They’re going to say that the problem with Trump is that he didn’t follow through on isolationism so they’ll support someone like Vance or Carlson who promises to do real isolation, with “peace through strength” and then he’ll invade Cuba or some shit and say he was just doing the strength part and they’ll conclude that the problem was that Vance or Carlson didn’t follow through on real isolationism and repeat and repeat and repeat, stockpiling “fell for it again” awards, only learning the lesson about the specific individual each time.
As long as the Democrats remain hardcore interventionists, the person at least claiming that they’ll stay out of foreign conflicts will be seen as the “lesser evil,” by many potential swing voters. The only possible way for the Democrats throw in 2028 is if they nominate a Zionist.
Right, the thing with conservatism is that it’s a lot like the donnie cult. In donnie’s cult, he could never fail, he could only be failed by his accomplices and supporters.
Conservatism works much the same way. It can never fail, it can only be failed. So, in the bigger picture, the cult can claim that donnie failed conservatism (after he’s off the stage, that is).
I’ve been saying for years that if you actually want to fracture the right or peel voters away from them, you have to go after the libertarian wing. Democrats keep trying to target the neocon wing, because they think we’re still living in the early 2000’s where there was a bipartisan neocon consensus, and Trump is just an anomaly to that. The reality is that the wars in the Middle East discredited the neocon wing, they became deeply unpopular, and Trump emerged as a response to that trend. Now that Trump did neocon shit with Iran, and got these midterm results, the neocons are even more discredited than they were before.
The Democrats have to get ahead of the next “antiwar” Republican, be more antiwar than they are, and call out their incenserity. Running on being pro-war and trying to pick up the remaining neocon dregs that the GOP will be casting off would be a massive strategic blunder, and one that the conservative wing of the Democratic party is probably looking to make.
I really think that only an antiwar, antizionist progressive is electable.
They’re going to say that the problem with Trump is that he didn’t follow through on isolationism so they’ll support someone like Vance or Carlson who promises to do real isolation, with “peace through strength” and then he’ll invade Cuba or some shit and say he was just doing the strength part and they’ll conclude that the problem was that Vance or Carlson didn’t follow through on real isolationism and repeat and repeat and repeat, stockpiling “fell for it again” awards, only learning the lesson about the specific individual each time.
As long as the Democrats remain hardcore interventionists, the person at least claiming that they’ll stay out of foreign conflicts will be seen as the “lesser evil,” by many potential swing voters. The only possible way for the Democrats throw in 2028 is if they nominate a Zionist.
Right, the thing with conservatism is that it’s a lot like the donnie cult. In donnie’s cult, he could never fail, he could only be failed by his accomplices and supporters.
Conservatism works much the same way. It can never fail, it can only be failed. So, in the bigger picture, the cult can claim that donnie failed conservatism (after he’s off the stage, that is).
I’ve been saying for years that if you actually want to fracture the right or peel voters away from them, you have to go after the libertarian wing. Democrats keep trying to target the neocon wing, because they think we’re still living in the early 2000’s where there was a bipartisan neocon consensus, and Trump is just an anomaly to that. The reality is that the wars in the Middle East discredited the neocon wing, they became deeply unpopular, and Trump emerged as a response to that trend. Now that Trump did neocon shit with Iran, and got these midterm results, the neocons are even more discredited than they were before.
The Democrats have to get ahead of the next “antiwar” Republican, be more antiwar than they are, and call out their incenserity. Running on being pro-war and trying to pick up the remaining neocon dregs that the GOP will be casting off would be a massive strategic blunder, and one that the conservative wing of the Democratic party is probably looking to make.
I really think that only an antiwar, antizionist progressive is electable.