Yes, their platform was weak. But you seriously thought a fascist dictatorship was an acceptable alternative?
Yes, their platform was weak. But you seriously thought a fascist dictatorship was an acceptable alternative?
You're viewing a single thread.
Their platform was weak.
They ran an old man with brain damage for most of the campaign.
His replacement spent two months of campaign time telling poverty wage workers to be joyful and didn't even put a platform on their website until a few weeks before the election. Watching that felt very tone deaf and condescending.
The other meme they repeated was how weird Trump and Vance are, as if they didn't already objectively know the voters don't care about that.
They didn't run a good campaign.
2 days before election Harris announced legalized marijuana and 1 day before that she mentuoned she would be ok looking into Gaza more.
Her "first time homebuyers" aid was actually only for first generational homebuyers mainly immigrants and who had rented from a corporate owned apartment complex for 2 years.
Her business aid plan was for people who already had a business operating in specific cities and areas for "black men and others" to get loans. emphasis on "others" being her's not mine.
It was a campaign of protecting status quo first, not people. While telling them they didn't realize how good they had it.
Weak is an understatement.
Well I'm glad we dodged having an old man with brain damage in the White House... ooh wait.
Fair point.
No matter who we elected we were getting a useful idiot for the rich, but that's partisanship for you.
Goalposts
I don't think old man with brain damage is much of a counter. That is what got elected.
The big issue is that Trump could've gotten onstage and started telling stories from Lake Woebegone for two and a half hours and a large portion of his cult would've hailed it as a masterstroke of political theory.
You're not wrong.
The difference is their brain-damaged guy behaved as he always does, where Biden clearly did not.