Clyde_Style wrote:Sure, but that was the question I was asking already. I merely phrased it differently from the singular viewpoint of Sanders himself, because he does have loyal followers and his reasoning will influence their decision.
I know there is nothing sexy about saying we have more to lose than we have to gain at the moment, but that is the stark reality. We can't tick all of our boxes in one stroke, but that's pretty much always the case. It is just more dire circumstances this time.
I do think the three you listed (Environment, Courts, Racism) should be plenty to want to defend by fighting back the GOP, but that has been my position all along.
How you pose the question is important. This isn't just true of Bernie supporters, spend an hour or two door knocking or text canvassing and it can be eye opening. But the reality is winning elections is almost entirely about persuasion. You can have the right idea but get the pitch wrong and still lose.
Clyde_Style wrote:I have no vested faith in Joe Biden, so I don't campaign for him. I'm strictly big picture which means the stakes are such that I will support the nominee. I'm not actually much of a fan of either Biden or Bernie. I really like Warren. So I don't split hairs. I go down the line and support the ticket at this point. I see no alternative for the time being.
No one has faith in Biden (enthusiasm polling is scary to look at right now). That's why the excuses for him losing are already manifesting. I mean that too, it's not a good faith attempt to recruit voters to blame them if you lose. I had a problem with Sanders supporters doing it to Warren supporters and I see the same backfire effect happening in real time now. Provocation is not the way to win over support.
Clyde_Style wrote:If the GOP wins, I will leave the country as soon as I can arrange it. If we can't get enough agreement to beat these fascists then I do think the country is broken beyond repair. Right now, I think we're very broken, but we can patch it up and start to build a better system. This current crisis will create conditions for major structural changes and it does mean progressive reform may be possible. But fascism is just as possible too.
So I don't want to sugarcoat things, but if you think strategically it is wrong to suggest some change will have to be incremental, I'll defer to your knowledge of your particular demographic. I don't think it is really true, so I'm not sure what the pitch really is going to be that convinces rabid Bernie supporters to vote the ticket. TBH, isn't it politicking to avoid speaking the truth as you see it? Do Sanders voters really need to be pandered to? I don't think so.
Clyde, read my post again. I didn't say you can't point to incremental change, I said you have to be specific and show how that incremental change can be built on. If all you do is shout buzzwords then your pitch just sounds insincere. I laid this out in an earlier post about the nuances of what makes quality incremental change vs weak incremental change. It's not pandering to be able to show your work (as every damned math teacher used to say before the test). "We want the same thing and we'll get there" has been rendered meaningless for people who have lived in poverty through both Republican AND Democratic administrations. "We want the same thing and we'll get there..here's how" is what you need to do.
Warren was really good at this. Biden hasn't even tried and it seems to be baked into his campaign strategy.
Clyde_Style wrote:I do think some degree of compromise can be made on the platform that encourages progressives to believe the Democrats can start to transform the party for the better. That's the only IMO to maintain sincerity for everyone on the spectrum of Democratic voters. We're just not going to get a completely leftward shift all at once so to imply that to win votes would be dishonest.
Nobody is demanding a complete leftward shift. I'm saying that "Not voting for Biden is a vote for Trump" is an argument that make ZERO appeals to compromise. Saying "we'll get every insured some day" also doesn't do much but ring hollow. If you believe compromise can be made, your appeal to the left needs to be on the grounds of showing them where you see compromise and how they can try to build on it in the future.
I've mentioned these low hanging fruits in the past. Postal Service Banking, Expanding student debt forgiveness (not the total forgiveness of Warren or Bernie but an expansion) and Legalizing Marijuana are three places that you can point to immediate impacts in wealth disparities, education and prison reform which are full leftward shifts but establish footholds to turn the conversation.
I'm not saying you have to go all the way left. I'm saying you have to learn how to appeal to lefties. That doesn't mean changing your principles, just taking smarter rhetorical approaches in your appeals than demonizing the lefties you mean to recruit as Trump enablers.
and still be treated as if you were reasonable.