Many Democrats continue to believe that the racism of average Americans — many of whom voted for Barack Obama twice — explains why Donald Trump won. This moralism suits party elites who would rather demonize the public than address growing inequality.
I’m saying that if the candidate listened to the protests and addressed the issues that were brought up, they may have gotten more votes. Arguably, having MORE protests may have helped them win if it could convince the leadership to make changes.
Outcry from supporters is what convinced Biden to step down, which I think helped the Democrats come closer. Protest is important if it can help a party make the right adjustments in their campaign.
Telling people to stay silent is unproductive.
Not all voters agreed with those protests. Arguably, the candidate would’ve lost by more if they listened to the protests and addressed the issues that were brought up.
What we can’t argue about is the fact that the protests hurt voter turnout and now Trump is the president.
Even if this was true, silencing any criticism isn’t the solution. In most parts of the world anyway
Every candidate will have criticisms.
Every politician will amplify their opponent’s criticism to impact election results.
Validating concern trolls isn’t the solution.
Getting everyone to vote in everyone’s best interest is.
Allowing the GOP to gain more power and end democracy is unproductive.
Was the timing of the protests the problem in your opinion? The way that it was done?
In your opinion, how should supporters of a party express what they want changed with an electoral platform
The timing, the fact that it was only used against democrats is a sign that the GOP will use it to their advantage.
The way it was done is also an issue. In this context, the message of the protest was that democrats needed to give the protestors what they want. Otherwise democrats wouldn’t get votes from the protestors. Resulting in the protestors helping Trump get elected.
Democrats have constituents that do not agree with those protestors and so democrats would’ve lost votes by giving into the protestors. Resulting in the protestors helping Trump get elected in this outcome also.
In my opinion, supporters of a party should express what they want changed by engaging with their politicians.
The only time that won’t work with a politician is if their intel indicates they gain more votes by not making those changes.
In that scenario, the supporters need to accept that the majority rules in a democracy and vote for the lesser of two evils because that is in the best interest of those supporters.
Instead what happened was protestors cut off their nose to spite their face and now things are much worse as a result.
What we’re talking about is a game between two players: democrats and their potential voters. It is totally a valid strategy in game theory to punish the other player when they’re not cooperating. If you’re always cooperating even when your opponent (i.e. your preferred political party) isn’t, you’re just encouraging them to continue to not cooperate.
Try out this interactive page.
In this context, “valid strategy” = everyone is worse off, protestors get the opposite of what they wanted and fascist gain power.
In this context, “punishing the other player” = punishing yourself.
Yes. Doesn’t mean it’s a bad strategy.
This is not a one-round game. Elections happen repeatedly. If you show someone you will punish them for bad behavior even at cost to yourself, it might teach them to change their ways. On the other hand, always minimizing your losses in the current round (i.e. having no memory or vision) makes you a perfectly predictable and exploitable player.