- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Many Democrats continue to believe that the racism of average Americans — many of whom voted for Barack Obama twice — explains why Donald Trump won. This moralism suits party elites who would rather demonize the public than address growing inequality.
That’s not how it works. Using that logic voting for Himmler would be the right thing to do because at least they’re one step less awful than Hitler. Fucking demand that Himmler change his ways or a better candidate is allowed to run.
A lot of countries have political theater instead of actual politics, but the US is really deep into it.
That is exactly how it works. Criticizing the better option of the two will reduce turnout for that candidate. That’s the whole purpose of political campaigns.
That’s how Trump got elected. We had a better option but people complained so much that the worse option won.
Your attempt to claim both sides are as similar as Hitler and Himmler is an obvious bad faith argument of “both sides are the same”.
I find this unproductive. People SHOULD ask their elected representatives (and candidates) to improve. I want people to point it out when my preferred candidate does something wrong, because then they’re more likely to address it before the election.
I’m not saying this doesn’t happen, but I don’t think a significant number of people changed their mind about voting for her because of the protests.
Option 1: Politically engaged people don’t point out a problem -> The candidate doesn’t address the problem -> The average voter doesn’t vote for the candidate because of the problem
Option 2: Politically engaged people DO point out a problem -> The candidate addresses the problem -> The average voter is more likely to vote for the candidate
Maybe if it wasn’t Trump and fascism on the line.
But in this context you’re referring to the prevention of fascism as “unproductive”.
I’m saying that if the candidate listened to the protests and addressed the issues that were brought up, they may have gotten more votes. Arguably, having MORE protests may have helped them win if it could convince the leadership to make changes.
Outcry from supporters is what convinced Biden to step down, which I think helped the Democrats come closer. Protest is important if it can help a party make the right adjustments in their campaign.
Telling people to stay silent is unproductive.
Not all voters agreed with those protests. Arguably, the candidate would’ve lost by more if they listened to the protests and addressed the issues that were brought up.
What we can’t argue about is the fact that the protests hurt voter turnout and now Trump is the president.
Even if this was true, silencing any criticism isn’t the solution. In most parts of the world anyway
Every candidate will have criticisms.
Every politician will amplify their opponent’s criticism to impact election results.
Validating concern trolls isn’t the solution.
Getting everyone to vote in everyone’s best interest is.
Allowing the GOP to gain more power and end democracy is unproductive.
Was the timing of the protests the problem in your opinion? The way that it was done?
In your opinion, how should supporters of a party express what they want changed with an electoral platform