Top Democrats insist that they’re unfazed by the party’s forming a “Zohran Mamdani wing,” after the New York City mayor’s stunningly successful primary night.
Mother fucker in a real democracy YOU don’t have any say in the matter. What you’re seeing happen is the will of the people. Yes, you will “let us” vote for the candidates that we want to vote for.
Try to take that away, it’s about all we (barely) have left. See what happens.
American political parties aren’t public institutions, their inner workings are beholden to nobody but their paymasters. It’s a rotten problem so old everyone’s stopped noticing the smell
They aren’t, but popularity is their lifeblood. If their current candidates can’t win popular votes vs. these people running to to their left, they have to choose between becoming politically diminished in power and relevance or moving to the left.
It seems that they are scrambling now to find a way to avoid the consequences of their diminishing popularity without doing anything popular. They spent ages trying to get their “help the little guy” image polished up, but it has been so long since the little guy had a win that fewer and fewer people are buying it. It seems that when leftists are presented a choice between a liberal wearing a badge that says “leftist” and a leftist, they usually choose the leftist. In typical American fashion, rather than trying to beat their opponents, they’re trying to prevent opponents from existing.
The most charitable reading would be “Their positions are winning votes. Are we going to stick to our conservative positions and let them drive us out the party or are we going to adopt their progressive positions in order to retain power?”
I’m not too optimistic though. They might sacrifice principles, but I’m not sure their pride could stomach accepting that their stubborn attempt to win over the right was fundamentally flawed. Nor could their donors stomach it.
Considering all the times they’ve literally worked to attack more progressive members of their own party, even when it would lead to clear loss, I’m not giving the DNC any charity.
Centrists have lost all generosity and instead dessrve only animosity. Worthless conservatives pretending that they aren’t.
Starting from charity is just my method of analysing statements, before proceeding to argue against it. That doesn’t mean I consider it likely. In fact, I generally find it easier to spot the flawed premises (such as humility to admit mistake and integrity to put what’s right over what’s profitable) required to support that assumption.
If I start from the negative position, I find it hard to reason my way out of cynicism (probably because cynicism comes naturally to me) and reach a nuanced position. I also found that a “negative by default” stance is bad for my mental health.
“Let them” ? Excuse me?
Mother fucker in a real democracy YOU don’t have any say in the matter. What you’re seeing happen is the will of the people. Yes, you will “let us” vote for the candidates that we want to vote for.
Try to take that away, it’s about all we (barely) have left. See what happens.
American political parties aren’t public institutions, their inner workings are beholden to nobody but their paymasters. It’s a rotten problem so old everyone’s stopped noticing the smell
They aren’t, but popularity is their lifeblood. If their current candidates can’t win popular votes vs. these people running to to their left, they have to choose between becoming politically diminished in power and relevance or moving to the left.
It seems that they are scrambling now to find a way to avoid the consequences of their diminishing popularity without doing anything popular. They spent ages trying to get their “help the little guy” image polished up, but it has been so long since the little guy had a win that fewer and fewer people are buying it. It seems that when leftists are presented a choice between a liberal wearing a badge that says “leftist” and a leftist, they usually choose the leftist. In typical American fashion, rather than trying to beat their opponents, they’re trying to prevent opponents from existing.
The most charitable reading would be “Their positions are winning votes. Are we going to stick to our conservative positions and let them drive us out the party or are we going to adopt their progressive positions in order to retain power?”
I’m not too optimistic though. They might sacrifice principles, but I’m not sure their pride could stomach accepting that their stubborn attempt to win over the right was fundamentally flawed. Nor could their donors stomach it.
Considering all the times they’ve literally worked to attack more progressive members of their own party, even when it would lead to clear loss, I’m not giving the DNC any charity.
Centrists have lost all generosity and instead dessrve only animosity. Worthless conservatives pretending that they aren’t.
Oh I agree with you.
Starting from charity is just my method of analysing statements, before proceeding to argue against it. That doesn’t mean I consider it likely. In fact, I generally find it easier to spot the flawed premises (such as humility to admit mistake and integrity to put what’s right over what’s profitable) required to support that assumption.
If I start from the negative position, I find it hard to reason my way out of cynicism (probably because cynicism comes naturally to me) and reach a nuanced position. I also found that a “negative by default” stance is bad for my mental health.
I get that, but at this point they’ve already shown their faces. The bar is too low and they still can’t clear it.