Rewinding a bit, from a pragmatic perspective none of these concessions will even garner more votes, and in fact will likely prove repulsive to voters since most of us still have souls. So why are we running someone who has less of a chance of winning than someone who DOESN'T oppose our values?
The underlying thesis is "this is what most voters actually want, and you'll just have to hold your nose and cast your ballot" but in reality when 100,000,000 eligible voters don't vote and Democrats have a 24% approval rating I think most of the people voting for Democrats are holding their noses.
So why do they keep doing it? And why is it OUR obligation to keep pulling them out of their catastrophically bad strategy to elect candidates who get worse and worse every time? If Harris's loss wasn't enough of a rebuke and they refuse to learn the lesson here, it's time for the party to be over.
And as far as listening to protesters, I implore you to go dig into how Obama and Biden dealt with protests in the U.S. We couldn't even push Democrats to reconsider their support for a goddamn genocide. What makes you think we can move them on issues even less resoundingly clear-cut?
Obama? Bruh. That was a political lifetime ago. I honestly don’t think any Democrat who runs believes that an Obama political playbook (or a Biden one for that matter) will work.
Again, I’m share your frustrations. I want to do better than Newsom & I will actively work up through the primaries to do that - as I have done since 2015. But we keep comin up short. So saying “well this person shares 70% of my values but fuck them because it’s not 100% gets us MAGA every time.
And when you cast a 3rd party vote (or don’t vote at all), you create an environment that gets someone elect who shares 0% of your values. Bernie to Trump voters in 2016; non-voters for Biden. Stein voters in 2024.
This isn’t the responsibility of the voters, it’s the responsibility of the politicians. If they can’t provide a candidate people are willing to vote for, they’ll lose elections. 100,000,000 people don’t vote. The winner gets ~70,000,000 votes. The real winner is apathy, and there are reasons.
When polled, the reason many if not most nonvoters give is “both parties are the same” or “it’s not going to matter anyway”—because for millions of Americans that’s largely true, things suck for them no matter who’s in charge. There’s a way to motivate them and it’s up to Democrats to do that.
Relying on “people will vote even though they hate the candidate” is a pretty fucked-up and stupid strategy. It’s like saying “the refs will award me points even if I don’t score, because I’m the better person. And if they don’t, then it’s THEIR fault the asshole team won.” Bizarre.
It’s not even a matter of my own personal preference here, though I personally won’t vote for a candidate who opposes trans rights and supports genocide and oppresses homeless people. The reality is that it’s unpopular to voters at large to cosplay as Republicans. It’s electorally unviable.
I think we’re also not considering the widely gerrymandered maps that are going to make it even harder for a candidate with niche support to get elected.
So yes. Let’s work to get a good candidate who aligns with most of our values. But if we fail to do that and a candidate who shares 60-70% of our values is the nom - and no 3rd party vote has a logical chance to win - I say take 60-70% of a match over a 0% match. This doesn’t seem like a hard choice
Oh - and again - I appreciate the good faith dialog from you. No sarcasm. It’s a breath of fresh air compared to Twitter.