• Numberone@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    18 days ago

    Almost like Clinton should have run a real campaign in MI😃. Stop running unpopular candidates and blaming it on greens. How embarassing lol.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 days ago

      Yeah how dare the dems pick the candidate the majority of their primary voters picked! They should have chosen someone more popular, like the guy who got even less votes than her during those same primaries!

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 days ago

      It’s possible more than one thing contributed to Clinton losing…

      At any rate Harris is running a great campaign. So much so that every single potential voter is being considered, even the people that might be getting scammed into voting for Jill Stein. I don’t think the Hilary’s campaign even considered going after the people voting green because it was assumed those votes wouldn’t be a significant factor. The Harris campaign isn’t leaving any stone unturned. That means challenging people who are promoting third parties more.

      • Tinidril@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        18 days ago

        Harris has declined in popularity with every day that passed after her coronation. She is running a mostly adequate campaign, and trying to please everyone has never been a seriously effective Democratic strategy, especially in the long term.

        Harris has her strengths. Very few Democrats would have stood their ground as well as she did in the Fox ambush interview. That’s where she really shines, when she can let out that inner prosecutor. Waltz was a great addition, but the campaign hid him away the second Harris took on most of Hillary’s campaign advisors.

        Just like Biden before her, Harris’s greatest advantage is how much Trump is despised outside of his cult. Let’s not be deifying her for that.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          18 days ago

          trying to please everyone has never been a seriously effective Democratic strategy, especially in the long term.

          Do you think it would be more effective to piss off people? Maybe she could start telling us which voters she thinks are “deplorable”? Is that more effective than trying to please as many voters as possible?

          The Dems have won three out of the last four elections. Not sure why you’re saying this strategy is not effective given the one they lost was the one where their candidate called some voters deplorable.

          Waltz was a great addition, but the campaign hid him away the second Harris took on most of Hillary’s campaign advisors.

          The VP candidate is not supposed to overshadow the Presidential candidate. Walz has been on the campaign trail basically non-stop, and doing local interviews which may actually be more important than national interviews. The national media doesn’t pick up on things Walz is doing all the time, but don’t confuse that with the campaign hiding him away. Harris’ debate performance and national interviews are much stronger than Walz’s debate performance on the national stage. So why would they be trying to push a guy to do national interviews that he’s not great at instead of doing rallies and local interviews which he is good at?