough for you, but I really canāt simplify it any further. Maybe you could have a friend explain it to you, 'cause I really canāt waste anymore time on this.
Itās hilarious.
You say that progressives didnāt turn out because they werenāt campaigned for.
The opposition is literal fascism.
Yet, according to you, that DOESNāT mean that progressives didnāt turn out against literal fascism because they werenāt campaigned for.
Itās 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 Iāll just copy-and-paste the parts of the my comments that youāre avoiding in order to maintain your narrative:
I didnāt realize the campaignās actions were āFailing to cast the votes for the progressives who stayed homeā, fascinating how voters have no agency.
Thatās literally what youāre claiming.
Youāre claiming progressives chose not to vote for Harris because Harris didnāt 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 isnāt complex. Itās actually incredibly simple. There are only two pieces to this, and you accept both of them. Itās really astounding that youāre continually insisting otherwise just because it hurts your feelings to think about.
Oh, okay, so because Harris waited too long to say the word āfascismā, THATāS why the progressives chose, in your worldview, to let fascism win. Makes perfect sense.
The campaigns actions were, āFailing to motivate progressives who stayed home.ā Thatās how campaigns work. Candidates go out and get people to vote for them. Itās the most fundamental aspect of an election. If you fail to get people to vote for you, ya did a bad job.
Iām claiming unenthusiastic people donāt 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 didnāt matter. Thatās why getting your base excited is so important, and why Iām calling bullshit when you call it, āpandering,ā and assigning them motivations. Do you get the difference yet? Do you see how youāre reframing what Iām saying to absolve the Democrats of blame and places it on voters? Is that clear yet? Cause thereās no other possible way I can say it.
(And donāt think I missed that little goal post move from, āthat progressives decided that fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal,ā to āpreferred not voting over voting for a corporate Dem.ā Real cute.)
Youāre entire fucking argument is, āprogressives decided that fascism was better than voting for Harris.ā If thatās the case, shouldnāt someone have told the voters that was the case? Everyone knew they were choosing between a centrist and a fascist, even though the centrist didnāt tell anybody that was the case?
Okay?
At no point did I say the campaign did a good job? In fact, Iām 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 isnāt complex.
Oh, so if it was a PROTEST abstain in favor of fascism, that makes itā¦ okay in your eyes?
That still doesnāt actually contradict what Iāve been characterizing your argument as, by the way.
So they wanted to vote for Harris, but decided that the threat of fascism wasnāt motivating enough.
Literally what it is, whether you like it or not. My argument isnāt that campaigns shouldnāt pander to voters; itās 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.
āAcknowledging that people are responsible for how they vote or not vote is absolving Democrats of blameā
Okay.