• TheLowestStone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    3 days ago

    Bernie’s name wasn’t on my ballot so he couldn’t have been a viable opponent. The only person on the ballot with any chance of beating Trump was Harris.

    Bear in mind, I think the Dems could have run a much a stronger ticket with someone other than Harris but that doesn’t change the fact that she was the only viable competition in the election that actually happened.

    • superniceperson@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      Cool, you know you can write in the candidate, right?

      In any case if dems wanted to be elected, they could try not being republican. Even in the face of fascism no self respecting person would vote for a republican.

        • superniceperson@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          Well Harris wasn’t a viable candidate, as proven by her ridiculous loss against one of the most hated men in history.

          Same goes for Clinton. And Biden was polling worse than Harris before his handlers finally made him pull out.

          So which neoliberal is a viable candidate again?

          Are we just going to do the same thing in 2028, with, using your word, a nonviable candidate?

          • TheLowestStone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 days ago

            Are we just going to do the same thing in 2028, with, using your word, a nonviable candidate?

            Probably. If we’re still doing elections that is.

            You all seem to think I’m saying that Harris was a good candidate. My only point is that she was the ONLY other option we had on the ballot. That, in and of itself, is a massive problem.

            • superniceperson@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 days ago

              The problem was she wasn’t a choice for a lot of people. That’s something you guys have consistently failed to understand.

              For people that actually suffered under the Obama or Biden regime, Harris did not represent a greater future than Trump. If you are given a choice of either shooting yourself, being shit, or ignoring the entire thing while trying to to find a way to survive being shot; most people will choose the latter option, which is simply not voting.

              Homelessness hit a record high under Biden, and only climbed throughout his term. Credit card debt soared, yet consumer spending on nonessentials went down. People aren’t worried about the status quo or the collapse of the US, people were worried about tomorrow.

              When you have that situation, they don’t give a fuck about a status quo candidate lying to their face about how great the economy is and how much nothing different they’ll be doing.

              Their choice was not Harris or trump, their choice was vote or not vote. And given their experience during Biden’s term, they chose to not vote.

      • Soulg@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        Would love to have whatever drugs you need to think writing someone in would have actually been a good idea

        • superniceperson@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          It had a better chance than a rightwing cop trying to get elected to the dem party, or an even more senile Biden.

          You can’t run incredibly right wing candidates and expect anyone to vote for them, unless you’re running them in the furthest right party.