They’re not worse than JD Vance, which was the contention. If the commenter is not coming at it from the disgruntled progressive stance, as so many here are, then that part of my response was off the mark.
The commenter is being very coy about what was meant.
You don’t even know who it’s gonna be and you’re already stating they’ll be better than Vance as if it’s a truism. I can absolutely see the DNC fucking up so badly that Vance looks like a better alternative. INB4 we end up with two Peter Thiel acolytes running against each other; “abundance” vs. “Christian” nationalism, a true clash of ideas.
You don’t even know who it’s gonna be and you’re already stating they’ll be better than Vance as if it’s a truism.
This thread has gotten quite derailed. The original commenter made the supposition that the nominee will be even more ludicrously unsuited than Vance. I take issue with that assumption. Like you said, we don’t even know who the nominee is.
I’m saying that historically the Dem candidates have not been ludicrously unsuited compared to their opponents. If that’s the case, where’s this thought that the next one will be coming from?
I think we’re on different wavelengths because I’m coming at this from the position that there’s a distinction to be made between who is the better candidate and who is better for the country. Trump, despite being a fascist moron who has and continues to destroy the lives of millions while enriching himself and his donors, was a better candidate than Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris. Any of those three would have been better for the country (marginally) but were absolutely god-awful candidates. The only reason Biden even won by a hair is because of how awful Trump’s first term was, that people were willing to hold their nose and vote for Biden despite hating his guts.
I’m asking what you mean, so feel free to add details. Let’s just use Kamala Harris as an example.
Who would be better suited to do the bidding of the oligarchs? Trump or Harris.
Who would be better suited to actually represent the electorate? Trump or Harris.
Who would be better suited to get the vote of fickle progressives? Trump or Harris.
Your answers will help me determine what your comment meant. Let me know if you were thinking of someone other than Harris who that was and if your answers would be any different.
I was reading into your original comment that you thought in the past Democrats have put forth candidates that are “even more ludicrously unsuited” than their Republican opponents. I assumed, regrettably, that you were basing your remark on historical evidence.
You can clear this up pretty quickly by just explaining what you meant. Here’s your comment:
Vance is an absolute dud of a candidate but I’m sure the Democrats will manage to come up with someone even more ludicrously unsuited.
Why do you think that? Did you find Harris more unsuited than Trump? If so, for what? If not, what do you mean?
Ludicrously unsuited, though? Perhaps Harris was by this measure. Biden 2020 was not. Clinton 2016 was only moderately unsuited, since she won popular vote. Same with Gore 2000. Kerry 2004 was ludicrously unsuited to be the nominee, I guess.
By unsuited, do you mean for the job or to get the vote of fickle progressives?
Making their constituents feel represented is a huge part of their job
“Dem candidates are never bad, progressives are just fickle!” - you
“The party cannot fail, it can only be failed.”
- every moderate fuckwad stuck in 1992
They’re not worse than JD Vance, which was the contention. If the commenter is not coming at it from the disgruntled progressive stance, as so many here are, then that part of my response was off the mark.
The commenter is being very coy about what was meant.
You don’t even know who it’s gonna be and you’re already stating they’ll be better than Vance as if it’s a truism. I can absolutely see the DNC fucking up so badly that Vance looks like a better alternative. INB4 we end up with two Peter Thiel acolytes running against each other; “abundance” vs. “Christian” nationalism, a true clash of ideas.
This thread has gotten quite derailed. The original commenter made the supposition that the nominee will be even more ludicrously unsuited than Vance. I take issue with that assumption. Like you said, we don’t even know who the nominee is.
I’m saying that historically the Dem candidates have not been ludicrously unsuited compared to their opponents. If that’s the case, where’s this thought that the next one will be coming from?
I think we’re on different wavelengths because I’m coming at this from the position that there’s a distinction to be made between who is the better candidate and who is better for the country. Trump, despite being a fascist moron who has and continues to destroy the lives of millions while enriching himself and his donors, was a better candidate than Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris. Any of those three would have been better for the country (marginally) but were absolutely god-awful candidates. The only reason Biden even won by a hair is because of how awful Trump’s first term was, that people were willing to hold their nose and vote for Biden despite hating his guts.
What job exactly would that be? To do the bidding of the oligarchs or to actually represent the electorate?
I’m asking what you mean, so feel free to add details. Let’s just use Kamala Harris as an example.
Who would be better suited to do the bidding of the oligarchs? Trump or Harris.
Who would be better suited to actually represent the electorate? Trump or Harris.
Who would be better suited to get the vote of fickle progressives? Trump or Harris.
Your answers will help me determine what your comment meant. Let me know if you were thinking of someone other than Harris who that was and if your answers would be any different.
Wait, what? Trump is running for the Democrats now?
I was reading into your original comment that you thought in the past Democrats have put forth candidates that are “even more ludicrously unsuited” than their Republican opponents. I assumed, regrettably, that you were basing your remark on historical evidence.
You can clear this up pretty quickly by just explaining what you meant. Here’s your comment:
Why do you think that? Did you find Harris more unsuited than Trump? If so, for what? If not, what do you mean?
She lost. If the topic is “unsuited as a candidate”, we have our answer.
That could be an answer. Unsuited to win. But that’s a little hard to judge ahead of time.
Ludicrously unsuited, though? Perhaps Harris was by this measure. Biden 2020 was not. Clinton 2016 was only moderately unsuited, since she won popular vote. Same with Gore 2000. Kerry 2004 was ludicrously unsuited to be the nominee, I guess.