Scratch a anti-harm reductionist and a fascist bleeds

You're viewing a single thread.

60 comments

I actually think the lesson is (from listening to lefties, tankies and to dems after the election):
If your strategy relies on votes from the 1% fringes, then you're probably going to lose. If you can't convince normies to vote for you, you're lost.
- Both are necessary, is the issue. The normies aren't politically active enough to reliably push a majority of the vote, and the fringe is (by definition) not large enough to do it itself.
  You end up with 45% normies and 5.1% fringes, and losing even a little sliver of either means you lose.
  Politics in this country is fucked.
  
  But the fringes are fickle, that's what I'm saying, if they are decisive, they will disappoint you. There is a long list of demands that you'll never be able to meet or if you do, you're potentially going to anger the right-wing of your voters and lose more than you get.
  
  Yep. But then the fringes are always decisive, and there's no way around that - so every election we end up playing a game of "Holy fucking shit are we going to get screwed again??" and, as Kamala demonstrated in attempting to appeal to a greater volume of normies with her "Country over party" schtick, there's not really a lot of room for replacing the fringe with normies. The normies are mostly already decided or tuned-out, and trying to pump their votes up gives diminishing returns for the effort at this point - at the expense of the fringes.
  Shit's fucked. To unfuck it, we have to address the root causes. But addressing the root causes is hard, unglamorous, and time-consuming, while people - normies and fringe alike - want solutions NOW, so instead nothing is fucking done.

60 comments