oh and the party of Barak Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Shiff and me
does not need to be burned to the ground asshole
oh and the party of Barak Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Shiff and me
does not need to be burned to the ground asshole
Nomad (02-20-2020)
LV426 (02-20-2020)
LV426 (02-20-2020)
They are going to call anyone the Democrats nominate a socialist.
Just like they did to Obama.
Just like they did to Clinton.
Just like they do to Buttigieg, Warren, Klobuchar, Biden.
They are going to call whoever the D nominee is, a socialist or communist or worse.
We have to stop caring about what those people think because we don't give a shit about them. We should care what the 95 million people who didn't vote in 2016 think, and I am willing to bet that the reason they didn't vote in 2016 was because they had nothing to vote for, nothing that excited them, nothing that got them enthusiastic.
You're never, ever, ever going to increase voter enthusiasm by embracing "moderation".
Moderation by definition is not enthusiasm or excitement.
And we went along with your moderate candidates in 2016, 2014, and 2010...and we lost the WH in 2016, the Senate in 2014, and the House in 2010.
You need to spur turnout, and you don't spur turnout by ignoring the largest donor base and the most diverse support. You let them lead, and you follow, just like we let y'all lead and we followed in 2016.
It's your turn to suck it up and vote blue no matter who. We did things your way throughout the 2010's and it didn't work. So if it doesn't work, why continue doing it?
Would you vote for Sanders if he's the nominee?
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
Casual Leftist (02-20-2020), TTQ64 (02-21-2020)
Ah, but not everyone votes!
That's the point.
95 million people didn't vote in 2016.
If you want to have any hope of beating Trump, you're going to have to convince some of those 95 million non-voters to vote, and do you think it would be easier to get them to vote for moderation or get them to vote for something that truly excites them, that can help them, that is wildly popular?
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
Last edited by Cinnabar; 02-20-2020 at 12:13 PM.
BLUEXITA Modest Proposal For Separating Blue States From Red
Dear Red-State Trump Voter,
Let’s face it, guys: We’re done.
It is a tragedy that so much of the work that so many men and women toiled at for so long to make this a better country, and a better world, has been thrown away, leaving us all in such needless peril.
This is why our separation in all but name is necessary.
https://newrepublic.com/article/1409...mp-red-america
Right, but the only way to combat that is to increase voter turnout to such high levels, the GOP cannot steal the election without making it painfully obvious.
The only way to increase voter turnout is to get non-voters excited and enthusiastic to vote.
How do you do that when what you're offering is watered-down moderation? (<--Not a hypothetical question)
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
Right, and Bernie is bringing new voters to the polls. He's bringing new voices to his campaign. He's reaching non-voters and getting them to come out to vote for him.
Just imagine how many he could turn out if the Democratic Party actually backed him and applied its apparatus to voter turnout initiatives?
As far as I can tell, the rest of them (except for Warren) think they can beat Trump by just re-running the same playbook we ran in 2016 and not expanding the voter base and turnout.
Only Warren and Sanders are the two candidates with either a plan or a track record of turning out new and non-voters. No one else running can claim that.
We don't need moderates to win elections. We just need turnout.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
Bookmarks