DEMOCRATS REFUSE TO BACK DOWN ON RETARDED FAGGOT POSITIONS
>Numerous speakers warned against throwing any progressive constituency “under the bus,” a phrase that has become a term of art in the factional battle. It stands for the idea that Democrats should not retreat from positions taken on behalf of allies, however unpopular they may be. No compromise with the electorate was the conference’s standing order.
>This doctrine might sound irrational to anyone who recognizes that winning elections demands the support of that very electorate. But progressive activists have developed a coherent, if not persuasive, argument for it.
>First, they deny that polls showing any left-wing positions as unpopular convey meaningful information. Anat Shenker-Osorio, a progressive strategist, roundly dismissed the relevance of polling as “pollingism,” and rejected the very notion that politicians can win support by heeding public opinion. “We know that humans are in fact irrational creatures,” she explained from a panel at Persuasion 2025.
>What’s more, where voters do support regressive positions, Democrats should dismiss this as a kind of false consciousness. As various speakers argued, working-class voters facing economic stress tend to lash out at vulnerable targets. “When people are psychologically insecure, they are incapable of being welcoming to people who are different than them,” the activist Erica Payne said. “This is about money. Money, money, money, money, money, money, money.”
>Attempting to disarm right-wing attacks by abandoning positions that are unpopular with these and other voters is not only unnecessary, but also futile. “You cannot feed your opposition’s narrative,” Shenker-Osorio argued. She is even more absolute on her website: “Conventional wisdom says to meet people where they are. But, on most issues, where they are is unacceptable.”
https://archive.ph/qV0m6
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/10/democratic-party-strategy-progressives/684453/
>This doctrine might sound irrational to anyone who recognizes that winning elections demands the support of that very electorate. But progressive activists have developed a coherent, if not persuasive, argument for it.
>First, they deny that polls showing any left-wing positions as unpopular convey meaningful information. Anat Shenker-Osorio, a progressive strategist, roundly dismissed the relevance of polling as “pollingism,” and rejected the very notion that politicians can win support by heeding public opinion. “We know that humans are in fact irrational creatures,” she explained from a panel at Persuasion 2025.
>What’s more, where voters do support regressive positions, Democrats should dismiss this as a kind of false consciousness. As various speakers argued, working-class voters facing economic stress tend to lash out at vulnerable targets. “When people are psychologically insecure, they are incapable of being welcoming to people who are different than them,” the activist Erica Payne said. “This is about money. Money, money, money, money, money, money, money.”
>Attempting to disarm right-wing attacks by abandoning positions that are unpopular with these and other voters is not only unnecessary, but also futile. “You cannot feed your opposition’s narrative,” Shenker-Osorio argued. She is even more absolute on her website: “Conventional wisdom says to meet people where they are. But, on most issues, where they are is unacceptable.”
https://archive.ph/qV0m6
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/10/democratic-party-strategy-progressives/684453/
