I admit that I bumped up hard against this: [[Achieving a supermajority means declaring independence from liberal and progressive interest groups that prevent Democrats from thinking clearly about how to win.]]
So is he saying that Democrats will have to throw women, racial and ethnic minorities, and LGBTQ folks under the bus? His language and tone strongly suggest so, and in quite a patronizing way: [[Groups have become too accustomed to enjoying access without holding themselves accountable; the question “is this tactic more likely to trigger backlash than to advance our goals?” is the single most important one, yet it seems to be rarely asked by many of the groups’ leaders or funders.]]
Well, *that's how interest groups work.* They focus singlemindedly on their issues, because that is the whole purpose of their groups' existing and because it is what works most frequently FOR THEM. A lot of Biden voters in 2020 stayed home this time, and while we don't yet *know* why, we DO know that a lot of the Democratic base was disillusioned by the Eisenhoweresque campaign Kamala Harris ran.
So it sounds a lot to me like the writer is saying to toss those people, among the most vulnerable in our society, over the side. I don't know whether that's the right thing to do from a purely election-winning standpoint, but I doubt it; Bill Clinton wouldn't have won in 1992 without Ross Perot siphoning votes away from Bush 41. And I know damned well it's not the right thing to do from a moral standpoint. How does he propose to square that circle? He doesn't, really. He talks about tactics used in a few state races and expects us to presume that they'll work as well, or almost as well, in a presidential campaign context. I'd like more proof before I go betting the future of the country on a tactic and strategy that may well deny some of our most vulnerable citizens a future.
For those hitting a paywall on that piece, try this: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/16/opinion/democrats-interest-groups-majority.html?unlocked_article_code=1.aU4.kgGr.eZh_DAoeQLox&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb
Thanks, Margaret, that worked.
I admit that I bumped up hard against this: [[Achieving a supermajority means declaring independence from liberal and progressive interest groups that prevent Democrats from thinking clearly about how to win.]]
So is he saying that Democrats will have to throw women, racial and ethnic minorities, and LGBTQ folks under the bus? His language and tone strongly suggest so, and in quite a patronizing way: [[Groups have become too accustomed to enjoying access without holding themselves accountable; the question “is this tactic more likely to trigger backlash than to advance our goals?” is the single most important one, yet it seems to be rarely asked by many of the groups’ leaders or funders.]]
Well, *that's how interest groups work.* They focus singlemindedly on their issues, because that is the whole purpose of their groups' existing and because it is what works most frequently FOR THEM. A lot of Biden voters in 2020 stayed home this time, and while we don't yet *know* why, we DO know that a lot of the Democratic base was disillusioned by the Eisenhoweresque campaign Kamala Harris ran.
So it sounds a lot to me like the writer is saying to toss those people, among the most vulnerable in our society, over the side. I don't know whether that's the right thing to do from a purely election-winning standpoint, but I doubt it; Bill Clinton wouldn't have won in 1992 without Ross Perot siphoning votes away from Bush 41. And I know damned well it's not the right thing to do from a moral standpoint. How does he propose to square that circle? He doesn't, really. He talks about tactics used in a few state races and expects us to presume that they'll work as well, or almost as well, in a presidential campaign context. I'd like more proof before I go betting the future of the country on a tactic and strategy that may well deny some of our most vulnerable citizens a future.