For my first thread, a thought experiment on misogyny

[BainsBane]

76. and I hear the same from the other side

Who likewise hasn't won, in fact has lost more badly than those you want to replace. Yet despite never winning, they are certain they have all the answers. Every loss is excused. I've seen some of those people insist the Russian interference was irrelevant to the 2016 loss while arguing Bernie only lost because of the DNC or David Brock. I have yet to hear any concession that campaign might have fallen short in anyway.

I think people would be more open to change if arguments focused more on ideas, values, that you want to see promoted rather than, for example, replacing people who aren't allied with Bernie, especially when those people are almost all women or people of color.

Those arguments also need to be based on data and facts of some sort. What we have heard is directly contradicted by exit polls and survey data from the election. There is no evidence that the progressive-type candidate that passes the approval of the People's Summit types can win in red districts, particularly since they haven't even been able to win in the bluest of blue.

1) It is factually false that working people do not vote Democrat. It is factually false that we are the party of wealthy elites. Exit poll data shows the opposite. That rhetoric only benefits the GOP. It conveys the idea that the Democrats are uniquely corrupt, and those making the argument do so while systematically ignoring what the GOP is doing in congress (eg. the banking deregulation bill). Nina Turner is particularly notable in that regard. People who hate the party are not our allies. If they say the Democratic Party is worse, that means they are promoting the GOP. Full stop.

2) The white voters in middle America that Bernie and co have said we owe attention to are not poorer than Democratic voters. They have higher incomes.

3) Look at the data. Develop arguments that address the actual voting demographics. Just don't repeat an argument ad nauseum because a favorite political figure makes it. Politicians have their own interests, and those don't always coincide with the party's or the general population.

4) Claims that we need a "new face" are vapid. New is not always good. Trump is proof of that. Critiques need to be substantive. I have seen nothing of substance in arguments against Pelosi.

5) you are going to make an argument about one politician, people are going to notice when you decide your favorite guy should be exempt from those same standards. The ads with Pelosi feature Sanders more prominently, yet it is only she who is targeted now. The hypocrisy is obvious. It's hard to see the argument as about the well-being of the party when there is not effort to maintain any kind of consistent standard.

6) If you want to make an argument about class, frame it in terms of principles rather than winability because the fact is there is zero evidence that it does win.

7) And quit invoking historical mythology about how great the party was decades ago. It wasn't. And pretending that the party's enforcement of Jim Crow and voter disenfrachisement in those days is irrelevant to the conversation is not going to work. People of color hear that as about wanting to return to when they were excluded from economic and political participation. And most of the historical evoked is just plain wrong. If those voters feel increasingly marginalized through that kind of discourse, which is happening, then the party is going to do a hell of a lot worse.

That's for starters.