Some people will be miserable no matter who is running
Almost as if the US democrats where assholes through and through (still better that the Republicans, before you accuse me of supporting Trump).
Lol nah, just Russian bots acting like Americans. “Biden is too old, we need anybody else in order to beat Trump!”, “Kamala is too black/isn’t manly enough/isn’t black enough/is too womanly to beat Trump!”
Or maybe they’ll push the angle that “<candidate> was pushed down our throats by the political elite so vote third party/Trump to teach them a lesson!”
We can’t verify anyone’s identity online to see if they are russian trolls due to the anonymising nature of the Internet so we instead have a look at their content and user history and make a decision based on that
Usually trolls act like trolls
Sure, some of them are just galaxy brain cynics whose only political participation is actively sabotaging democratic outreach efforts because they like the way their farts smell.
There is a difference between being critical when it is warranted, and doing literally nothing besides that.
The non-bots criticizing the DMC are helping usher in fascism and they know it.
Can she remember what she had for breakfast? If so, she’s got my vote.
Well maybe you could be president if you stopped eating avocado toast and made coffee at home.
We’re electing a president, not a monarch. Nobody is above criticism, and there’s a weird segment of people who act like criticism from the left exists only to help the right.
Like, I actually saw someone say we shouldn’t do it because it’s too nuanced for the average voter, and sorry but I don’t do paternalism like that. If reading criticism of how a candidate isn’t far enough left makes you vote further right, that’s a basic political literacy problem.
I mean, we could focus on defeating the GOP and the day after the election results come in start using social pressure to guide our elected officials. If the criticism risks the GOP seizing even more power, it might be counterproductive to your goals even if the criticism is valid.
Any good faith criticism of the Dem candidate should be obvious in its criticisms that R policies are inherently worse. For example, Harris’ record as DA is worth criticizing, but any bad decisions related to imprisoning people are going to be a million times worse under Trump, as Project 2025 shows.
Any good faith criticism of the Dem candidate should be obvious in its criticisms that R policies are inherently worse.
Your argument would be great if we didn’t live in the reality presented below. There are too many people sitting on the fence who legitimately cannot discern between a mediocre candidate and a career conman, criminal rapist. Where you see nuance, others see “she’s no better than Trump”.
I like Harris as much as I like Biden, which is not at all, but the alternative is the very real possibility of the end of America.
Exactly this. On this platform and elsewhere, there is a lot of well-meaning criticism but there are many agents of chaos or narrative pushers that disguise themselves as genuine criticism. I try to interact genuinely and give an opportunity to demonstrate that they are looking for a constructive path forward for the party.
Well, last time we pushed Biden left it was called too soon after election, give them time to form a plan. Form a cabinet, figure out policies.
Then it was midterms. Questioning the policies for misterm gives Republicans a win. They have to keep these conservative polices set by the last Republican to win over Republican voters.
Then it’s 2024. Questioning policies is a win for Republicans. They need to win this election, and then we can push them left.
I’m hoping it ends with a younger nominee.
It’s a lot easier to criticize the Democratic Party if the GOP is first discarded as useless trash and gets no votes in an election. Then we can decide who among our progressive candidates actually has the best approach forward.
Yet I keep seeing this thought assumed, that a 100% blue vote would “give them too much unchecked power”. This is the difference: We have a party while the GOP has a person. A bullet 2 inches to the right would have destroyed their whole movement.
Because when all those people do is criticize Democrats, sabotage outreach efforts, and don’t put any time or effort into defeating fascists, then it is very obvious where they stand.
Like I get it - huffing farts from time to time is great. But you gotta take a break and mix some productive advocacy and outreach if you actually care about Democracy instead of just smelling farts.
Just to point out… many people don’t care about the Democrats, except as a bulwark against the even more right-leaning Republicans. It’s not an institution that they respect and admire, but one they grudgingly tolerate.
I only joined the party so I could vote for Bernie in the 2016 primaries! 😉
If people want a shift to the left, they have to make sure that the Democrats crush the Repulicans for a few election cycles so that the Overton window can stop moving right and go left instead.
Unfortunately, the Repulicans are voting in a united front every election, no matter what.
The Democrats are notably terrible voters. They don’t show up like the Republicans do.
She’s a shit candidate and has 0 chance of winning against Trump.
She’s a great candidate with a 73% chance to beat Trump.
See, it’s not that hard to make up stats!
If you want the actual percentages, go by her own assessment:
"You know they say that all candidates are created equal, but you look at me and you look at Mar-A-Lago Don and you can see that statement is not true. See normally if you go one on one with another candidate, you got a 50/50 chance of winning. But I’m a judicial freak and I’m not normal. So he’s got a 25 percent, AT BEST, of beating me. Then you add RFK Jr. to the mix, your chances of winning drastic go down. See the three-way in the General Election, you got a 33 and a third chance of winning. But ME, I’ve got a 66 and two thirds chance of winning, cause RFK Jr. KNOWS he can’t beat me, and he’s not even gonna try. So Mar-A-Lago Don, you take your 33 and a third chance minus your 25 percent chance, and you got an eight and a third chance of winning in the General Election. But then you take my 75 percent chance of winning if we’s to go one on one, and then add 66 and two thirds percents, I’ve got a hundred and forty one and two thirds chance of winning in the General Election. See, Don, the numbers don’t lie, and they spell disaster for you in the General Election.
But I’m gonna break it down for all you lemmings. Would you rather be with me, or would you rather be with Don?
Well Republicans think Don’s kinda nice?
See, they’re some of those chuds who like fascism. Imma talk to all my freaks out there. Would you rather live in a nation with me at the helm, a judicial freak, to be satisfied every State of the Union, or live in a country with that fatass Mar-A-Lago Don? See, in the primary we’re gonna win, and I’m gonna be the next POTUS in the General Election. C’mon Petey, let’s go.
Hey, Kammy, just like you always say, ‘Kamala H has got your hook up?’ Well, South Bend Mayor Pete is who you need to look up, holla if ya hear THAT!"
Who am I to argue with the math?
eyup. new directive is pushing the harris bad narrative now that project get joe to drop is complete.
It’s not a narrative as much as it is a fact. Her approval numbers are pretty terrible. Not insurmountable, but not great.
Her approval numbers are pretty terrible.
Well, she is an uppity woman, after all.
/s
I know you’re being sarcastic, but I worry that people take that attitude. Some not voting for her because she’s a woman, and then her supporters taking the Hillary Clinton angle that any criticism must be misogyny. All that did was ignore legitimate criticism that pointed out her low approval and failure to speak to her constituents. In the end, Dem voters didn’t turn out.
