I actually agree with this, too. I am not missing any of these, I think. But if you make it all about trans issues, as in your first post, that's definitely a tree in the forest.
I actually agree with this, too. I am not missing any of these, I think. But if you make it all about trans issues, as in your first post, that's definitely a tree in the forest.
I said “one example”!!!!
Let me put it in a different way. You need Newsom like you would need a very effective weapon in an arsenal. You need the arsenal as well stocked and diversified as possible, so you can take on the enemy whatever he throws at you. Then for your victory parade, you will showcase only your finest.
Disagree, Newsom is a net negative.
Well, given the air time he gets on Fox, and the hysterical reactions by Trump and his sycophants, it's safe to say that facts are currently contradicting you. This may change later on, but right now, no one else has come close to make a dent like he did.
Let's also not forget the redistricting action. The polar opposite of D spinelessness.
Gerrymandering is helpful but ultimately useless (and likely harmful) if they maintain the establishment candidates another cycle
It is harmful to democracy, but you'll need to ban it first. But that's not the immediate goal, is it. The immediate goal is to prevent a defeat in 2026 because only R are rigging it.
You're fully missing my points, and maybe I am just not doing a great job. The effect on democracy isn't my concern in this specific case. My point is that it will only be helpful if we choose a different path for the party, if we do not it will appear as same old corrupt Democrats.
The same old corrupt D are better than whatever you have now, and that's not even debatable, I would think.
That’s where you’re wrong. The same old corrupt Democrats LEAD TO the fascists. That’s why we need to fix it instead of accepting it.
How does that help at all? It’s a net negative