This time the Democrats have an actual flesh and blood candidate who actually stands for something. If he wins, will that alter your perspective at all?
American voters suck, just like they have always sucked, just like voters suck everyplace else. That's the field in which the game is played.
Being the lesser of two evils is not a good strategy. The greater evil gets all the attention and therefore enthusiasm. Good vs evil is a whole different dynamic.
Now it's time for the "vote blue no matter who" crowd to put up or shut up. So far, party loyalty doesn't seem very important to a lot of the establishment.
So was Obama, who led us directly to Trump. At some point, Democrats have to actually stand for something more than mere competence and being the lesser evil.
Voters vote in primaries too you know. Biden beat Bernie almost entirely on a myth that he was the most electable. That shit has to go, and Rachel Maddow and Chris Cuomo aren't going to do that for us.
Also, her interview answer about not doing anything different from the Biden administration was political malpractice of the first order.
If "best" means technically proficient, then sure. He does the politician thing better than any other establishment Democrats I can think of. If "best" means good for the country, then I have some notes. Obama was the same kind of character, and Trump was the result. I'm not sure I want to go down the highly charismatic Wall Street bitch route again.
Thus my note about "social media and AI mass surveillance". What makes insurgency so effective is the enemy of the occupier could be anyone.
The US lost in both Vietnam and Afghanistan because occupation is hard. There isn't an army on the planet that can even come close to taking on the US military in open combat, but insurgencies are a completely different animal.
Social media and AI mass surveillance might make a difference, but I kinda doubt it.
I don't think this is where we are headed, but it wouldn't be an automatic win for the military. Unfortunately, the people who end up in charge after an uprising usually end up being worse than the people they replace.
As a hopelessly straight American, I second the motion.
It wasn't rigged. Even if it were rigged, it should never have been close enough to be rigged, but it wasn't rigged. If the DNC waited to say it was rigged, they are still waiting because they haven't said they think it's rigged, but their not waiting, because it wasn't rigged.
They really thought she'd be worse?
For the love of God, please stop spreading this mode of thinking. Elections are won by enthusiasm, not an intellectual weighing of the pros and cons of each. This is the model Democrats have used for decades that got us here. Being the lesser evil is not a solid campaign strategy. The greater evil will always get more attention, and therefore enthusiasm.
I don't think this is an exclusively American thing. Did Brits really think brexit was a good idea?
Meh. We'll see what happens when it threatens their office. A lot of them have already started changing their rhetoric.