[tastyface]

Why do you think you have the strategic sense to productively participate on a topic like this? Who even are you? What are your sources?

As for me, I look at polling results almost every day. My sense is that nothing I said is extraordinarily controversial among the voters who actually matter. People care about the economy, period. Outside of hardcore MAGA enclaves -- which will never change their vote -- the culture war bullshit is massively unpopular.

[palmotea]

> Why do you think you have the strategic sense to productively participate on a topic like this?

In short: I'm talking about compromises, not fantasies of partisan purity.

> Who even are you? What are your sources?

Someone who has lived in places where Democrats used to win, but no longer do.

[fzeroracer]

'Compromise' is strictly just code for becoming Republican, and I'm not going to vote for a Republican.

A great example of this is abortion, where for years Democrats did have 'moderate' positions on abortion. The end result has been taking away people's rights and stomping on any notion of any abortion.

Compromise is how we got to here in the first place, with feckless politicians unable to have any sort of spine and gradually shrinking the amount of constituents they'll fight for.

[palmotea]

> 'Compromise' is strictly just code for becoming Republican, and I'm not going to vote for a Republican.

No it doesn't, and thinking that was shows the lack of "strategic sense to productively participate on a topic this." You're position basically seems like: give me everything I want, even if it's a losing platform.

> A great example of this is abortion, where for years Democrats did have 'moderate' positions on abortion. The end result has been taking away people's rights and stomping on any notion of any abortion.

They didn't moderate enough, where they needed to moderate. I know for a fact Democrats have lost Senate races in "red" states, at least in part, because the candidate couldn't take a clear pro-life position.

They were never going to get a pro-choice person there, but what else did they lose by insisting that's the only kind of person they'd accept?

> Compromise is how we got to here in the first place, with feckless politicians unable to have any sort of spine and gradually shrinking the amount of constituents they'll fight for.

Lack of compromise is precisely what leads to "gradually shrinking the amount of constituents they'll fight for." You're saying: if you're not 100% for everything we stand for, we won't represent you.

[fzeroracer]

> They didn't moderate enough, where they needed to moderate. I know for a fact Democrats have lost Senate races in "red" states, at least in part, because the candidate couldn't take a clear pro-life position.

I know for a fact that Democrats have lost senate races in red states because the candidate took a clear pro-life position. Your arguments are not going to work on me, considering I've lived in Texas and have seen what happens when Democrats compromise their position into oblivion. Or hell, you can look at the DINOs and see how every goddamn time they torpedo'd policy over the past decade.

Any Democrat that chooses to compromise over issues like abortion or trans rights or anything like that should be chased out of the running. We should adopt the exact same strategy that Tea Party republicans used to gain control over the Republican party.

[palmotea]

> I know for a fact that Democrats have lost senate races in red states because the candidate took a clear pro-life position. Your arguments are not going to work on me, considering I've lived in Texas and have seen what happens when Democrats compromise their position into oblivion. Or hell, you can look at the DINOs and see how every goddamn time they torpedo'd policy over the past decade.

The lost because of that? If so, it sounds like it was the red-state liberals being immature and choosing a no-win situation: either lose because you run a candidate that makes liberals happy but can't win the state or liberals doom a candidate who can win the state because he only offered the liberals 90% instead of 100%.

> Any Democrat that chooses to compromise over issues like abortion or trans rights or anything like that should be chased out of the running. We should adopt the exact same strategy that Tea Party republicans used to gain control over the Republican party.

Such black and white thinking. You'd rather have 0% alignment on issues than 90% or 75%? Because that's what you get when a Republican wins.

Purity is a dumb strategy when the Tea Party republicans do it, and it'd a dumb strategy when liberals do it. Tell me: how many competitive races have "Tea Party republicans" lost because they ran a nut? The answer: lots. Uncompromising purity like yours is actually an exploitable vulnerability.

[fzeroracer]

> The lost because of that? If so, it sounds like it was the red-state liberals being immature and choosing a no-win situation: either lose because you run a candidate that makes liberals happy but can't win the state or liberals doom a candidate who can win the state because he only offered the liberals 90% instead of 100%.

This is an incredibly nonsensical rationale. For some people, including myself, abortion is going to be a hard line. I don't care if you think compromise is a better option, if that line is crossed they are losing my vote. If abortion can be a single-issue policy for Republicans then I can damn well make it into one for myself.

> Such black and white thinking. You'd rather have 0% alignment on issues than 90% or 75%? Because that's what you get when a Republican wins.

Correct. I'm done voting for the lesser evil. If it works for Republicans it can work for the left. As much as you say it's a 'dumb strategy' we're in this situation today because it works. It's what got the current set of Republicans into power.

> Tell me: how many competitive races have "Tea Party republicans" lost because they ran a nut?

Most Republican elected officials in Texas? Ken Paxton is insane, incredibly corrupt and someone that should've been ran out of the state years ago. Same with Greg Abott. The idea that democrats should compromise a bit with insane assholes who are causing direct harm to women is a mistake. Even if you consider it 'tactically' correct, morally it is a mistake and is a losing proposition for their own voters.

[tastyface]

Funny how this logic doesn't seem to apply to Republicans. They run the absolute worst candidate I've seen in my entire life -- in any democratic country -- and they get everything they want. At no point did they feel the need to compromise in any way or adjust their positions any closer to the left. Apparently pounding the table until you win is a viable political strategy in America. Or maybe timing the political pendulum with economic swings simply lets you run any candidate you want.

No offense, but I'm not sure you have much strategic sense here either. Your take on how politics works in the US strikes me as utterly naive.

[palmotea]

> Funny how this logic doesn't seem to apply to Republicans. They run the absolute worst candidate I've seen in my entire life -- in any democratic country -- and they get everything they want.

Complaints about the other side will get you nowhere.

And the lesson I got from Trump's win the real cause is Democrats are were so out of touch that they allowed someone as bad as Trump to win. The turn towards fantasy politics, where liberals just need to be more liberal and maybe bigger assholes and suddenly we get everything we want is completely unrealistic. All it will do really do is just ratify the Trumpian dysfunction.

> At no point did they feel the need to compromise in any way or adjust their positions any closer to the left. Apparently pounding the table until you win is a viable political strategy in America.

Are even you paying attention? Trump totally did adjust their positions closer to the left. When was the last time you heard about Social Security privatization, for instance? Trump also threw generations of right-wing free-trade economic policy out the window to pursue tariffs.

> No offense, but I'm not sure you have much strategic sense here either. Your take on how politics works in the US strikes me as utterly naive.

It's a lot more realistic than what you're offering. If you're not thinking about the valuable things you really want that you're willing to sacrifice, you're not being strategic.

A lot of people are angry, and looking for catharsis in fantasy. "What if we try just doing all the things that feel good to me, and none of the things I don't want to do? If everyone's like me, we'll win!" That's really dumb and won't end well.

[Jensson]

> The end result has been taking away people's rights and stomping on any notion of any abortion.

Abortion is allowed just like in the EU, some member states in both do ban it but USA and EU doesn't.