this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
341 points (94.1% liked)

People Twitter

5288 readers
2154 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sugar_in_your_tea 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I do not blame Democrats for running a bad campaign.

I do:

  1. no primary
  2. select the candidate who dropped out early due to terrible polling in 2020
  3. have pretty vague set of campaign policies
  4. go after celebs instead of appealing to people facing actual issues

What they should have done is:

  1. run a primary, with Biden choosing to retire instead of seek reelection
  2. select the candidate voters actually want
  3. have a clear set of campaign policies
  4. appeal to everyday people with even an ounce of charisma

The main issue people seemed to care about was inflation. The Democratic candidate really needed to attack that head on by explaining why inflation got bad, how it's better, and what they'll do to help wages continue to catch up. But instead, Harris made vague promises to "fight price gouging" (that's not what's actually going on) and give handouts to people to buy houses.

That said, there's no way any Democrat would've won my state, so I voted my conscience by picking a third party instead of picking either unqualified candidates. I just wonder how many people felt completely uninspired by Harris like I was, and I can't help but think that cost her the election.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Once they decided to skip the primary and started getting contributions to a Biden/Harris campaign, it became virtually impossible to select anyone else once Biden dropped out. Only a Harris campaign could take over the money already raised for the campaign. Any other candidate would have to start fundraising a few months before the election starting from nothing, and would have been at a massive disadvantage.

voted my conscience by picking a third party instead of picking either unqualified candidates

Are you implying there was a qualified third party candidate? Is this an oxymoron?

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 1 points 3 weeks ago

Once they decided to skip the primary and started getting contributions to a Biden/Harris campaign, it became virtually impossible to select anyone else once Biden dropped out.

Right, and that was the first mistake, they should have held the primary.

Are you implying there was a qualified third party candidate? Is this an oxymoron?

I thought Chase Oliver was pretty decent. I especially like his immigration policies, I like that he's pretty young, and he seems to tick off both parties equally, so hopefully both parties would have to actually work together to get something he can sign. I highly doubt he'd get any of his policies done (except maybe ending tariffs, which would help a bit w/ prices), so the main benefit of having a third party in the White House is as a moderator between the two parties.

He had absolutely no chance to win, especially since his own party largely turned on him (I guess he wasn't conservative enough or whatever), but I felt he was a decent protest vote.

[–] fsxylo 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

I resent the idea that people need to be dazzled and appealed to in order to not sell the country out. Absolutely no integrity. No intelligence.

Hence why I called all of you stimulus eater organisms. Paramecium. Fucking amoebas.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

The recent election and 2016 say otherwise. When Biden said he'd follow Sanders' policies, he won the biggest margins ever in American history.

Fascism is tempting for undecideds and people scared of the future. Some dude says "hey you're hurt, I'll help you" you might not care what the costs are as long as you feel safer.

We could have built a policy of "Everyone is hurt, everyone needs a leader, I can be a leader for those Trump is targeting." She could have been a silver bullet to Trump's thick skull. She could have done so many things differently than Biden or Trump, and she played to the middle ground.

And the middle ground was still pro-border protections, fracking, not listening to the marginalized people Trump hates, and how the policies could improve America at the cost of the trolley problem of Gaza. Instead we're getting none of her promises, but Trump is getting all of his high demands for order and fascism.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 2 points 2 weeks ago

You don't need to "dazzle" to win elections, you just need to be very clear about what you'll actually do if elected. Existing isn't enough to win votes.

I did quite a bit of research before the election, and I still can't tell you anything concrete that Harris plans to do, not even in the first 100 days of being elected. Here's the best I got:

  • ban "price gouging" - what does this mean? Price caps? I don't think she's that crazy, this feels empty
  • taxes - these are somewhat concrete, but new revenue will likely be low because wealthy people are good at avoiding taxes
  • immigration - one of her major jobs as VP was border security, yet she didn't do much, so I question how committed she actually is to her proposed changes, nor do I know if she wants to increase or decrease net immigration

So, her plans are either vague or seem ineffective, so what would she actually do in office? It's not clear, and it seems like she's running just because the DNC needs someone to run. I don't want a President who is running just because their party said so, I want a President who sees actual problems and has a plan to resolve them.

That said, my vote absolutely doesn't matter because my state has consistently gone to Republicans, and will consistently go to Republicans for the foreseeable future, so I don't know what people in swing states think. But what I do know is that her campaign was entirely uninteresting.