2 ms·

> The mistake here is believing that whoever has the loudest voice on the Internet best represents the party. The opposite is true, and, of course, the logic do

> The mistake here is believing that whoever has the loudest voice on the Internet best represents the party. The opposite is true, and, of course, the logic doesn't work anyways: it's always easier to be louder than it is to be persuasive. It's a strange thing to admit that you're willing to concede your personal understanding of some issue to whoever says the loudest, dumbest things about it. It's not unreasonable through. There's an element of economy there, an element of trust, and an element of movement. People don't have infinite time available to search for some needle you claim is there. Then let's say you found that needle on page 97 of the platform or a comment in some speech: can you trust it, or is it insincerity fishing for some extra votes? It's also not like the party is standing still: today it might be officially against X, but very soon it might be for it or something like it. That's why it's important to be loud. As an outsider, if the loudest voices on an issue in your coalition are unrepresentative but not put in their place, it makes it hard to trust the official position is true or will be maintained when it matters. If those voices are loudly and officially rebuked, the consequences and implications of that can build some trust in the official position, as well as making it easy to discover.

tptacek 4y ago
What "needle"? On Rayiner's side of the argument, there are loud people on the Internet and in leftist think tanks. On my side of the argument, there is the almost unbroken record of moderate/liberal Democrats defeating progressives in primaries, and the recall of leftist politicians in (of all places) San Francisco. The party rejects this stuff, because ordinary voters reject it, and, contrary to Rayiner's belief, the Democratic party responds primarily to its voters, not to The Groups.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > What "needle"? Honestly, anything a voter has to work to find out. > On my side of the argument, there is the almost unbroken record of moderate/liberal Democrats defeating progressives in primaries, and the recall of leftist politicians in (of all places) San Francisco. Then they should attack those ideas in their ads, in their stump speeches, and write lots of strident op-eds about them. > ...and the recall of leftist politicians in (of all places) San Francisco. > The party rejects this stuff, because ordinary voters reject it... IIRC, that recall was led by people from outside the normal party structure.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    No, they shouldn't, unless their constituents actually think it's a real issue. Republicans don't all have to run on repudiating Sandy Hook trutherism, either. The Republican party nominated an actual Nazi --- a guy who stands on streetcorners in a uniform handing out fliers, like, a non-rhetorical Nazi --- for an Illinois congressional seat, and I make fun of people who try to paint the GOP with that, too.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > No, they shouldn't, unless their constituents actually think it's a real issue. Then they've decided to suffer an account of what those "weirdos on Twitter and in elite college administrations" say, and I guess that's their call. People can be forgiven for assuming what the "party" thinks is what their coalition members are loudly saying.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        They're not coalition members, any more than the Nazi who got nominated for the GOP candidate for the IL-3rd is a GOP coalition member. Follow them on Twitter and you'll learn they're almost the opposite of coalition members.
        tablespoon 4y ago
        > They're not coalition members, any more than the Nazi who got nominated for the GOP candidate for the IL-3rd is a GOP coalition member. Follow them on Twitter and you'll learn they're almost the opposite of coalition members. I'm not so sure about that. If they weren't, wouldn't be easier to throw them under the bus than it seems to be?
        tptacek 4y ago
        We've done almost nothing but throw them under the bus.
    - 4y ago

tptacek 4y ago

What "needle"? On Rayiner's side of the argument, there are loud people on the Internet and in leftist think tanks. On my side of the argument, there is the almost unbroken record of moderate/liberal Democrats defeating progressives in primaries, and the recall of leftist politicians in (of all places) San Francisco. The party rejects this stuff, because ordinary voters reject it, and, contrary to Rayiner's belief, the Democratic party responds primarily to its voters, not to The Groups.

tablespoon 4y ago
> What "needle"? Honestly, anything a voter has to work to find out. > On my side of the argument, there is the almost unbroken record of moderate/liberal Democrats defeating progressives in primaries, and the recall of leftist politicians in (of all places) San Francisco. Then they should attack those ideas in their ads, in their stump speeches, and write lots of strident op-eds about them. > ...and the recall of leftist politicians in (of all places) San Francisco. > The party rejects this stuff, because ordinary voters reject it... IIRC, that recall was led by people from outside the normal party structure.
- tptacek 4y ago
  No, they shouldn't, unless their constituents actually think it's a real issue. Republicans don't all have to run on repudiating Sandy Hook trutherism, either. The Republican party nominated an actual Nazi --- a guy who stands on streetcorners in a uniform handing out fliers, like, a non-rhetorical Nazi --- for an Illinois congressional seat, and I make fun of people who try to paint the GOP with that, too.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > No, they shouldn't, unless their constituents actually think it's a real issue. Then they've decided to suffer an account of what those "weirdos on Twitter and in elite college administrations" say, and I guess that's their call. People can be forgiven for assuming what the "party" thinks is what their coalition members are loudly saying.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      They're not coalition members, any more than the Nazi who got nominated for the GOP candidate for the IL-3rd is a GOP coalition member. Follow them on Twitter and you'll learn they're almost the opposite of coalition members.
      - tablespoon 4y ago
        > They're not coalition members, any more than the Nazi who got nominated for the GOP candidate for the IL-3rd is a GOP coalition member. Follow them on Twitter and you'll learn they're almost the opposite of coalition members. I'm not so sure about that. If they weren't, wouldn't be easier to throw them under the bus than it seems to be?
        tptacek 4y ago
        We've done almost nothing but throw them under the bus.
  - 4y ago