• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Ok…

    Weird this hasn’t come up before for you.

    But different people have different standards.

    For Republican voters, it’s usually just the letter by someone’s name.

    Dem voters have always had higher standards than Republican voters.

    For bonus points, how is it not the voters fault

    Because the entire point of a candidates campaign is to get votes. And Kamala and her campaign couldn’t even beat fucking trump.

    For all those reasons you just listed he’s terrible, Kamala still couldn’t beat him.

    What metric do you think a candidate and their campaign should be judged by except number of votes?

    Bonus points:

    Why don’t you think a shit tier opponent wouldnt make it easier? And how can a candidate who can’t beat trump not be considered “garbage”?

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      People insisting “no, Kamala Harris was the better candidate!” Are exactly the people this meme are calling out.

      Clearly she wasn’t. That doesn’t mean she was a worse human being than Trump. That’s a hard standard to beat. But she was a worse candidate because she lost the election to him, which is the one thing you need to do in order to be the better candidate.

      • MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        Since the election I’ve written comments the length of essays attempting to explain what you just put so succinctly. “She was a worse candidate because she lost the election to him, which is the one thing you need to do” 100% this.

        For what it’s worth, I do try to make the distinction between her and her campaign. She might have been the winning candidate had her campaign made different decisions, but at the end of the day, she’s responsible for her campaign. They can’t force her to say anything she doesn’t want to.

        I think there’s a lot of people talking past each other because they don’t agree on what the purpose of being a candidate is. We might think it’s getting elected, others might think it’s being the best representation of the party. Obviously, she wasn’t option 1, but some people may think she was better because they are libs who agree with her ideologically and are somehow still under the delusion that Rs represent state rights, “godliness”, and fiscal responsibility. They see Trump and think “how can people say he’s a better representative of Rs than Kamala is of Ds” and the answer is that they have no idea what Rs want and are incapable of recognizing the broad spectrum of people that normally vote D. I hope people can rid themselves of that kind of thinking because it’s obviously not serving them or the party. Either recognize that candidates need to be ELECTED to mean anything, or be prepared to be in this same position for the foreseeable future.

      • Bustedknuckles@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        If I had a 95 meter head start on Usain bolt in the 100m, I could probably beat him. That doesn’t make me a better runner.

          • Bustedknuckles@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Nah, but he had some serious advantages. Dems would do better to talk about why voters gave him preference on things like the economy. And of course, voters would do better to vote their self-interest

            • FaceDeer@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              Dems should do better to talk about why they didn’t focus on the economy, when that’s what the electorate wanted them to focus on. It’s not their job to tell the electorate what’s more important to them.