1) No, we don't. That's an absurdity. You're basing your strategy on the possibility of untainted elections in 2026. That's a strategic fallacy. Do any of the GOP, including Trump, act as if they're electorally accountable? Do you remember all
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
3) as well as local voter intimidation at key precincts.
The sole thing that matters now is overt, visual, united political opposition. Republican legislative efforts should be delayed, rules-stymied, tortuously impeded at every opportunity. The House is more difficult because of its
5) the history of Congress prior to 1861, and the toughening of the Northern Republicans. Look at the velocity with which Hitler removed German democracy.
If we remain in last century's politics, we'll be the bodies others are stepping over in less time than one would think.
I don't agree with all of this. There are issues that we Dems can share with GOP that do not warrant exile. It is just that those issues pale in comparison to the plundering of our nation by the wealthy and destruction of the rule of law. Nuance is ok to me.
1) You're missing my point. We need visible, organized, staunch, overt resistance from democrats. Policy arguments are irrelevant except as slogan. Taking a safe vote in Congress is a losing strategy. People need to see resistance. They don't need to see more careerism.
2) As of this point, bi-partisanship is a fool's errand. The GOP doesn't care about it, and we'll win no votes (not that that will matter) because of it. There's nothing we can share with the GOP. Was there anything worth sharing with Confederates? With Nazis?
I am not advocating for moderation, whatever that means; that is your interpretation. I do think that nobody knows what is on the other side of indifference to our institutions and norms, some of which I value, some of which I don't.
1) I never suggested you did. Your point was we need "moderates" to run in some districts. I'm saying basing your strategy on having contestable elections in 2026 is probably a fantasy.
We need a visible opposition party, one that people will be
I take your point. My point is that a passive Dem is better than an active GOP. I hear you saying that if voters are passive now we could lose our democratic republic. We agree on that in principle, but perhaps not as applied here. In any event, I suspect we are largely aligned.
1) I'm saying something different. I'm saying we can't afford a supine, passive Democratic party. The Party, such as it is, is the visible symbol of resistance, of sustaining what used to be the American Republic.
This is especially true in the House, which is majoritarian, and
2) which parliamentary tactics are not as useful as the Senate. In the face of the crudeness and violence of the GOP/Trump assault, one in which both rules and law are discarded, bi-partisanship is a losing proposition in all
Comments
That's also leaving aside the monstrous voter suppression that will happen, assisted by friendly SCOTUS decisions,
The sole thing that matters now is overt, visual, united political opposition. Republican legislative efforts should be delayed, rules-stymied, tortuously impeded at every opportunity. The House is more difficult because of its
There is no such thing as "moderate," in any case. It's an emotional designation, not an ideological one. Look up
If we remain in last century's politics, we'll be the bodies others are stepping over in less time than one would think.
We need a visible opposition party, one that people will be
It's going to take considerable courage to vote at some key precincts in 2026
This is especially true in the House, which is majoritarian, and