A mix of both is usually what I find the most helpful. At least in actual propaganda. It’s ok to use the language of liberals to spread the propaganda of “doubt”. It’s sometimes more effective to hook a single contradiction with their own language than it is to address liberal thought directly. At least for the liberals that are attached to the Democratic party with real hopes of material improvements.

Though if one is commenting about politics on Lemmy. They are not really likely to be this type of liberal. They are likely to be too lost in the sauce of electoral politicals to actually be the ones I’m talking about. Propaganda of doubt is much more effective in real life with an opportunity for repeated conversations.

Though, I still think it’s useful online, but not as clearly. OP had a good comment that used Abdul El-Sayed as an example to introduce a contradiction around the reasons they were giving around “Electability”.

People like these politicians like Mamdani and Abdul. They introduce dual contradictions that can be exploited. Their Muslim faith and their SocDem (being fair here I think. But “sewer socialism” if you want) policies. The first obviously being a counter to the rise in anti arab and Muslim rascism. That they handle like liberals beautifully, hooking them with the moral arguments Democratic voters love. But, then are actually contradicting the political process and “just vote” arguments that they also love. And Mamdani at least, is doing this through the use of SocDem policies with actual material results. And that’s our goal. Because we know that people are influenced by their material conditions.

Edit: I wrote more. But then realized I was getting lost in the weeds when I had to start writing about Lenin and a major difference in how propaganda is spread vs. today. So I’ll stop. I won’t pre rebute why a rise in material conditions is good vs. doomer accelerationist (into fascism) shit online leftist always spout. I’ll address it later when it inevitably comes up.