The US is a continent that votes in this thing, and the election is ridiculous with regard to mobilised effort; people, money, employed, volunteers, events, etc… and only one strategy is attempted? Why not do all of this?
idk I’m probably not in the best position to judge for the US specifically but I think there are similarities in this country (England). Do you know what happened when progressives last tried to just energise the base? Jeremy Corbin rambled on about obscure policy that literally nobody cared about.
Why are so-called progressives so willing to fall over their own feet with this stuff? Maddening. We’re like “we care!” and then do… uh, something about it, I guess? Clarity and focus is required, and whilst I agree you shouldn’t abandon your base or ignore the supposed non-deciding minority I also find it difficult to believe that we can’t do more than one thing.
I would hope that the people involved have this covered, and the strategy involves some degree of establishing priorities — you apply x amount of resources to each type; base, non-decided, opposition; and then shift your efforts as the situation develops.
I see an awful lot of “ew the other side” specifically on the web and it’s tiring given how the majority of people all want the same thing: make my life better.
I recall Obama talking about his frustration with this, especially on the internet, in that it seemed to him that too few people on the progressive side of things understood that they were shooting themselves in the foot by getting overly involved in nonsensical tribalism. There are real problems to solve and it never happened without clarity of purpose.
