Everyone understands that in life compromises may be necessary, but I’m worried that you’re representing a position that already failed. If you’re trying to say, hey, these people should have voted for Kamala Harris, then my response is that Kamala Harris should have learned. From Hillary Clinton. If the candidate is that bad, they are going to lose votes, and it is 100% their fault. If you’re running a failed campaign for the second time, you deserve what you get.
And it’s tempting to blame the stay home people or the third party voters, but the numbers show that if Harris had taken a stance against genocide, she might have won the election. Obviously we’ll never know because there’s no way to actually measure that policy change other than doing it, but it sure would have been exciting to find out.
I think this is incredibly obvious, but somehow people keep pretending it’s not clear… It is possible for a candidate to have left-wing values, to express them openly, to want things that are better for the average worker like strict labor laws or increased unions or real environmental regulation or anti-monopoly regulation or anti-billionaire regulation, a candidate can have clear views on those issues and still be in a position where they need to make compromises on specific legislation. The voters understand that, the voters are generally amenable to that. But many voters are 100% opposed to candidates that don’t have any values to begin with. Because we know these valueless candidates are worthless pieces of shit. They are guaranteed to give us nothing because they believe in nothing.
Everything you’re describing here is pretty much the exact opposite of reality. There’s no question that we deserve better candidates; that’s not even remotely the point. The point is that once you get to the binary choice of Trump vs Harris, there isn’t even a doubt which one to choose. Only a traitor who belongs in prison would refuse to vote for Harris in a swing state. Everything is else is irrelevant.
Everyone understands that in life compromises may be necessary, but I’m worried that you’re representing a position that already failed. If you’re trying to say, hey, these people should have voted for Kamala Harris, then my response is that Kamala Harris should have learned. From Hillary Clinton. If the candidate is that bad, they are going to lose votes, and it is 100% their fault. If you’re running a failed campaign for the second time, you deserve what you get.
And it’s tempting to blame the stay home people or the third party voters, but the numbers show that if Harris had taken a stance against genocide, she might have won the election. Obviously we’ll never know because there’s no way to actually measure that policy change other than doing it, but it sure would have been exciting to find out.
I think this is incredibly obvious, but somehow people keep pretending it’s not clear… It is possible for a candidate to have left-wing values, to express them openly, to want things that are better for the average worker like strict labor laws or increased unions or real environmental regulation or anti-monopoly regulation or anti-billionaire regulation, a candidate can have clear views on those issues and still be in a position where they need to make compromises on specific legislation. The voters understand that, the voters are generally amenable to that. But many voters are 100% opposed to candidates that don’t have any values to begin with. Because we know these valueless candidates are worthless pieces of shit. They are guaranteed to give us nothing because they believe in nothing.
Everything you’re describing here is pretty much the exact opposite of reality. There’s no question that we deserve better candidates; that’s not even remotely the point. The point is that once you get to the binary choice of Trump vs Harris, there isn’t even a doubt which one to choose. Only a traitor who belongs in prison would refuse to vote for Harris in a swing state. Everything is else is irrelevant.