It sounds like you’re proposing primary-ing transphobes in the Democratic party, which I support. But your argument is also not really rebutting “vote blue no matter who” in the general election.
There’s two main goals for voting: Harm reduction, and progress. Sometimes you can’t have both. In those cases, you vote for progress in the primary, and if you don’t win, you vote for harm reduction in the general. That’s what “vote blue no matter who means” - just the second part of that.
If you want to make an argument rebutting “vote blue no matter who” in the general, you really would need to address the harm reduction part. To do that, you’d need to compare to the GOP opponent and their beliefs, or if there’s a third party candidate, whether they have any plausible path at victory or are just a spoiler.
For a house seat, two years of harm can be better than being stuck with them as the representative of the Democratic Party indefinitely due to the rarity of successful primary challenges to incumbents.
Are two years of harm right now better? I dunno, it’s certainly a fraught time, but it’s also unlikely an individual seat is going to be the tipping point. And these centrists are particularly unreliable defenders of liberal democracy should they end up in that position.
It sounds like you’re proposing primary-ing transphobes in the Democratic party, which I support. But your argument is also not really rebutting “vote blue no matter who” in the general election.
There’s two main goals for voting: Harm reduction, and progress. Sometimes you can’t have both. In those cases, you vote for progress in the primary, and if you don’t win, you vote for harm reduction in the general. That’s what “vote blue no matter who means” - just the second part of that.
If you want to make an argument rebutting “vote blue no matter who” in the general, you really would need to address the harm reduction part. To do that, you’d need to compare to the GOP opponent and their beliefs, or if there’s a third party candidate, whether they have any plausible path at victory or are just a spoiler.
For a house seat, two years of harm can be better than being stuck with them as the representative of the Democratic Party indefinitely due to the rarity of successful primary challenges to incumbents.
Are two years of harm right now better? I dunno, it’s certainly a fraught time, but it’s also unlikely an individual seat is going to be the tipping point. And these centrists are particularly unreliable defenders of liberal democracy should they end up in that position.