In the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party, strategists think Project 2029 can shape the future agenda. But are they learning from past mistakes or ignoring the voices of progressives like Mamdani, Sanders, and AOC?
In the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party, strategists think Project 2029 can shape the future agenda. But are they learning from past mistakes or ignoring the voices of progressives like Mamdani, Sanders, and AOC?
i like it, it’s simple and effective
maybe you’re victim of the paradox of the blue sky?
after checking, “paradox of the blue sky” doesn’t seem to be an established term. here’s a short explanation:
a nazi says on a sunny and cloudless day that the sky is blue. because a nazi is always wrong, you contradict it and say that the sky is in fact not blue; even though it clearly is blue. But if a nazi says it, it must clearly be wrong.
I don’t think that’s it. Having a plan for what a party wants to do totally makes sense - and I kind of thought that was kind of the point of party leadership but whatever, not the point.
I think “Project (year)” just has bad vibes, given how absolutely horrific project 2025 is. And I have concern that people would think it’s… a sequel? More of that kind of policy? Rather than opposing it.
This is not the same thing. At all.
Disagreeing with a verifiable fact just because someone you don’t like said the same thing is not remotely equivalent to using a naming convention to come up with someone to call your own plan, which is an arbitrary attribution completely up to you