Ok, this is the last thing I’m gonna say about why the silencing of replying to people with “vote blue no matter who” is actually bad for the nominee and their chances...
1) It silences concerns. It directly prioritizes winning despite flaws over addressing those flaws.
1/
1) It silences concerns. It directly prioritizes winning despite flaws over addressing those flaws.
1/
2) It squelches the public pressure that actually *helps* shape the nominee’s platform and solidifies their support
No candidate is perfect. No candidate is free of baggage. No candidate has a pristine platform beloved by all.
2/
No candidate is perfect. No candidate is free of baggage. No candidate has a pristine platform beloved by all.
2/
The public vetting, debate and pressure of the primaries forces candidates to hone their message, sharpen their policies and *adapt*.
When people reply to questioning and criticism by asking “are you going to vote for them anyway?” or shushing the critic, that doesn’t happen.
3/
When people reply to questioning and criticism by asking “are you going to vote for them anyway?” or shushing the critic, that doesn’t happen.
3/
Our worst case scenario isn’t that we had too vigorous debate in the primaries.
Our worst case scenario is that we *didn’t* subject our candidates to the pressures and scrutinies that will increase a thousandfold in the general.
4/
Our worst case scenario is that we *didn’t* subject our candidates to the pressures and scrutinies that will increase a thousandfold in the general.
4/
You needn’t like or want to participate in the debate and criticism and vetting of individual candidates.
You needn’t like or want to participate in people vetting or criticizing your personal favorite.
5/
You needn’t like or want to participate in people vetting or criticizing your personal favorite.
5/
The “vigorous competition and scrutiny is healthy though.
It is necessary.
It forces candidates to adapt to the will of the voters - and it makes them far easier to vote for by even people who didn’t prefer them.
6/
It is necessary.
It forces candidates to adapt to the will of the voters - and it makes them far easier to vote for by even people who didn’t prefer them.
6/
While it may feel like responding to every debate and criticism with “but you’d vote for them, right?” protects us against poor turnout or poor support in 2020, it does not.
It does the opposite. It disenfranchises people with concerns dismissed when raised.
7/
It does the opposite. It disenfranchises people with concerns dismissed when raised.
7/
We all want Trump gone.
Stop endlessly asking people to pledge they will vote against Trump.
It’s offputting and annoying to people having real discussions about real concerns that should absolutely be heard and resolved to make our nominee a choice we can eagerly support.
8/8
Stop endlessly asking people to pledge they will vote against Trump.
It’s offputting and annoying to people having real discussions about real concerns that should absolutely be heard and resolved to make our nominee a choice we can eagerly support.
8/8
