Where was the sympathy for Bush voters

[Warren DeMontague]

86. I don't know, you should ask them.

We can challenge disenfranchisement through the courts, and we should. Unfortunately we both know where the new judges are going to be coming from over the next few years

Clearly we need to win elections at the state level. At this risk of repeating myself, I think one good way to do that would be to remind everyone that real progressives support the bill of rights, personal freedom, choice, autonomy, and the like. Because frankly, we've been doing a piss-poor job of that, from my perspective.

AND because we know from experience that once they get any sort of power, the GOP knee-jerks towards authoritarianism. So yeah, I see an opening with an electorate that, like it or not, increasingly skews small-l libertarian on issues of getting the government out of their personal business.

I'm a Jewish American, and I don't have a problem with Ellison as head of the party. One big reason is, Ellison is sane and forward-looking on the question of cannabis legalization, whereas DWS decided to go to the times in the middle of the previous election season, and double down on "reefer madness". This, in a year when over 70% of Florida voted in favor of medical marijuana reform. Marijuana was far more popular than Trump OR Clinton, in Florida. Do you think DWS's intransigence on the issue hurt us with those 29 electoral college votes? Probably not surprising, but-- I do.

Yeah, I know, there are such bigger fish to fry. How dare I even bring it up. And yet, weed was quite possibly the most popular thing on the ballot this year. Like it or not, care or not, roll your eyes or not, it's time to pay attention.

See- we have been damaged, in my mind, by the perception that "liberals" and the Democratic Party do not stand against authoritarianism, nanny-statism, and the like. When memes are put out there that the left doesn't support free speech, for example, that hurts us. 1st Amendment threads on DU can be depressing - witness all the people who don't understand why "blasphemous cartoons" are protected speech - We ought to be seen as the party that supports the 1st Amendment, even if that means allowing people to say or publish or look at things we may personally deem offensive, "problematic", etc. etc.

There's a thread about Milo Yiannanopolous's book deal- it's a perfect example. The ONLY appeal that dude has to these college students who pack his appearances, is that "liberals" are constantly trying to shut him up. So he says he's gonna speak at a college campus, and the usual assortment of groups try to stop him, and what happens? His appearance is packed. And why? Because people want to find out what they've been told they're not allowed to hear. By trying to silence him, they're putting money straight into his wallet.

And these aren't cigar-chomping bald old white dudes in brooks brothers suits, these are 20 year olds, who believe that the right wing is "edgy" because it is forbidden.

It's real fuckin' simple, but we - or some of us have- lost it. I'm not saying try and appeal to "white male Trump voters". I'm saying go where the votes and the electorate is trending, and that is in the direction of strong advocacy for personal freedom and and "eff you" to anyone who would try and tell people what they're allowed to say, for instance, or read or think or watch on cable or do with their own bodies.



None of this, to my mind, is incompatible with social justice or improving the lives of the disenfranchised. But it's an area where our messaging has been muddled, or worse.

I realize this isn't your area of interest here with this thread. I know, Bernie Bernie Bernie. But... Bernie's not running in 2020, and neither is Hillary. It's time to look forward. And that should mean looking to where the votes are.