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.
You: “Leftists didn’t turn out because they didn’t like Harris, even though the opposition was literal fascism.”
Me: “You’re saying leftists didn’t turn out because they didn’t like Harris, even though the opposition was literal fascism.”
You: “WOAH, WHY ARE YOU TWISTING MY WORDS!?”
🤷♂️
You: “How are these two things different?”
Me: “This is exactly how they are different!”
You: “What if I conflate what your saying so it sounds like you’re agreeing with me?”
Me: “That’s not what I’m saying. That is clearly oversimplification that misrepresents my point in order to validate your own worldview.”
You: “So you agree with me?”
Me: “No.”
You: “Then I was correct.”
Anyway, with an attitude like this, you’ve got a future as a Democratic strategist!
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.