ABWD refers to "Any Blue Will Do", which is a slogan, ideology, and voting strategy associated with what is now collectively known as "Blue MAGA".

The charitable version of their argument is that we need to just support every D, no matter what. The problem that ABWD creates is two fold. The first problem, is that in effect, the policy works against its self as electoral strategy. It second problem is that it also works against itself as governing strategy. I'm going to refer to these as "anti-strategies" because I think its important to point out that they are thought about and employed as if they are in-fact strategies that could win an election. They make you feel like a smart person, and are regularly used as a cudgel against other approaches, but they are self-defeating: an anti-strategy hurts you, not helps you.

This clip of Whoopi Goldberg saying she would vote for Joe Biden even if he was pooping his pants on stage highlights:

So the issue that ABWD creates in this context is that, even though Whoopi here is clear that she would vote for a candidate so aged that they shit themselves on stage, American voters wont. And this problem is rampant across Democratic primaries. We're constantly getting candidates forced into elections through AIPAC, the DCCC, directly from the DNC, who aren't electable within the Democratic base, for whatever reason. Here, Whoopi has effectively lowered the bar to the floor. And the problem is, that while a pants-shitter might be fine for Whoopi, its not fine for literally everyone else. By insisting on this anti-strategy, that we had to support Biden as the candidate when it was clear he was completely incapable of governing, let alone winning the election (even when Trump was as unpopular as he was), this insistence was basically an instance we lose the election. Its an important historical footnote that Blue MAGA/ ABWD did win the ideological fight that summer. And we lost the 2024 election as a result.

So the second issue with ABWD/ Blue MAGA is that we end up with Blue Dogs, or Democrats that are basically worthless for progressing any Democratic legislative or governance priorities. Effectively, ABWD is used to put conservative, basically Republican Democrats into safe blue districts, which they might hold for decades. A classic example of this was AOC versus Crowley, where Crowley held the house seat responsible for Queens, NY, one of the most progressive house district populations there is. And he REGULARLY defeated, shut down any kind of progressive legislation. There are many, many others, for example, Ed Case, House District 1, Honolulu HI, who voted to censure Al Greene. ABWD/ Blue MAGA results in bad Democrats getting into office and holding space which would otherwise be occupied by more reliable, more progressive Democrats. When you go to actually get get anything done, ABWD defeats your ability to govern.

It's always foreigners, isn't it? What about the domestic private money flooding US politics? What, because they're American billionaires, it's fine?

Lol, no it really isn't. Citizens vs United was the culmination of decades of the DNC constantly bending over backwards to compromise with conservatives.

Basically in the late 80's and early 90's the legislative grid lock we all know and love today was becoming the status quo. So a strategy of compromising with "moderate" conservatives over policy that benefited aspects of both parties was popularized by the Clinton's.

This "Thirdway politics" led to short term benefits, and allowed the Clintons to get a death grip over the DNC. After a short period conservatives took advantage of this tactic of compromise to drag the DNC further and further to the right. Basically every sitting senator and most of the politicians in the house made their political careers by being the best at compromising with the right.