It's not that 'voters' are incoherent, even though many are, it's that swing voters between the Democrats and the Republicans are completely incoherent because there is nothing objectively different between the parties aside from some levels of bureaucratic government shenanigans that barely affects us because both sides are bad at doing effective bureaucracy (which doesn't actually need to be 'efficient', it just needs to actually accomplish that which it sets out to do, which is the most important government skill), and vibes based on social justice or whatever is brewing in the culture war that only like 25% of any of the party actually gives a shit about at any time.
And it is these swing voters that people in the party chase, most of whom in my experience are basically just 'Chyna bad' voters and whomever publicly whips the whipping boy the most gets their vote.
there is nothing objectively different between the parties
While both are anti labor or pro Oligarchy parties, one is definitely a lot worse than the other. One party aims to uphold the status quo while the other works to establish a reactionary theocracy.
This is incorrect. The Democrats do not work to 'uphold the status quo'. They actively and purposefully undermine the efforts of progressives who are seeking to work against those attempting to entrench local reactionary theocratic tendencies. It's acceleration by another name. And this is because you don't understand the Republican project.
Calling what the Republicans are seeking a 'theocracy' is hyperbolic and misunderstands the distinct petite bourgeoisie nature of American Protestant faith. They are not seeking a Mormon style control of the country, they are seeking the opposite, they wish to dissolve the country into theocratic fiefdoms based on the particular religious inclinations of the petite bourgeoisie. That doesn't mean they don't wish for Christian dominion over the world, but that is just cope for the fact that they are stuck in the financialized neo-liberal hegemony like everyone else. This suits the Democrats just fine because they will also get their little quasi-religious fiefdoms on the coasts, where the real economic power is anyways.
And all this really is doing is creating legislation to legally justify already existing practices in these areas. The 'theocracy' is here, we just stick too much to the edges of society to interact with it.
Edit: Sorry for being rude, it's just that I genuinely fight with these supposedly different 'democrats' on a regular basis, and they are basically as fucked in the head as your average Republican, there is very little distinction outside of the fact that they don't want to see the misery, but if it happens just out of earshot, then it doesn't exist.
This difference is more apparent at state and local levels, too. There are tons of strong criticisms of Democrats; the argument of "no they're literally the same" isn't necessary and doesn't work particularly well.
The difference is that at local levels Democrats often have to give into progressive demands to maintain coalition government, but if you let them out of sight for even a minute they will immediately start in on full-scale gentrification projects, breaking up and pushing vulnerable communities right into Republican controlled areas or sell your water rights to corporations.
Edit: Outside of local level stuff it is really really hard to pressure Democrats to do anything because they have all the media and elite donor contacts to literally warp reality in such a way to make in nearly impossible to effectively communicate a broad-spectrum agenda. The Squad was able to do some stuff because they are great rage-bait, but they are far too geographically scattered and disinclined (because in the end they are Democrats) to actually organize a proper independent party resistance to the democratic party machine.
2nd Edit: Also, moving up in the Democratic party is not based on your ability to 'work with progressives'. In fact, this is seen as a weakness and 'giving into radical elements'. What is laudable to the upper echelon is getting large donors and working across the aisle with 'moderate' Republicans. Anybody who is up to at least state-level knows and understands that if they want to move forward, they have to work around the progressives, not with the progressives. This involves a lot of promise making, but never actually delivering or working to deliver on those promises, unless it is ok'd from above as a strategic measure.
for the donors and swing voters the parties court instead of punch in the face, there's a lot less changing. the type of people that can discount something like abortion in their interests is insulated from the consequences of the bans (afford to travel to get one).
It's not that 'voters' are incoherent, even though many are, it's that swing voters between the Democrats and the Republicans are completely incoherent because there is nothing objectively different between the parties aside from some levels of bureaucratic government shenanigans that barely affects us because both sides are bad at doing effective bureaucracy (which doesn't actually need to be 'efficient', it just needs to actually accomplish that which it sets out to do, which is the most important government skill), and vibes based on social justice or whatever is brewing in the culture war that only like 25% of any of the party actually gives a shit about at any time.
And it is these swing voters that people in the party chase, most of whom in my experience are basically just 'Chyna bad' voters and whomever publicly whips the whipping boy the most gets their vote.
While both are anti labor or pro Oligarchy parties, one is definitely a lot worse than the other. One party aims to uphold the status quo while the other works to establish a reactionary theocracy.
This is incorrect. The Democrats do not work to 'uphold the status quo'. They actively and purposefully undermine the efforts of progressives who are seeking to work against those attempting to entrench local reactionary theocratic tendencies. It's acceleration by another name. And this is because you don't understand the Republican project.
Calling what the Republicans are seeking a 'theocracy' is hyperbolic and misunderstands the distinct petite bourgeoisie nature of American Protestant faith. They are not seeking a Mormon style control of the country, they are seeking the opposite, they wish to dissolve the country into theocratic fiefdoms based on the particular religious inclinations of the petite bourgeoisie. That doesn't mean they don't wish for Christian dominion over the world, but that is just cope for the fact that they are stuck in the financialized neo-liberal hegemony like everyone else. This suits the Democrats just fine because they will also get their little quasi-religious fiefdoms on the coasts, where the real economic power is anyways.
And all this really is doing is creating legislation to legally justify already existing practices in these areas. The 'theocracy' is here, we just stick too much to the edges of society to interact with it.
Edit: Sorry for being rude, it's just that I genuinely fight with these supposedly different 'democrats' on a regular basis, and they are basically as fucked in the head as your average Republican, there is very little distinction outside of the fact that they don't want to see the misery, but if it happens just out of earshot, then it doesn't exist.
This difference is more apparent at state and local levels, too. There are tons of strong criticisms of Democrats; the argument of "no they're literally the same" isn't necessary and doesn't work particularly well.
The difference is that at local levels Democrats often have to give into progressive demands to maintain coalition government, but if you let them out of sight for even a minute they will immediately start in on full-scale gentrification projects, breaking up and pushing vulnerable communities right into Republican controlled areas or sell your water rights to corporations.
Edit: Outside of local level stuff it is really really hard to pressure Democrats to do anything because they have all the media and elite donor contacts to literally warp reality in such a way to make in nearly impossible to effectively communicate a broad-spectrum agenda. The Squad was able to do some stuff because they are great rage-bait, but they are far too geographically scattered and disinclined (because in the end they are Democrats) to actually organize a proper independent party resistance to the democratic party machine.
2nd Edit: Also, moving up in the Democratic party is not based on your ability to 'work with progressives'. In fact, this is seen as a weakness and 'giving into radical elements'. What is laudable to the upper echelon is getting large donors and working across the aisle with 'moderate' Republicans. Anybody who is up to at least state-level knows and understands that if they want to move forward, they have to work around the progressives, not with the progressives. This involves a lot of promise making, but never actually delivering or working to deliver on those promises, unless it is ok'd from above as a strategic measure.
for the donors and swing voters the parties court instead of punch in the face, there's a lot less changing. the type of people that can discount something like abortion in their interests is insulated from the consequences of the bans (afford to travel to get one).