• Rolder@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    On one hand, I get it. On the other hand, the other choice is orders of magnitudes worse in every category.

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      Plus Biden had many of the same issues as Harris when he ran… he didn’t even want to run. The DNC dragged him out of retirement. I think after the Hillary and Harris data it’s become pretty clear a woman is not becoming president any time soon… not even sure if one could win the primary in the next 8 years after the trauma of this election.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      the other choice is orders of magnitudes worse

      Both can be true.

      The other side being worse doesn’t necessarily motivate your base to support you, you need to actually motivate them to get out and vote. It also doesn’t necessarily motivate people on the fence either. If you aren’t an attractive candidate, you can’t rely on the unattractiveness of your competitor to win you the election.

      It seemed the DNC banked on the public caring that Harris is a woman of color and popular among celebrities, and I doubt the public particularly cares about any of that. Her policies were weak and she came off as not really having a plan, or in other words, riding on Biden’s coattails. That’s not a compelling argument…