“We recognize that, in the next four years, our decision may cause us to have an even more difficult time. But we believe that this will give us a chance to recalibrate, and the Democrats will have to consider whether they want our votes or not.”
That’s gotta be one of the strangest reasonings I’ve heard in a while.
Ok, since it’s not a big deal and he doesn’t need to worry, no blaming these people if he loses. If he doesn’t need their votes to win, they can’t cause his loss.
Where’d you glean all that?
Right here. Don’t know how you missed it.
I think you misread this, if you gleaned from this what you said
I think I read it just fine.
the original post suggested not worrying about appeasing certain people on the issue as there is a significant support from all sides.
That’s different than whether people who didn’t vote for Biden can be blamed for anything. When democracy itself is on the ballot it’s hard to justify voting against it, regardless of some foreign policy grievance.
If they’re so insignificant that their concerns can be safely ignored, then they’re too insignificant to blame for losses.
I said there’s significant support on both sides, not insignificant.
I think your confusion is coming from the blame part, anyone who didn’t vote for Biden who was able to has some blame imo. We’re literally talking about a vote to preserve democracy, any subsequent vote is pointless.
But that’s my stance, others may assign blame differently. As you noted, some people might try to put blame specifically on this set of voters, to each their own.
My worry is that the party will simply regard these people with contempt and hostility and do nothing to get their votes back, and then blame them if they lose, regardless of how their cohort ultimately votes and regardless of how large any margins are.
The party has a demonstrated history of doing this. What the party has no history of doing in recent decades is identifying groups of voters who are in danger of leaving the party and taking measures to retain them.