I think it’s more complicated than that. Theirs is an ameliorative approach. The base is not right wing, and liberals need to win votes from that base. But at the same time, they need money to afford running for office. GOP, on the other hand, has little conflict between base and donors. - ThreadSky

About ThreadSky

cdashiell.bsky.social • 7 days ago

I think it’s more complicated than that. Theirs is an ameliorative approach. The base is not right wing, and liberals need to win votes from that base. But at the same time, they need money to afford running for office. GOP, on the other hand, has little conflict between base and donors.

Comments

john-purser.bsky.social•6 days ago

That gives one explanation for the phenomenon but does change the fact that the phenomenon exists. When the GOP doesn't deliver a "Tea Party" movement springs up to get rid of the faithless. The Democrats just double down on "Blue No Matter Who".

cdashiell.bsky.social•6 days ago

No argument from me. I don’t like considering someone in one’s party as “faithless,” though. That’s right wing schtick. But that the Democratic messaging is pathetic and even collaborationist a lot of the time is quite evident.

john-purser.bsky.social•6 days ago

I think when a Democrat promises one thing and then walks away from it he's supported by "Blue no matter who". When a Republican does the same thing he's apt to run into some version of the tea-party. It's a matter of how the voters respond to each and it's not the same.

cdashiell.bsky.social•6 days ago

I’m with you on that, because instead of using the faith metaphor, you note the link to the people, the potential voters. By neglecting the real needs of their “constituency,” we end up with shit like Joe Manchin.

Posting Rules

Be respectful to others
No spam or self-promotion
Stay on topic
Follow Bluesky's terms of service

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply