And notice how artfully the following quote teases about the antecedent thought so that readers will be motivated to go there and read -
Now, below, the ending of that post Dan published.
Which is related to another manifestation, which is those who publicly scaremonger worst-case scenarios every chance they get, because if the worst does happen, they can point out that they were right. And if good things happen instead, well, everyone’s happy enough to forget about what an incessant bummer they were.
Getting back on point, the key question is whether all the negativity from the professional online left significantly depresses our voter turnout. I don’t know the answer to that. There has been substantial research done on whether attack-ad campaigning really works (with many researchers saying it doesn’t, but obviously most candidates’ campaign teams aren’t buying it). But I haven’t been able to find anything, really, about whether all the scaremongering aimed at our own side helps, hurts, or neither, in terms of winning elections.
I strongly suspect that the staffs at places like Daily Kos are themselves unsure about this. But as noted before, the bottom line is that they’ll do what they have to do, to get enough donations to keep going. And the only thing that will change that is if people in general start responding more enthusiastically to more positive messaging. And given how fundamental negativity bias is, that’s hard to see happening.
Well, "professional online left" and "they’ll do what they have to do, to get enough donations to keep going" give an easy footing for denial. If people want to give me money, line up, I will take it, but this blog has no advertising, paywall, or other such structure, and I do not solicit. As one Republican once said to me, "If they contribute it is because they like what I have stood for and done. But once they give my campaign their money, it's my campaign's money and I owe them nothing." That got that politician through the need of money to effectively run. Whether hedged in the least or a hundred percent solution.
The nub is that in ways I have been less negative than Dan - who saw Trump as far worse than I did - Trump got us into no Bush wars, and had no Nixon's Kissinger, so worse things than Trump have happened. Beyond that, I am positive. I see evolution of a third party and ultimate movement to Medicare for All as inevitable, just not likely in my lifetime even if I live to a hundred. I hold the positive hope that prols on the right will ultimately see that prols on the left are not the enemy; but that the enemy is the money driving the divide and conquer ploy is the common enemy. Again, a likelihood in my lifetime is not postured, reality being real, but inevitable change is not only my hope but also my expectation. I am vexed by the Education Question, because a ghost in the current machine does turn out Trump voters, and Clinton fans, so some manner of reform is needed.
I read Breitbart less for their slant in writing than to see what they editorially choose to emphasize that CNN sorts suppress while pointing at other stuff. It is the same with RT and aljazeera.com - and left.mn - a "what else" curiosity.
But as to Biden - he always came across as both a mean fucker and a deep conservative, so I hold no illusions after having voted for him with Trump the other choice. And he became a millionaire as a career politician, which is vexing.
That is not negative thinking. It is according reality its due respect. I do not clutch pearls over 2022 perhaps shifting both Houses of Congress Republican, and if that happens Biden will experience a harder time than Clinton, cigar and such, experienced. Money will feature rather than indiscretion, but he is in the kitchen so he knows the heat may be dialed up if schlock Dem candidates are recognized as schlock, with turnout being uninspired to turn out. What happens will be weathered.
Getting to one last detail, Dan wrote, "Getting back on point, the key question is whether all the negativity from the professional online left significantly depresses our voter turnout."
Much more words should have been added to that loaded sentence as to who "our" represents, in Dan's mind. That is where I suspect he and I diverge in viewpoint.
I am an independent because of a strong compelling belief both party establishments suck. Degrees of conservatism exist, yes, but conservatism is conservatism either way. I think Dan sees it a bit differently. I do not see Dan posting ever the sidebar "Yoda teaches" item, but I believe most sincerely that he should shift a bit in that direction; for us (citizenry of the U.S. of A.) to have a chance.
__________UPDATE_________
A long update: I sent Dan notice I was critiquing his post, and his response is worth posting - that his concern with some range of progressive posting currently on the internet is over "whether it helps sustain non-participation based on general cynicism, disgust, and/or defeatism. That's been going on since long, long before progressive blogs, or for that matter the internet, came to be."
He is correct. It is a worry that some practical level of wisdom is needed to understand the adage, half-a-loaf is better than no bread at all.
If you do not get what you want, yes, continue to want more. But don't be a counterproductively sore loser. I am incensed that Clyburn's finger on the balance did what it did and I cannot do one thing about it while establishment figures in the Dem party like what he did, and like Biden-Harris.
That pair, short of a half-loaf for certain, was still a better offering than stale bug-ridden bread offered in its place, a/k/a Mr. Trump; Mr. Pence.
Hence, as a practical matter, I bit the bullet and voted Biden-Harris, with another old saying coming to mind, don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
In 2022, after Dem primaries, there will be the choice, Dem vs GOP, with the scale tipped by nose-count - i.e., that even a Joe Manchin votes with Bernie on Senate leadership and organization.
Yet, the opinion here, is once you see what you like and do not like as much, follow your instincts to put your always limited contribution budget where you see it doing the most good.
An example - I would croak before having to give even a single dollar to Schumer's DSCC, instead wanting to see who runs where with whatever apparent general election chances; and optimize my giving toward the most promising options in terms of quality and politics - and likelihood of winning - be it among federal or more local government office seekers.
In short, spend smart. You don't gain by being intransigent, since that can segue into stupid, blind vindictiveness.
As an immediate example, Shontel Brown won her primary against Nina Turner, who to me was a clearly higher quality choice. Brown, against some Republican, be it a Trumpist, neocon war monger, whoever, would be superior, even in the hold your nose and vote for the better of two unappealing choices.
Surely that promotes progressives being taken for granted and thought to not need cultivation by the Clintons, Pelosis, Clyburns and Klobuchars of Dem politics.
However, taking a wrong stand where progress gains nothing and obstreperousness benefits a worse outcome seldom meets the, "Well, I'll show them" intent, since "they" are hard-headed too, and will take offense.
It is a dilemma where again the answer here is pick-and-choose your "statements" to where they may be effective, and will minimize negative consequence such as one or both Houses of Congress going GOP.
Ultimately, I figure Burns and I think in harmony, with him less distressed by inevitable compromise.
The feeling, however, remains that flagging his post was a positive step. And, indeed, I had my line in the sand with Goldman-Sach's six hundred grand to Ms. Clinton personally and not to a campaign, and I voted accordingly. Third party.
Trump won, and that should have been a lesson to run higher quality, but Biden? Why, why, why, why?
Both times it was a real stinker of a choice. I fault Clyburn for it, second time around.