I mean, yeah, sure life would be easier for some politicians if democrats all thought exactly the same way so that there was no daylight between any of them but what actually wins elections is running good candidates with popular positions
Iām not entirely sure this always true, like Trump is a horrible candidate with a lot of pretty unpopular positions but he got elected the first time because Rs who probably hated him still voted for him and I think that a real risk this time too.
No one is saying all democrats thought the same way. All democrats should realize that Biden >>> Trump and that by not voting for Biden helps Trump. Anyone else who thinks otherwise is a fucking moron.
Furthermore, the only way you could say that there is no positive case for Biden is if you buy dumbass shit like this:
Bidenās position is objectively far better than Trumps and working against Biden is objectively destructive to her stated policy goals. Itās idiotic.
1 Like
yeah just stick with the E-dem strategy of moving to the center, perpetually running 8000 year old dinosaurs, telling the voters how dumb they are, etc.
canāt wait for the trip report
1 Like
I donāt get the point youāre trying to make. Obviously every single person here would like a better candidate than Biden. With that said, dumbass takes like this that just ignore that the other option is much, much worse are unnecessary.
Iām not ignoring that trump is worse, Iām saying that you still gotta get people to actually go to the polls and vote, and āwell orange man badā isnāt going to cut it. throwing a fit about it isnāt going to suddenly make it a winning strategy.
I meant sheās not acknowledging that Trump is worse.
1 Like
From a game theory perspective, should voters always vote for the lesser evil no matter how little that candidate does for them? If the candidate can count on their vote 100% of the time what incentive does he have to provide anything of value to them?
2 Likes
This is how our shitty system works. You almost exclusively vote against candidates instead of for them. Is that good? No. We literally canāt do shit about it though.
Yeah itās just a tough situation to have to tell a couple hundred million people that they get to choose between two people, essentially everyone going to be disappointed to some extent
I think it was on a recent (premium?) 5-4 episode where Peter brought up the hypothetical of, if one candidate is objectively better than the other one but murdered your family, would you still be expected to be out there stumping for him (after he murdered your family) because the other guy is worse? Are you supposed to shut up about your family being murdered because the other guy is worse?
Rashida Tlaib is Palestinian-American. I know a Palestinian coworker who had relatives killed in Gaza. For some people, this is not a thought experiment, itās fairly close to their lived experience.
1 Like
I understand your point but this choice is basically picking between someone who murdered your family vs someone who cheered on your familyās death and wants to kill a bunch of other families.
Surely werenāt not taking ākilled my familyā as some sort of analogy for the actions of Joe Biden?
Joeās giving bombs to the guy whoās killing their family, heās complicit. You can argue about the political realities heās operating in and all that but like, itās clearly true.
Biden is not the cause of the war nor an actor in the war, and is in fact a source of realism and deescalation. Seems like thatās a big fault in that analogy
wat
1 Like
What do you mean what? Are you unaware that Biden has actually pushed a lot to get aid to Palestinians and hold back Israel?
getting aid in doesnāt count as de-escalating
in public heās said the absolutely bare minimum overtly, and done nothing to actually restrain bibi.