They’re not worse than JD Vance, which was the contention. If the commenter is not coming at it from the disgruntled progressive stance, as so many here are, then that part of my response was off the mark.
The commenter is being very coy about what was meant.
You don’t even know who it’s gonna be and you’re already stating they’ll be better than Vance as if it’s a truism. I can absolutely see the DNC fucking up so badly that Vance looks like a better alternative. INB4 we end up with two Peter Thiel acolytes running against each other; “abundance” vs. “Christian” nationalism, a true clash of ideas.
You don’t even know who it’s gonna be and you’re already stating they’ll be better than Vance as if it’s a truism.
This thread has gotten quite derailed. The original commenter made the supposition that the nominee will be even more ludicrously unsuited than Vance. I take issue with that assumption. Like you said, we don’t even know who the nominee is.
I’m saying that historically the Dem candidates have not been ludicrously unsuited compared to their opponents. If that’s the case, where’s this thought that the next one will be coming from?
I’m asking what you mean, so feel free to add details. Let’s just use Kamala Harris as an example.
Who would be better suited to do the bidding of the oligarchs? Trump or Harris.
Who would be better suited to actually represent the electorate? Trump or Harris.
Who would be better suited to get the vote of fickle progressives? Trump or Harris.
Your answers will help me determine what your comment meant. Let me know if you were thinking of someone other than Harris who that was and if your answers would be any different.
I was reading into your original comment that you thought in the past Democrats have put forth candidates that are “even more ludicrously unsuited” than their Republican opponents. I assumed, regrettably, that you were basing your remark on historical evidence.
You can clear this up pretty quickly by just explaining what you meant. Here’s your comment:
Vance is an absolute dud of a candidate but I’m sure the Democrats will manage to come up with someone even more ludicrously unsuited.
Why do you think that? Did you find Harris more unsuited than Trump? If so, for what? If not, what do you mean?
Vance is an absolute dud of a candidate but I’m sure the Democrats will manage to come up with someone even more ludicrously unsuited.
They will invent one. In a lab.
DNC torn between HRC, Newsom, and Schumer
What about Sinema? She’s super qualified.
Not Liz Cheney?
Oh, of course! Those primaries will be lit!
Harris / Hegseth 2028
By unsuited, do you mean for the job or to get the vote of fickle progressives?
Making their constituents feel represented is a huge part of their job
“Dem candidates are never bad, progressives are just fickle!” - you
They’re not worse than JD Vance, which was the contention. If the commenter is not coming at it from the disgruntled progressive stance, as so many here are, then that part of my response was off the mark.
The commenter is being very coy about what was meant.
You don’t even know who it’s gonna be and you’re already stating they’ll be better than Vance as if it’s a truism. I can absolutely see the DNC fucking up so badly that Vance looks like a better alternative. INB4 we end up with two Peter Thiel acolytes running against each other; “abundance” vs. “Christian” nationalism, a true clash of ideas.
This thread has gotten quite derailed. The original commenter made the supposition that the nominee will be even more ludicrously unsuited than Vance. I take issue with that assumption. Like you said, we don’t even know who the nominee is.
I’m saying that historically the Dem candidates have not been ludicrously unsuited compared to their opponents. If that’s the case, where’s this thought that the next one will be coming from?
“The party cannot fail, it can only be failed.”
- every moderate fuckwad stuck in 1992
What job exactly would that be? To do the bidding of the oligarchs or to actually represent the electorate?
I’m asking what you mean, so feel free to add details. Let’s just use Kamala Harris as an example.
Who would be better suited to do the bidding of the oligarchs? Trump or Harris.
Who would be better suited to actually represent the electorate? Trump or Harris.
Who would be better suited to get the vote of fickle progressives? Trump or Harris.
Your answers will help me determine what your comment meant. Let me know if you were thinking of someone other than Harris who that was and if your answers would be any different.
Wait, what? Trump is running for the Democrats now?
I was reading into your original comment that you thought in the past Democrats have put forth candidates that are “even more ludicrously unsuited” than their Republican opponents. I assumed, regrettably, that you were basing your remark on historical evidence.
You can clear this up pretty quickly by just explaining what you meant. Here’s your comment:
Why do you think that? Did you find Harris more unsuited than Trump? If so, for what? If not, what do you mean?
She lost. If the topic is “unsuited as a candidate”, we have our answer.
That could be an answer. Unsuited to win. But that’s a little hard to judge ahead of time.