Trump is on pace to get fewer votes than in 2020, so his “gains” are purely in vote share because the Democratic vote fell off the end of a table.
I will never understand how some people turned out to vote against Trump during a pandemic but didn’t come out to vote for Harris when the opponent is the same.
Or if Hilary had not been so overconfident and had not taken the “Blue Wall” for granted. I blame her for creating Trump.
One of them is African-American. But I’m sure there’s an element of that too. We are an inherently racist country. As well as being full of idiots.
That is one of the reasons for her loss, but the polls shifted 4 points to Trump after Comey announced the re-opening of the email investigation two weeks before the election, and that was all he needed.
My last “share” worked out so well that I decided to try another.
Honestly, I stopped reading after he said:
“For the past eight years, the Republican Party has been having an honest conversation about the real things that ail us: inflation; the hollowing out of rural America; the rise of China; the housing crisis; the opioid crisis; the chaos at our southern border; free speech; and the decline of American power.”
You likely believe this is accurate and I’m sure the writer does, but I see the beginnings of another flawed argument. Anyways, it looks like y’all will control all of government, so I expect all of these things will be fixed. I hope your voters do also. If these issues you’ve been “having an honest conversation about” aren’t fixed, I hope you’re honest enough not to blame the Democrats.
I did not start reading. I detest gloating.
This paragraph is a load of bullshit. The current Republican Party hasn’t had an honest conversation with the American public about any of these issues the writer mentions over the last eight years. It’s just further proof that people will believe whatever twisted narratives they concoct in their heads.
I thought it was a pretty fair take, all in all. With the caveat that “honest” discussion is a bit much. “They’re eating the dogs and the cats” wasn’t a shining moment of honest discourse. But I agree that the Dems have not formulated a coherent systemic approach to the things the writer asserts are the issues closest to Americans’ hearts. Of course whenever they do, Republicans tend to protect their constituents from the offered help, which is shitty.
But for sure: let the soul searching begin.
Respectfully, I disagree with this. Dems generally have a coherent approach on policy, grounded in a worldview that people are deserving of kindness, mercy, and dignity, and that government can either help provide that or make space for people to find it on their own. It is simply this worldview is not the majority in the electorate.
I see your point. You can’t leave your mind open all the time; you might get something in it by mistake.
And @JimR — Neither I nor the author are gloating. It ought to be possible to disagree respectfully with others or even with the consensus.
I think you’ve contradicted yourself.
Yeah, a stronger retort would address what I quoted, and why it shouldn’t trouble me, but I suspect that you consider your retort “an honest conversation.”
I agree that they offer competent governance and consistent compassion and a belief in self-government and citizenship. I think the author’s point was that people were hungrier for something else. Republicans gave it to them.
Class Donald Trump will never have:
"A fundamental principle of American democracy is that when we lose an election, we accept the results. That principle, as much as any other, distinguishes democracy from monarchy or tyranny. And anyone who seeks the public trust must honor it,” Harris said.
If Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC don’t put their thumbs on the scale and let Biden run, I feel like we’re having a much different conversation today.
Biden? No way.
I saw him speak at the LBJ Library, and he was well past his “best by” date.
Biden making a speech this year is not the same as him being the incumbent VP eight years ago. Admittedly, he wouldn’t have necessarily been a great candidate in 2016, but even that would’ve been better Hillary Clinton, arguably the worst possible candidate Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC could install as the nominee.
This same fucking author acknowledged the following in July (in the context of Israel/Palestine):
But sure, they’re the ones having the honest conversations.
Today’s opinion piece reads like someone who wants to play both sides to appear smarter than they are. Appropriate for a publication owned by Bari fucking Weiss.
I misunderstood what you were saying/which year about Biden. I thought you meant this year. My bad.
I was an enthusiastic supporter of Clinton, but I thought her campaign was terrible.