• neatchee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I see. I think you are applying specific definition to what Favreau means by “the electoral majority” when that is a fairly abstract, undefined thing. I think the more generous interpretation is that we need to figure out what that electoral majority (for Democrats) actually is through research, and then apply the logic Favreau is putting forward.

    The electorate is everyone. Not just current active voters. The Democrats tried to go after the current, active voting majority and failed, while leaving a huge number of potential voters on the table.

    It’s even possible Favreau is specifically saying the Democrats DIDN’T go after the electoral majority because they were influenced unduly by special interests to go after the centrists when they could have been going after the people who didn’t vote at all (for whatever reason)

    I guess I’m saying your reading of Favreau’s post may carry some of your own biases towards what you think went wrong and what his choice of words means to you.

    Do you think that’s possible?

    • 0ops
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      It’s even possible Favreau is specifically saying the Democrats DIDN’T go after the electoral majority because they were influenced unduly by special interests to go after the centrists when they could have been going after the people who didn’t vote at all (for whatever reason)

      That’s how I first read it. Idk though, I’m not exactly sure what Favreau’s trying to say here

      Edit: I reread the tweet a couple times and I think that your interpretation is correct. He specifically calls out corporations and donors as the groups that Dems should resist, and calls dems to focus on the electoral majority (like you said, potential voters) and if that’s what he meant then I agree with him.