Punch up not down. Democrat leadership decides on policy, Democrat leadership decides on election strategy.
“I won’t vote for leader that heinous thing x” is a reasonable position to have. “I will vote for leader that doesn’t heinous thing y” is also a reasonable position to have.
The compromise isn’t to get people to vote for x, it’s for the leader to stop x. Particularly, if the opponent would do x but worse. That only shows, to the Democrat leader, y is a resonable cost for x.
“I won’t vote for leader that does heinous long-standing thing that most of the electorate agrees with even though the only other viable candidate wants to pursue an even worse policy on the issue!” is just “I support heinous long-standing thing getting worse!” with extra steps.
Except those that don’t vote to support the thing can’t be said to support the thing at all. “Those that didn’t support the thing are the same as those that wanted it more” is self-serving at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. By the same token I wouldn’t suggest anyone that votes Democrat supports anything the Democrats do because that would also be self serving at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.
I get you’ve had these arguments before, I’ve certainly read them, and I’m not trying to rehash them.
The point that I’m tying, and failing I suppose, to make is the frustration/anger is misplaced.
Punch up not down. Democrat leadership decides on policy, Democrat leadership decides on election strategy.
“I won’t vote for leader that heinous thing x” is a reasonable position to have. “I will vote for leader that doesn’t heinous thing y” is also a reasonable position to have.
The compromise isn’t to get people to vote for x, it’s for the leader to stop x. Particularly, if the opponent would do x but worse. That only shows, to the Democrat leader, y is a resonable cost for x.
“I won’t vote for leader that does heinous long-standing thing that most of the electorate agrees with even though the only other viable candidate wants to pursue an even worse policy on the issue!” is just “I support heinous long-standing thing getting worse!” with extra steps.
Except those that don’t vote to support the thing can’t be said to support the thing at all. “Those that didn’t support the thing are the same as those that wanted it more” is self-serving at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. By the same token I wouldn’t suggest anyone that votes Democrat supports anything the Democrats do because that would also be self serving at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.
I get you’ve had these arguments before, I’ve certainly read them, and I’m not trying to rehash them.
The point that I’m tying, and failing I suppose, to make is the frustration/anger is misplaced.
Exactly.
What @[email protected] fails to realize is that the infighting is by design