• WoodScientist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 hours ago

      She hid her bigotry during the primary process. Snakes usually do.

      This is the problem with the take that many have, “vote blue no matter who, vote for better candidates in the primary.”

      In the first primary election, transphobia can simply be hidden. It doesn’t become apparent til the general election. But then, liberals start screaming, “blue no matter who. Vote them out in the next primary!”

      So they get voted in. Eventually the primary comes around, and a progressive non-transphobe challenger arises. Does the liberal support the new candidate? No. They then simply change the cry to, “this primary challenger is irresponsible. We cannot lose an incumbent advantage in a purple state over an issue as minor as trans rights!”

      Plus transphobes winning in the general on a Democratic ticket further normalizes it and encourages the infection to spread.

      • NekoKoneko@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 hours ago

        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.