In addition to what people have already pointed out regarding perception of alignment, there is an issue of exposure to negative information and prioritization:
We know that simply being exposed to something repeatedly alters how we perceive that thing and carry it forward.
Simply by increasing people’s exposure to deeply negative sentiment towards Democrats without simultaneously exposing them to deeply negative sentiment towards Republicans can and will change how people feel, up to and including thinking there’s no point in voting.
There is a time and place for going after the Democrats for their absolutely horrible policies and fucking awful campaign strategies. One month before ballots are cast is not that time.
If we fail to take back Congress this country is truly fucked, IMO. At this specific moment in time, that needs to be our sole focus and narrative.
One month before ballots are cast is not that time.
And neither is two months before ballots are cast, or three months before ballots are cast, and of course when it comes to the general election year is right out. The end result is that the time where you shouldn’t criticise The Party becomes a nontrivial fraction of a person’s whole life, and especially the politically significant portions of a person’s life (given that “right before the election” would normally be a very good time to put a proverbial gun to the party’s head). You’re basically sacrificing a good chunk of democracy to protect the Democrats at that point.
Did I say that? Don’t put words in my mouth.
I caucused for Bernie. I’ve been politically active for two decades. I rail against the establishment Democrats just about every chance I get and spent a year not speaking to my brother over it and he’s a Democrat.
So, with all due respect, fuck you for assuming I would carry that sentiment outside of this time frame. Don’t project your issues with the Democratic party onto me. Have an actual conversation.
Did I say that? Don’t put words in my mouth.
Well you’re echoing the people who do say that so it’s impossible to distinguish you without more details, but sure, in that case tell me: What’s your acceptable timeframe for criticizing the Democrats before the midterm and before the general?
About 30 days is when I expect folks to stop actively harming the better of the candidates.
Between the primaries and 30 days is when it’s appropriate to criticize campaign strategy (e.g. “what you’re doing will cost you votes”).
Before the primaries is when it’s appropriate to champion alternative candidates and heavily criticize front-runners with bad policy.
Once the primaries are over you are stuck with that candidate. That is the reality of our system. As I replied elsewhere, it is shameful but good policy doesn’t win elections. Popular policy wins elections. So once the primaries are over, we ought to stop focusing on good policy - the winning candidate is going to do whatever they want once in office anyway, and there’s no changing candidates at that point - and start focusing on winning the damn election, even if that means swallowing a bitter pill.
EDIT: To paraphrase a quote from one of my favorite television scenes, “If Democrats are so fucking smart then why do we lose so goddamn always?” We have a problem with eating our own. Nobody gets everything they want. You fight for what you want until the candidate is picked, then you get that candidate elected as long they’re better than the opposition.
We are not eating our own because we are not democrats
No, keeping the oligarchy out of power is the only goal
America is in this mess because the average voter doesn’t have those two brain cells. You can’t just go around expecting Americans to be literate!!
Democrats and republicans are politically illiterate
The far right criticises the Dems as much as the left.
You 100% have to make it clear where the critique comes from.
Criticism is not evaluated by where it comes from, but by whether it’s true or false. If you don’t put truth first, you don’t get to have a say in anything anyway.
Humans evaluate facts by the source. People trust their in-group. Someone is far more likely to listen to someone they trust and perceive as in-group than someone who’s out-group, regardless of the facts.
Sometimes this makes sense. If a guy in a nazi uniform told me the bar down the street is a great time, I’m probably not going to go there.
“This bar is not good” is an opinion, not a reasonable piece of critique or an argument. Presenting this analogy as if it is pertinent to the discussion is incredibly disingenuous and you know it.
Lol. No. The parent quote was
Criticism is not evaluated by where it comes from, but by whether it’s true or false
My response rejects “criticism is not evaluated by where it comes from” (using a colloquial sense of criticism, like if a place is good or bad). People definitely evaluate based in part on the source.
You’re making a huge equivocation fallacy here.
I don’t know what everyone else is thinking, but to my mind people consider the source. You’re more likely to believe a reputable newspaper than a tabloid, I hope.
That a genetic gallacy
