She hid her bigotry during the primary process. Snakes usually do.
This is the problem with the take that many have, “vote blue no matter who, vote for better candidates in the primary.”
In the first primary election, transphobia can simply be hidden. It doesn’t become apparent til the general election. But then, liberals start screaming, “blue no matter who. Vote them out in the next primary!”
So they get voted in. Eventually the primary comes around, and a progressive non-transphobe challenger arises. Does the liberal support the new candidate? No. They then simply change the cry to, “this primary challenger is irresponsible. We cannot lose an incumbent advantage in a purple state over an issue as minor as trans rights!”
Plus transphobes winning in the general on a Democratic ticket further normalizes it and encourages the infection to spread.
It sounds like you’re proposing primary-ing transphobes in the Democratic party, which I support. But your argument is also not really rebutting “vote blue no matter who” in the general election.
There’s two main goals for voting: Harm reduction, and progress. Sometimes you can’t have both. In those cases, you vote for progress in the primary, and if you don’t win, you vote for harm reduction in the general. That’s what “vote blue no matter who means” - just the second part of that.
If you want to make an argument rebutting “vote blue no matter who” in the general, you really would need to address the harm reduction part. To do that, you’d need to compare to the GOP opponent and their beliefs, or if there’s a third party candidate, whether they have any plausible path at victory or are just a spoiler.
For a house seat, two years of harm can be better than being stuck with them as the representative of the Democratic Party indefinitely due to the rarity of successful primary challenges to incumbents.
Are two years of harm right now better? I dunno, it’s certainly a fraught time, but it’s also unlikely an individual seat is going to be the tipping point. And these centrists are particularly unreliable defenders of liberal democracy should they end up in that position.
Yeah, that is the real argument and calculus. None of us know the future, but every vote counts, and every house member counts, even the “impure” ones. We’ve seen time and time again, unless there’s a large numerical majority, some will always use the threat of defections to stagnate policy.
Certainly right now is a bad time, and of course some will say, “But when??” That is understandable but unfortunately not a great argument because for at least ten years all of our elections have been on a knife’s edge with fascism looming. “Not now” is still true even if it’s been true for a long time.
Really, the thing “just don’t vote” or “protest vote” advocates don’t seem to understand is that progress is very very rarely made by holding out for the mythical One Perfect Candidate. We can’t control who runs, and if we lose seats, we undermine the goals, quite simply. Letting the GOP gain any ground will always leave us with more ground to make up.
She hid her bigotry during the primary process. Snakes usually do.
This is the problem with the take that many have, “vote blue no matter who, vote for better candidates in the primary.”
In the first primary election, transphobia can simply be hidden. It doesn’t become apparent til the general election. But then, liberals start screaming, “blue no matter who. Vote them out in the next primary!”
So they get voted in. Eventually the primary comes around, and a progressive non-transphobe challenger arises. Does the liberal support the new candidate? No. They then simply change the cry to, “this primary challenger is irresponsible. We cannot lose an incumbent advantage in a purple state over an issue as minor as trans rights!”
Plus transphobes winning in the general on a Democratic ticket further normalizes it and encourages the infection to spread.
It sounds like you’re proposing primary-ing transphobes in the Democratic party, which I support. But your argument is also not really rebutting “vote blue no matter who” in the general election.
There’s two main goals for voting: Harm reduction, and progress. Sometimes you can’t have both. In those cases, you vote for progress in the primary, and if you don’t win, you vote for harm reduction in the general. That’s what “vote blue no matter who means” - just the second part of that.
If you want to make an argument rebutting “vote blue no matter who” in the general, you really would need to address the harm reduction part. To do that, you’d need to compare to the GOP opponent and their beliefs, or if there’s a third party candidate, whether they have any plausible path at victory or are just a spoiler.
For a house seat, two years of harm can be better than being stuck with them as the representative of the Democratic Party indefinitely due to the rarity of successful primary challenges to incumbents.
Are two years of harm right now better? I dunno, it’s certainly a fraught time, but it’s also unlikely an individual seat is going to be the tipping point. And these centrists are particularly unreliable defenders of liberal democracy should they end up in that position.
Yeah, that is the real argument and calculus. None of us know the future, but every vote counts, and every house member counts, even the “impure” ones. We’ve seen time and time again, unless there’s a large numerical majority, some will always use the threat of defections to stagnate policy.
Certainly right now is a bad time, and of course some will say, “But when??” That is understandable but unfortunately not a great argument because for at least ten years all of our elections have been on a knife’s edge with fascism looming. “Not now” is still true even if it’s been true for a long time.
Really, the thing “just don’t vote” or “protest vote” advocates don’t seem to understand is that progress is very very rarely made by holding out for the mythical One Perfect Candidate. We can’t control who runs, and if we lose seats, we undermine the goals, quite simply. Letting the GOP gain any ground will always leave us with more ground to make up.