Nah you’re not in position to state that. If the alternative wasn’t worse enough then you are to blame. There’s no perfect candidate. Ya could’ve voted in mid-terms, gave low approval ratings, voted for your preferred candidate during the next DNC primary. Not when it’s against Trump and project 2025. That’s choosing a nuclear bomb over a run of the mill bomb; sure both are bad but one is catastrophic. You’re mad that people chose a less severe bomb because it’s a bomb but your anger allowed something significantly more catastrophic yet you want to sit on some high horse. Sometimes you’re choosing against two bad things, choose the less terrible thing.
If there’s an unavoidable situation where people will die 10,000 v 100 I’m going to choose the least damage. You’d let 10,100 people die
You’re making an elementary political error here. In politics, you have to give a constituency something that they want or you could lose their vote. Harris gambled that she wouldn’t need the anti-war vote. She lost.
Honestly, what is the game plan here? If you can get enough people to feel guilty about their vote, then they’ll vote the “right way” next time, regardless of how bad the candidate is? When has that ever worked? Wouldn’t it be easier to just get a good candidate?
Nah you’re not in position to state that. If the alternative wasn’t worse enough then you are to blame. There’s no perfect candidate. Ya could’ve voted in mid-terms, gave low approval ratings, voted for your preferred candidate during the next DNC primary. Not when it’s against Trump and project 2025. That’s choosing a nuclear bomb over a run of the mill bomb; sure both are bad but one is catastrophic. You’re mad that people chose a less severe bomb because it’s a bomb but your anger allowed something significantly more catastrophic yet you want to sit on some high horse. Sometimes you’re choosing against two bad things, choose the less terrible thing.
If there’s an unavoidable situation where people will die 10,000 v 100 I’m going to choose the least damage. You’d let 10,100 people die
You’re making an elementary political error here. In politics, you have to give a constituency something that they want or you could lose their vote. Harris gambled that she wouldn’t need the anti-war vote. She lost.
Honestly, what is the game plan here? If you can get enough people to feel guilty about their vote, then they’ll vote the “right way” next time, regardless of how bad the candidate is? When has that ever worked? Wouldn’t it be easier to just get a good candidate?