Of course it is, the Democrats (besides generally being pretty conservative themselves) regularly let the Right define the terms of the argument. It’s one reason they tend to lose.
And i never said that, and never meant to imply it. In fact, i wonder if Harris could have won if she’d run on “hope and change” instead of on “incumbency”. I listed inflation first for a reason.
But i do think it’s one of the top vote-losing issues of her candidacy. And i don’t think, “she’s too woke” was one of the to reasons. I think, “the Republicans lied, and claimed she is extremely woke” is one of the top reasons. See
Clearly “woke” is not the language of conservatives, if it was they’d be able to define the word.
The only quibble I have is with the word I bolded. It is absolutely a necessity. I often ask anti-immigrant people of a certain age if they’d like to count on their Social Security payments. Because they may not be able to without a steady and large influx of immigrants. Our domestic reproduction rate is simply not enough to keep it running.
Most conservatives are not against legal immigration.
Yes. Japan demonstrates what it looks like for the demographics when a low-birthrate nation refuses to make up the birth deficit with immigration.
And even ignoring the demographics issue, it’s an assumption built into the budgeting that there will be billions of dollars from undocumented immigrants paying into SS who will never get any benefits from it.
That’s just the most beautiful part about woke. It means exactly what you want it to mean no matter the situation.
"When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’"
That is simply untrue.
My point is that if Democrats are also using this language, it’s hardly reasonable to assume that using it implies a whole bunch of other beliefs.
I suspect that would have helped. She’d still have had an uphill struggle, though.
I don’t know what Kamala personally believes, and if I were American I would have voted for her because the alternative was Trump, but I 100% think she would have governed in a ‘woke’ way and institutionalised Social Justice ideas to a greater extent than Biden did. It’s obvious the move to the centre in her campaign was just to attract voters, there’s no conviction there.
I don’t know what this means. I am not sure you do, either. The only definition you have offered so far of “woke” has to do with calling people xenophobes for supporting immigration law, which is a borderline nonexistent phenomenon. Do you mean that Harris would have done that?
You sure about that? Remember that 1) asylum seekers are legal and yet Republican governors actively persecute them, and 2) under the Trump administration legal avenues for immigration from the countries to the south were pretty much all shut down.
I am reminded of the Smurfs and the use of the word “smurf” to mean anything. I will now have Smurfs running through my head all day- and the themesong will be my earworm. I blame you for this! Go smurf yourself!
Also 3) How many times were the Haitian migrants referred to as “illegals” by republicans? Or, for those with a bit more subtlety, contrasted against the “residents”, as if they weren’t residents themselves?
This is true, but with one big caveat. All of the conservatives I know only want immigration from Europe and immigrants with clear European heritage. One of my colleagues is extremely opposed to allowing more immigrants from Africa or South America, even through legal channels.
They are also ok with immigrants from Japan or Korea.
Are you alluding to some new partisan linguistic barrier that isn’t at all permeable?
If so, then would that also imply that no Democrat ever refers to the AHCA as “Obamacare” or to the Democratic Party as the “Democrat Party?”
I’m skeptical.
Okay, I’ve now established that in the second case, the accusation of bigotry was because I used a particular term to describe a bill that was also used by Kamala Harris and by left-wing newspapers.
Such accusations are a standard part of the woke playbook: claim all opposition to your goals or policies is bigotry or motivated by bigotry, and you can delegitimise and silence it. Define people’s feelings as irrational and you can invalidate them.
However, most people have caught on by now and it’s increasingly ineffective. Unfortunately, it has also robbed such accusations of their sting, and real racism, sexism etc are increasingly openly expressed. 
Right wing views are bigoted and irrational; that’s the point. Remove bigotry and irrationality and you remove the majority of the right wing worldview, about all that’s left is plutocracy.
And Kamala Harris isn’t “woke”, and left wing newspapers (like everything else left wing) are extremely rare. That’s just another example of letting the Right define the argument.
And referring to immigrants in a way that portrays them as a threat to be stopped (presumably by killing them) is xenophobic no matter who uses it.
No you have not. What a ridiculous claim.
Such rationalizations are a standard part of the bigotry playbook: claim that because some accusations of bigotry are without merit, all must be. Then you can claim all opposition to your goals or policies is wokeism or motivated by wokeism, and you can delegitimise and silence it. Define people’s arguments as irrational and you can pretend to win your debates with them.
However. most people have caught on by now, and it’s increasingly ineffective. Unfortunately it has also robbed such accusations of their sting, and real racism, sexism, etc are being increasingly called out, much to the chagrin of those expressing them. 
Yes, very clever, except that doesn’t actually describe the world we’re living in, does it?