Coulda had a bad bitch...

It was a conversation from a year ago, so without context I believe I was speaking then about a viable strategy that worked: bringing a left wing policy (at the time healthcare reform) to the conservatives and red states.

The Democratic Party abandoned that strategy since. They still made overtures to appeal to conservatives and red states, but they've done it through adopting rightwing, divisive policies. And then they don't even run a US Senate race is Nebraska.

/u/ZombiFrancis can correct me if I’m wrong but I think what they’re saying is that the DNC was unable to redefine what is perceived as electable;

That would contradict their statements in response to my criticism

And yeah, I still support my own point, now and from a year ago, because I don’t dismiss the support as empty land.

At any rate the criticism in both cases is the rejection of those ‘empty land’ folks. It is consistent. I supported it then and I support it now. What I don’t support is then turning around and dismissing those people and states as empty land. This isn’t rocket surgery.

the stale notion that progressivism is not palatable to rural working class voters despite evidence to the contrary.

It's literally not, though. As I've said numerous times before, the "Do you want [GOOD THING]?" polling that people so often point to ignores that a very large proportion of the people who respond positively to that will walk it back the moment you introduce any sort of the things that conservatives hammer as a downside.

The answer is, mind you, not to water down progressivism - it's to stop trying to fucking bend over backwards for areas that vote 95%+ (not joking, I lived near districts with those numbers) GOP every fucking election. While going immediately full-throttle far-left on every issue may not be ideal, Clintonesque 'triangulation' is a clear and distinct failure, and needs to be abandoned, despite the DNC's reluctance to let it go. We do, as you said, need a coherent and firm vision we can push going forward.

But don't be fooled into thinking there's some easy way to reach out and 'convert' these rural working class voters. They have fundamentally different values than progressives.

Finish the sentence and close the loop: “and then refer to Sanders support as ‘empty land.’” The comment makes sense as a complete thought. By cutting out the conclusion you definitely make it confusing.

The clear implication is that your dreaded shitlib opposition is advocating the 50-state strategy when dismissing Sanders. Yet your criticism elsewhere is that your dreaded shitlib opposition is NOT advocating the 50-state strategy.

I'm sorry that you don't like being called out for kettle logic?

…and did you just go through a years worth of my post history for a screenshot? I know you go through and downvote my post history, but man.

lmao. Lemmy has a search option. All I had to do was type in '50 state' by user ZombiFrancis, since I vaguely remembered you simping for the 50 state strategy before. Sorry that you're on record?

I'm flattered that you think I can read tens-of-thousands of words of your comment history inside ten minutes, but I promise, I read fast, but not that fast.

Lemmy has a search-by-user option. If you know political terms, it doesn't take long to dig up someone's opinions. Doubly so if you've had run-ins with them in the past and have a vague outline of their beliefs.

Looks more like that comment is supporting Dean’s strategy of flipping purple states, not deep red ones.

That's the opposite of what the 50-state strategy is, though. Trying to flip purple states is standard practice. You literally can't win a presidential election without it.