Oh for FUCKS SAKE. Even after defeating a objectively bad progressive, this moderate dumbass cannot help but keep on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by ignoring the people who will vote him in.
Democrats are also not our friends.
They never have been
You want to lose an election in 2026? Because that’s how you lose an election in 2026
They don’t care, the oligarchy gets what they want regardless which of their pets wins the election
The most insane part about this is that, since hating AI data centers is bi-partisan for voters, the Republican candidate, Tom Tiffany, is promising to end data center subsidies.
https://tomtiffany.com/tiffany-vows-to-end-subsidies-for-data-centers-in-wisconsin/
Even after defeating a objectively bad progressive
:-/
I love “objectively bad” on a subjective scale.
But I love “these Far-Leftist candidates who advocate for everything I agree with are totally unelectable, unlike the corporate empty-suite dweebs I despise” even more.
Why do you think Crowley (and the rest of his corporate media allies) campaigned on frivolous bullshit and made the election about Hong being Too Woke? Where do you think he got all his money to run attack ads?
Fucking morons.
I mean that;s fine, I’ll just say she was dog shit at politics then and a empirically bad candidate that had no political sense that she couldn’t win run a campaign on great ideas that others made work. I mean even in Florida, FLORIDA for fucks sake, her fellow DSA candidate won her primary and other progressives were running won.
Hong was just bad at everything, couldn’t or wouldn’t address her controversial post history. She was bad at her debates. She was so timid that she couldn’t stand up for what she believed in. She was so bad that Sanders didn’t endorse her.
And even with all of that, she still barely lost. People want the policies but not with someone that came off as incompetent as her and not every progressive candidate is a good one, she was just particularly dog ass shit.
I’ll just say she was dog shit at politics
Sure. She should have backed genocide in Gaza and data centers squatting on your front lawn. Then she’d have won against the guy who got back in the race because a bird told him to do it in a dream.
People want the policies
Not the people profiting off the status quo
Seriously stupid. The one issue that no one is ambiguous on and he refuses to read the writing on the wall.
You know how moderates are, Blue lips no matter who when it comes to bribery, especially when it comes from deep pocketed tecno-fascists.
Ahh… “nuance”…
Gj Wisconsin. Ya fekken blew it.
Waiting for the VBNMW crowd to show up explaining how we are taking this out of context.
There has to be some balance between promising the voters what they think they want and actually doing what is a good idea.
Ultimately, the two candidates have similar policy views on data centers, as a piece in Vox laid out last week. Neither one has called for a moratorium on building them, as Hong did. Tiffany has called for rolling back a state subsidy on data centers, which Crowley hasn’t matched, but otherwise the candidates are aligned on the issue, calling for local control over construction and environmental standards to protect natural resources.
A governor kicking the can down the road for local governments isn’t the end of the world, and still an improvement.
He’d get more votes supporting a state wide ban. But anyone advocating not to vote D because they have the same policy on a single issue as the R candidate is just ignoring literally every other policy…
In the purple state of Wisconsin he would earn a lot of center votes if he took a hard stance against datacenters. Talking to people about the candidates here all they ever talk about is datacenters and Flock. Those two issues transcend the parties and would get you an easy win. Hong said some crazy shit on Twitter in the past and she almost won the primary because she was anti datacenter (I voted for her).
