Read on Twitter
The other thing about “defund the police” is that even if you assume that it’s uniquely a killer for Democrats (something, to be clear, there’s literally zero actual evidence of), REPUBLICANS WOULD ACCUSE DEMOCRATS OF SUPPORTING IT REGARDLESS OF WHAT DEMS ACTUALLY SAY
I mean, is Obama just dense? “Oh if you describe this in nice, neutral terms you’ll get everyone to come along with you.”
Your landmark health care laws was demonizing as containing actual execution panels. There’s a lesson there, my man https://twitter.com/fran_chambers/status/1334120230864433156?s=21
Your landmark health care laws was demonizing as containing actual execution panels. There’s a lesson there, my man https://twitter.com/fran_chambers/status/1334120230864433156?s=21
Yeah, the key for winning swing voters is raising the portion of Democrats who refuse to say “defund the police” from 99% all the way to 100%, this makes sense https://twitter.com/puckthecat1/status/1334137621438730241?s=21
Dems: “As long as any activist anywhere in our party says anything even passingly unpopular, we cannot win swing voters”
The actual Republican president: “Haha there are good people on both sides, Putin rules, I have absolute power, inject yourself with bleach”
The actual Republican president: “Haha there are good people on both sides, Putin rules, I have absolute power, inject yourself with bleach”
The thing is, my frustration here has nothing to do with the particular slogan “defund the police.”
It’s with the unworkable, absurd logic that says the key to winning elections is just to keep 85m people from saying anything unpopular, so that Republicans can’t attack us.
It’s with the unworkable, absurd logic that says the key to winning elections is just to keep 85m people from saying anything unpopular, so that Republicans can’t attack us.
The centrist fixation with “defund the police” galls because it’s scapegoating, scapegoating that pretends a tiny number of activists hold the strategic fortunes of the Democratic Party in their hand, but they, the actual powerful party leaders, have no agency whatsoever.
I mean are people SURE they want to go down a road where Step One to winning elections is "First, ensure that none of the millions of people tangentially related to our party hold any view that polls underwater"?
Does anyone maybe possibly see some problems with that reasoning?
Does anyone maybe possibly see some problems with that reasoning?
