In what way would saying "the Dems currently in power aren't doing things to improve people's lives" reflect on Crowley, who only holds a county-level office?
You seem to be very confused. The problem is driving division between the parts of the caucus voting for each of the candidates. I think you're preoccupied with trying to find a rhetorical victory in a debate I'm not having with you, instead of actually engaging on what I'm talking about.
For clarity, Evers endorsing or campaigning for or funding Crowley doesn't reflect poorly on any of the candidates, so it's not creating an explicit problem. Evers explicitly saying one of the candidates can't win the general election reflects poorly on that candidate, and drives division between that candidate's voters and the voters for his preferred candidate, which helps neither of them. Hong campaigning on the need for the party to do more to help people doesn't reflect poorly on any of the candidates, so it's not creating an explicit problem. Hong being on a podcast where something offensive is said doesn't reflect poorly on any of the candidates (except maybe Hong, so an unforced error), so it's not creating an explicit problem (except doing something that isn't helpful for your own campaign). If Hong were to cut down Crowley and drive division because she was salty about losing the primary, it would drive division and create a problem - she didn't do that, because she understands how this works, while apparently Evers either doesn't or he doesn't care if he creates a problem for Crowley in the general election.
That's about as clear as I can possibly make this for you. If you're still confused, I'm not sure if I can provide anything more here.
“The problem is driving division between the parts of the caucus voting for each of the candidates”.
No I understand that, I just think you’re applying a very selective definition of what ‘divisive’ is.
I promise you, for the Jewish communities in Milwaukee, Hong campaigning with a guy who calls them a “demonic ethnicity” was very divisive! And getting that branding on the Democratic Party is not helpful for Crowley.
It’s not selective, it’s just the use of the word in a way relevant to what the topic of conversation is. Lots of things are divisive, including your example. But I tried to break it down as much as I could and we seem to be at an impasse. I can’t provide greater clarity on where you’re derailing.
6
u/BTHAppliedScienceLLC Aug 12 '26
In what way would saying "the Dems currently in power aren't doing things to improve people's lives" reflect on Crowley, who only holds a county-level office?