Pro - Democrats more likely to win. Things won’t immediately get worse.
Con - Democrats have no incentive to do anything other than what their wealthy donors want.
Result - Things don’t get worse now, but eventual rightward drift is guaranteed because the democrats will do nothing good and the republicans will win eventually.
Vote blue only if X:
Pro - Democrats have an incentive to do something other than what their wealthy donors what, in theory.
Con - Democrats less likely to win.
Result - Democrats might do something good if they win. Rightward lurch is possible if they lose.
Can we please stop litigating this now?
Edit: The “best” approach would ultimately depend on the relative effectiveness of influencing democrat policy via primaries or whatever, and I don’t think the answer is immediately obvious. I am not advocating one approach over the other, I just want people to stop pretending the answer is obvious.
Bro, all you gotta do is die and all your credit card debit is gone. If you just keep paying the bills, then the debt stays the same until you miss a bill, and then it gets worse. If you die then the debt goes away. Why keep perpetuating the cycle? Dying is the only way to get rid of debt.
Except the situation they’re describing is a multi-generational one and they’re trying to do what’s for the greater good over time, which is ironically what the more short-sighted “blue no matter who” people accuse them of not doing. Sometimes things need to be permitted to get worse before they can get better. You can’t just follow a simple greedy algorithm of taking the best possible move at every point with respect to the next state of the game. This algorithm is very easily gamed to lead to bad situations.
In summary
Vote blue no matter who:
Pro - Democrats more likely to win. Things won’t immediately get worse.
Con - Democrats have no incentive to do anything other than what their wealthy donors want.
Result - Things don’t get worse now, but eventual rightward drift is guaranteed because the democrats will do nothing good and the republicans will win eventually.
Vote blue only if X:
Pro - Democrats have an incentive to do something other than what their wealthy donors what, in theory.
Con - Democrats less likely to win.
Result - Democrats might do something good if they win. Rightward lurch is possible if they lose.
Can we please stop litigating this now?
Edit: The “best” approach would ultimately depend on the relative effectiveness of influencing democrat policy via primaries or whatever, and I don’t think the answer is immediately obvious. I am not advocating one approach over the other, I just want people to stop pretending the answer is obvious.
The democratic party prefed Trump over giving up some deeply unpopular positions. Truly insane.
Bro, all you gotta do is die and all your credit card debit is gone. If you just keep paying the bills, then the debt stays the same until you miss a bill, and then it gets worse. If you die then the debt goes away. Why keep perpetuating the cycle? Dying is the only way to get rid of debt.
That’s what your post sounds like
Except the situation they’re describing is a multi-generational one and they’re trying to do what’s for the greater good over time, which is ironically what the more short-sighted “blue no matter who” people accuse them of not doing. Sometimes things need to be permitted to get worse before they can get better. You can’t just follow a simple greedy algorithm of taking the best possible move at every point with respect to the next state of the game. This algorithm is very easily gamed to lead to bad situations.