It’ll be Tucker Carlson vs. Gavin Newsom, Tucker will pretend to take a hardline stance against Israel and for universal healthcare, and Newsom will take a “moderate” position on both (which will be the same as Tucker’s actual position, but his voters won’t know that), then all the liberals will blame the left when Tucker wins. I’m a time traveler folks, I came back to make sure this doesn’t happen. Heed my warning!

The question was about Hakeem making a divisive statement and OP sharing the reporting on it. Reporting on what someone else says is not an additional divisive statement, and downvoting the post for being divisive is just shooting the messenger. That’s the point I was making, you lecture the people informing others about what Hakeem said to stop being divisive when it’s Hakeem who made the divisive statement and should be lectured. It’s the same logical error a lot of liberals make when they blame voters for election losses instead of the candidates for failing to inspire people’s vote.

He’s going to lose and people like you will blame the voters, but it’ll be his own fault.

I’m still not following. Where did I even make a comparison? I just asked a question.

Well right now he’s doing the opposite of drumming up support by stating his opposition to near-universally popular policies and attacking the most energized portion of the base.

The strategy you describe is concurrent, or as concurrent as it can be. If you’re a stickler for details it’s actually the reverse of the order of operations you laid out, since the primary comes before the general.

Who’s we?

You gotta do both at the same time or you won’t get rid of either of them. If they act as a unified bloc we should treat them as such.

Why is it “divisive” to report on what Hakeem says, but it’s not “divisive” for him to say it?

FDR (a progressive and the most re-elected and longest serving US president) was first elected 23 presidential cycles ago, and there have only been 59 presidential cycles since the country’s founding. He was far from perfect, but his progressive economic policy and creation of the New Deal coalition to combat the great depression made him the most popular president in US history. You’re welcome to dismiss it as a fluke or insist again that it was too long ago to be relevant but denying that it even happened doesn’t help your position.

We’ll move on to discussing why millions who voted in 2020 didn’t in 2024 only after you concede the electability argument. It just wouldn’t make sense to talk about what exactly made moderate dems unelectable if you’re unwilling to accept that that’s the case.

Cool, thank you for the correction. He gained some votes, but not as many as the Democrats lost. Dem voters largely didn’t switch parties, they stayed home. Do you disagree?

Trump winning in 2024 with fewer votes than Biden got in 2020 does not support the argument that moderate Dems are more electable. In fact, it demonstrates a considerable dysfunction in the electability of moderate Democrats because it means that voters abandoned the party en masse in favor of not voting at all. Trump didn’t gain voters, the moderate Democrats lost them. If you want to be electable from now onwards you would be beyond foolish to emulate Biden or Harris.

If you were arguing in good faith you wouldn’t use a statistic that is deliberately misleading due to not being adjusted for population growth. You’re also moving the goalposts; we were talking about progressives running on the Democratic party ticket and you’re bringing up vote percentages for third parties, after we’ve already established that we have an entrenched two-party system that makes third parties unviable.

Enough time for the Democratic party to completely abandon the economic populism that once made it so popular they had to create term limits to put a stop to it.

The most electable Democrat in US history was FDR, who ran on a platform with far more in common with the DSA platform than the modern Democratic party. The DSA is employing an entryist strategy to restore the Democratic party to its former glory during the rollout of the New Deal. The recent wave of DSA-backed candidates are fully cognizant of the fact we have an entrenched two-party system and are acting accordingly.

That statistic implies nothing except a confirmation of our deeply entrenched two-party system.

He supports the genocide in Gaza and cynically weaponizes identity politics to defend his position. He said he considers being called an establishment candidate a slur. Crowley is not fine, he’s a sellout who fails the most basic test of moral character that is condemning an ongoing genocide in which our own government is complicit.

Leftists talk about it all the time because we’re forced to defend ourselves against disingenuous “electability” concerns from a political faction that lost twice to a rapist and pedophile with the mental acuity of a 6-year-old. The typical centrist Democrat is historically unelectable and yet they still feel like they’re in a position to lecture progressives on electability, when it should be the other way around.

Only lemmings would use comparison operators to explain political topics and then have the replies evaluate the expression lol.