has been responsible for a loss of respect for the party on my part. Those arguments are trotted out and recycled ad nauseum every single election, and every single election I've turned my back, turned off the volume, and made my own choices based on issues.
The paragraph that you posted about buying voter's indulgence is all about the party's betrayal of their members. That can lead to battered party voter syndrome, or it can lead to revolt. In my case, I choose revolt.
But framing every single decision solely in terms of its utility in beating the Republicans leads to absurdities. Not every situation is a ballot with Ralph Nader on it.
Some certainly would LIKE it to be; Nader is a perennial tool for the lesser-evil argument, regardless of reality.
The Democrats could take this godsend of a Trump situation and use it as an opportunity to finally have a healthy primary season debate about what they want to stand for in the future. But nah to that. They'll probably just hoover donor cash and use press surrogates to bash progressives the way they always have. Trump or no Trump, if politicians don't have to work for your vote, they won't.
Here at DU, voters making candidates work for their vote has always been considered disloyal. We're supposed to shut up, get in line, and vote for whatever corporate candidate has been shoved down our throat without expecting a damned thing. In the midst of a campaign, we are told that once elected, that corporate Democrat will do a good job representing us. Once the campaign is over, if we object to the corporate politician in office pandering to their corporate donors, we're told that a majority voted for him/her, so shut up, because democracy...
This time it might be different. We already have BLM telling candidates that their votes will be earned, and I'm glad to see it.
If the party machine doesn't want to grab this opportunity to kick ass, take names, and be the party of the 99%, they may have a fight on their hands.
= new reply since forum marked as read