The ideas I lay out in the article could result in both a revitalized, empowered and respected base of POC (who are overwhelmingly religious) and progressive people of faith, and a 5-10% swing among Catholics/evangelicals. That, my friends, is a national, governing coalition.
"We won't move as fast as you want but we'll keep moving"---even when people are suffering and dying while you move slow---is still a better pitch than "Idk we might just do what your ideological opponents want bc we want their votes, and like forget y'all."
-
-
And I think... there's as much trust gap to make up between, say, male Dem pols and feminists, straight Dem pols and queer folks, as there is trust gap to make up between Dem pols and evangelicals. How do you say "we're doing this to win, but trust me, I'm still with you?"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yeah, neither are the case I'd make. I do think i cover this territory in my pieces in The Atlantic and Politico so I should probably just let those speak for themselves for now
-
At some point, there has to be a bit of pragmatism for a party that's lost over 1000 state legislative seats, the Presidency and House and Senate. Running far Left as fast as you can might satisfy the base, but if you're getting shellacked in elections, what diff does it make?
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.