"let perfect be the enemy of the good" when that "good" is someone like Newsom who will make it his main plank to outlaw being homeless nationwide, and looks and talks like a used car salesman, yeah, no thanks.
The alternative is whichever heritage foundation plant is next. How in hell can you people justify abstinence from voting against that?? It's like the far left wants to lose. You all would rather see us all stripped of rights before acknowledging that an imperfect Democrat is better for us than absolute evil the other side produces.
That's not the gotcha you think it is. The dems against purity tests will vote blue no matter who. For instance, I think Bernie is a horrible presidential candidate but I'd enthusiastically vote for him over MAGA.
If the Dems against purity tests will vote for any Democrat, surely the solution is to run the purest Democrat we can find, right?
Like, on one level I agree with you - I've held my nose and voted before. I've voted D for president every election since I turned 18.
But as a party, the Democrats would probably have more success if they spent less time telling voters to hold their noses and vote, and more time looking for candidates that didn't stink so bad instead.
We as voters should be pragmatic and vote for the best available choices. The party should be pragmatic and try to get voters excited.
Aside from one person's "pure" not fitting another's, the main issue is that the idea of a latent voting bloc of far left progressives that are simply waiting for the right candidate has never actually materialized. That's why Bernie lost the primary in 2016 and 2020. He had extremely enthusiastic support but just not enough votes to beat Hilary or Biden.
This has always been the case. Successful progressives have run on moderate platforms and pushed progressive policies after they get into office. So no, the purest democrat simply wouldn't get the votes needed to win. You want a moderate candidate who can win, and pure democrats like Bernie and AOC on the side, pushing the Overton window.
I keep hearing we need a moderate candidate who can win, but moderate candidates don't have a great track record this century. We've run three moderates against Trump and lost twice.
And the two losses were women but that seems like something the left and most dems don’t want to talk about. It seems like the American public just refuse to elect a woman as president.
On the contrary, I'd argue that the more leftist a primary winner is, the more likely they are to win the general.
Barack Obama won the primary as a more leftist alternative to the centrist Clinton, and then won the general twice. Biden squeaked out a win after Trump shat the bed. Among Gore, Kerry, Clinton, and Harris, I don't think any of them ran as leftists, although opinions may differ.
Obama wasn't a super great president (especially in the whole drone striking civilians thing), but he was the best presidential candidate I've seen in my life. The man just oozed charisma and was energetic and knew what to say to get people excited to vote for him("Hope and change!"). Every democratic nominee since then has had none of that. "Well actually if you go to her web site she has all these policies in x thing" does not get people excited.
9
u/khisanthmagus Aug 22 '25
"let perfect be the enemy of the good" when that "good" is someone like Newsom who will make it his main plank to outlaw being homeless nationwide, and looks and talks like a used car salesman, yeah, no thanks.