That’s exactly what Democrats did. They decided to not listen to a bunch of groups suggesting they do things like take a strong stance against Israel because they thought that’s not what the electoral majority wanted and they thought they would lose if they didn’t. It didn’t work out for them.
Note, I am the opposite of one of those “Kamala lost because of Israel and it’s 100% here fault” people, I think there is lots of blame to go around, both from her and the Democrats, but also from people who told others not to vote for her because of Israel or people who just sat out the election. I even feel like I’m at fault for not doing more to get others to vote for her.
But they still made a really stupid move because they thought it’s what the electoral majority wanted (i.e. continuing to slide rightward with their policies) rather than figure out that has not worked for them over and over.
I see. I think you are applying specific definition to what Favreau means by “the electoral majority” when that is a fairly abstract, undefined thing. I think the more generous interpretation is that we need to figure out what that electoral majority (for Democrats) actually is through research, and then apply the logic Favreau is putting forward.
The electorate is everyone. Not just current active voters. The Democrats tried to go after the current, active voting majority and failed, while leaving a huge number of potential voters on the table.
It’s even possible Favreau is specifically saying the Democrats DIDN’T go after the electoral majority because they were influenced unduly by special interests to go after the centrists when they could have been going after the people who didn’t vote at all (for whatever reason)
I guess I’m saying your reading of Favreau’s post may carry some of your own biases towards what you think went wrong and what his choice of words means to you.
I’m not entirely sure what about this you have a problem with?
On its face, the statement seems reasonable.
What am I missing?
That’s exactly what Democrats did. They decided to not listen to a bunch of groups suggesting they do things like take a strong stance against Israel because they thought that’s not what the electoral majority wanted and they thought they would lose if they didn’t. It didn’t work out for them.
Note, I am the opposite of one of those “Kamala lost because of Israel and it’s 100% here fault” people, I think there is lots of blame to go around, both from her and the Democrats, but also from people who told others not to vote for her because of Israel or people who just sat out the election. I even feel like I’m at fault for not doing more to get others to vote for her.
But they still made a really stupid move because they thought it’s what the electoral majority wanted (i.e. continuing to slide rightward with their policies) rather than figure out that has not worked for them over and over.
I see. I think you are applying specific definition to what Favreau means by “the electoral majority” when that is a fairly abstract, undefined thing. I think the more generous interpretation is that we need to figure out what that electoral majority (for Democrats) actually is through research, and then apply the logic Favreau is putting forward.
The electorate is everyone. Not just current active voters. The Democrats tried to go after the current, active voting majority and failed, while leaving a huge number of potential voters on the table.
It’s even possible Favreau is specifically saying the Democrats DIDN’T go after the electoral majority because they were influenced unduly by special interests to go after the centrists when they could have been going after the people who didn’t vote at all (for whatever reason)
I guess I’m saying your reading of Favreau’s post may carry some of your own biases towards what you think went wrong and what his choice of words means to you.
Do you think that’s possible?