499
Surely we can learn from this?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
499 points (84.1% liked)
Political Memes
5617 readers
2342 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
Do you think Trump was unbeatable?
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
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.