She came in to replace an incredibly unpopular incumbent, and then said in an interview that she wouldn't have done anything differently lmao. Yeah she had a better approval than Biden, but it's laughable to pretend that's a high bar. Running her as a candidate again would be complete suicide.
Agreed. She needed to distance herself from the administration's mistakes but instead she embraced them.
Yeah. The country was hell bent to elect a fascist.
It’s a very high bar when you consider her opponent & the reality of the situation. However, many people didn’t consider that in their strident advocacy for Gazans. Seemingly, not even one fraction of a second did the genocide folks realize or even consider that 🟠 wouldn’t do 💩 or give a f*ck.
Why would you place the blame on the voters, when it was the Harris campaign who refused to distance themselves from Biden on that issue? "We are bad but Trump might be worse, so vote for us" is not a good selling point when we are talking about support for genocide.
Why don’t you think voters have any agency? Why don’t you think voters shouldn’t be obligated to find out what each candidate supports and finding out abt the publicly available records of each candidate? Why do you think voters’ only obligation is to sit back & be passive riders?
Let me get this straight, you are mad because people decided to not support a candidate over Gaza. You mean to tell me that falling in line and voting for that candidate anyway isn't being a "passive rider". Voters should do research, of course, but politicians also need to earn the people's vote.
Thought exercise: if voters didn’t vote 4 Harris/Walz bcuz of Gaza, can it be assumed that: 1)they felt Trump/Vance would support their stance; 2) if neither, then don’t vote at all & surrender their chances of politically influencing Gaza at the presidential level; or 3) Gaza really didn’t matter.