I think it's because Tom in particular very much isn't a "liberal" (but is anti Trump!) but insists liberals should say and do things that alienate the party base to attract a handful of former opposition voters. If they had the numbers, I don't think they would have lost the GOP on the first place.
I dunno, I think liberals are pretty committed to voting for Democrats and we won’t lose them if we stop saying unhoused for example. I’m a fan of compromising to win a big tent.
The attitude that "they're already committed, appeal to the right/center" is at least as much the issue as the specific examples. All it takes is a few people not voting here as some still voting but not volunteering there, and it's at best a wash and I'd argue somewhat harmful.
Numerically I think there are more moderates than lefties. And lefties often live in blue places & not swing states. I consider myself pretty progressive but I do feel burned with Biden - he delivered so much progress, championed trans rights, appointed Lina Khan and the left still despised him.
If you saw Gaza as a genocide, and many do, I don't think it's hard to understand. A whole lot of people gave themselves trauma watching non-stop horror and he was the American most able to do anything, and he mostly enabled the horror.
Yea I saw it coming mile away. Millions of young people especially just completely traumatized themselves watching videos of the war and as happens with trauma, reason went out the window. I think once Harris became the nominee, there was no argument to vote against Dems on that issue. But, trauma.
If you think it's a genocide, someone saying "nothing with fundamentally change" isn't going to really help. Harris was kinda screwed over and had to simultaneously defend the admin she was a part of while also distancing herself.
To paraphrase a smarter person than I, a whole lot of people who had fully bought in to the ideals of liberalism saw our leaders support a blatantly betray those ideals for Palestinians even as they supported them for Ukraine, and rather than accept "realpolitik" as an answer they kept the ideals.
(sorry for the multi posts, I'm still used to Reddit and not great at condensing my thoughts)
It’s totally fine. It’s nice having a conversation!
While true, it was also clear Biden was the outlier on this issue among Dems and while I can’t fault younger voters for not catching the signals Harris was sending, or who couldn’t answer “how could it be any worse,” plenty of older leaders & activists led them astray.
I generally agree with you, but not letting a sitting member of Congress deliver a pre approved speech to the convention was a real fuck you to a lot of people, and they weren't wrong. I still voted for her, I still think people should have, but that was telling people that they don't matter.
Rather like Newsom with the homeless and trans people. Great way to signal that the poor can just die, and the same for trans people.
For me, it's why I prefer Walz to most other 2028 options. He doesn't speak in signals, he rather plainly states his position and will try and argue for it. I find that far more persuasive and in my Blue Guy in a Red State experience, you get far more respect for doing it that way.
Love Walz but am also pretty sold on Pritzker. Idk if either plans to run; Walz seemed not to be considering it last round but things change.
Of course, that also means he misspeaks, but that's something someone like Mamdani seems able to avoid by having an extra scoop of charisma. I just don't think we win by alienating existing voters, and I doubly don't think we do that in the name of people who wish they were still Republicans.
Yes but he talks like a normal person. Maybe because he is a normal person. I think it’s hard for a lot of more activist / academic types to code switch.
It depends. Some issues like Gaza were zero sum. You either lost pro Israel or pro Palestine voters and had to strike the right balance. But other issues I think you can find a happy medium. I do think it’s annoying that solving homelessness is less important to some than using the right language.
And as I said, it's that attitude that loses more voters than the word itself. The sort of person using those terms is also the person volunteering for the party, putting non party members over them is discouraging. And it's about far more than just words people use, that's just the most recent.
Doesn't mean I agree with those people, but blaming them isn't going to help, it just drives a deeper wedge between the people who show up and the party. Doubly so if they also doubt the party's commitment as Newsom clears homeless encampments or casts doubt on commitment to trans rights.
Is this true though? Genuine question. I feel like the people using those words and insisting on those words are people to the left of the party who criticize the party nonstop. That’s my concern. Are we chasing voters who will never vote for us.
Depends where you spend your time. My sister has a social worker type job and uses them and absolutely will not vote Newsom, as an example.
I have friends in similar boats with various red lines, generally for personal life/work reasons. I also don't see people insisting politicians use them, but the Tom's chide the party for people like them (low level cogs in non profit machines) using them as if they're party operatives, actually.
I'm firmly in the "speak plain English" camp for most politicians, but chiding people in industry for using industry jargon isn't that, and that's most of the examples given when I've asked.
My issue isn’t with people like your sister. Although if the choice is newsom vs Vance is she really going to sit out? If so, that’s a problem in itself. And I think punching down at trans people is awful! I think Tom means activists, academics & political leaders. They need to win converts.
Yes, she absolutely would. I'm not sure I would, either. Newsom is helping make a meaner world for people we care about because he seems to think it will win him votes attacking trans people today, but why trust that it stops there?