Your only point of how my explanation and your’s is different is that you preface it with “This is how the world WORKS, you have to DEAL WITH IT”, which has no relevance to what’s being argued here.
Your entire point has been, “Progressives let fascism win because they didn’t like Harris.” Mine is, “You can’t expect demographic groups to show up for you at the ballot box when you don’t campaign for them.” We’re not saying the same thing, but if you can convince yourself that we are, then you’ll feel justified in blaming leftists instead of Democrats. Now, please, stop wasting my time.
I’m saying that having depressed turnout with a group that you didn’t campaign for, and adopted policies that are antithetical towards their value, is a completely predictable outcome. Are you going to pretend you were saying the same thing when you said:
according to you, the loss was caused by progressives not being enthused enough because they weren’t pandered to.
or:
Your argument is that progressives chose to sit out and not vote over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism, because the Dem wasn’t progressive enough for them.
or:
So your argument is, then, that progressives decided that fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal?
You’re going to pretend that we were saying the same thing? And that what you were saying wasn’t entirely framed around blaming leftists for the campaign’s actions? You’re honestly going to pretend that you’re not assigning motivation and intent in your statements that I’m not making when you say progressives, “chose to sit out and not vote over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism,” and that “fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal,” you absolute joke?
I’m saying that having depressed turnout with a group that you didn’t campaign for, and adopted policies that are antithetical towards their value, is a completely predictable outcome.
So yes, you are saying that progressives didn’t turn out because they weren’t campaigned for, correct?
You’re really desperate to avoid stating your position in plain terms.
LOL, nice sidestep on the second half of that comment. Anyway, sorry if my language hasn’t been plain enough for you, but I really can’t simplify it any further. Maybe you could have a friend explain it to you, 'cause I really can’t waste anymore time on this.
You say that progressives didn’t turn out because they weren’t campaigned for.
The opposition is literal fascism.
Yet, according to you, that DOESN’T mean that progressives didn’t turn out against literal fascism because they weren’t campaigned for.
It’s like magnets repulsing each other, as soon as the two parts come near, the doublethink forces the two conclusions apart in your mind, even as you hold both of them to be true simultaneously. Fascinating.
At this point, writing is a waste of my time, so I’ll just copy-and-paste the parts of the my comments that you’re avoiding in order to maintain your narrative:
You’re going to pretend that we were saying the same thing? And that what you were saying wasn’t entirely framed around blaming leftists for the campaign’s actions? You’re honestly going to pretend that you’re not assigning motivation and intent in your statements that I’m not making when you say progressives, “chose to sit out and not vote over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism,” and that “fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal,” you absolute joke?
And by the way, if stopping, “literal fucking fascism” was so important to the Harris campaign, maybe Harris shouldn’t have waited until two weeks before election day to actually use the word, “fascism.” Seems like, if the entire pitch to progressive groups was going to be, “my policy’s don’t matter, you have to vote for me to stop fascism,” they probably should have spent some time talking about fascism!
You’re going to pretend that we were saying the same thing? And that what you were saying wasn’t entirely framed around blaming leftists for the campaign’s actions?
I didn’t realize the campaign’s actions were “Failing to cast the votes for the progressives who stayed home”, fascinating how voters have no agency.
You’re honestly going to pretend that you’re not assigning motivation and intent in your statements that I’m not making when you say progressives, “chose to sit out and not vote over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism,” and that “fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal,” you absolute joke?
That’s literally what you’re claiming.
You’re claiming progressives chose not to vote for Harris because Harris didn’t appeal to them, as a corporate Dem.
The opposition was literal fascism.
Thus, progressives who chose not to vote for Harris preferred not voting over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism.
Like, this isn’t complex. It’s actually incredibly simple. There are only two pieces to this, and you accept both of them. It’s really astounding that you’re continually insisting otherwise just because it hurts your feelings to think about.
And by the way, if stopping, “literal fucking fascism” was so important to the Harris campaign, maybe Harris shouldn’t have waited until two weeks before election day to actually use the word, “fascism.” Seems like, if the entire pitch to progressive groups was going to be, “my policy’s don’t matter, you have to vote for me to stop fascism,” they probably should have spent some time talking about fascism!
Oh, okay, so because Harris waited too long to say the word ‘fascism’, THAT’S why the progressives chose, in your worldview, to let fascism win. Makes perfect sense.
Your only point of how my explanation and your’s is different is that you preface it with “This is how the world WORKS, you have to DEAL WITH IT”, which has no relevance to what’s being argued here.
Your entire point has been, “Progressives let fascism win because they didn’t like Harris.” Mine is, “You can’t expect demographic groups to show up for you at the ballot box when you don’t campaign for them.” We’re not saying the same thing, but if you can convince yourself that we are, then you’ll feel justified in blaming leftists instead of Democrats. Now, please, stop wasting my time.
Yes, you’re saying progressives didn’t show up at the ballot box because they weren’t campaigned for, right?
I’m saying that having depressed turnout with a group that you didn’t campaign for, and adopted policies that are antithetical towards their value, is a completely predictable outcome. Are you going to pretend you were saying the same thing when you said:
or:
or:
You’re going to pretend that we were saying the same thing? And that what you were saying wasn’t entirely framed around blaming leftists for the campaign’s actions? You’re honestly going to pretend that you’re not assigning motivation and intent in your statements that I’m not making when you say progressives, “chose to sit out and not vote over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism,” and that “fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal,” you absolute joke?
So yes, you are saying that progressives didn’t turn out because they weren’t campaigned for, correct?
You’re really desperate to avoid stating your position in plain terms.
LOL, nice sidestep on the second half of that comment. Anyway, sorry if my language hasn’t been plain enough for you, but I really can’t simplify it any further. Maybe you could have a friend explain it to you, 'cause I really can’t waste anymore time on this.
It’s hilarious.
You say that progressives didn’t turn out because they weren’t campaigned for.
The opposition is literal fascism.
Yet, according to you, that DOESN’T mean that progressives didn’t turn out against literal fascism because they weren’t campaigned for.
It’s like magnets repulsing each other, as soon as the two parts come near, the doublethink forces the two conclusions apart in your mind, even as you hold both of them to be true simultaneously. Fascinating.
At this point, writing is a waste of my time, so I’ll just copy-and-paste the parts of the my comments that you’re avoiding in order to maintain your narrative:
I didn’t realize the campaign’s actions were “Failing to cast the votes for the progressives who stayed home”, fascinating how voters have no agency.
That’s literally what you’re claiming.
You’re claiming progressives chose not to vote for Harris because Harris didn’t appeal to them, as a corporate Dem.
The opposition was literal fascism.
Thus, progressives who chose not to vote for Harris preferred not voting over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism.
Like, this isn’t complex. It’s actually incredibly simple. There are only two pieces to this, and you accept both of them. It’s really astounding that you’re continually insisting otherwise just because it hurts your feelings to think about.
Oh, okay, so because Harris waited too long to say the word ‘fascism’, THAT’S why the progressives chose, in your worldview, to let fascism win. Makes perfect sense.