I mean, you could pay attention to the real world for just like ten seconds and see how trump is constantly talking out of both sides of his mouth about abortion and see how the anti-choice zealots realise he's obviously lying and still support him instead of crying about staying home and not voting "in principled protest" because they u…
I mean, you could pay attention to the real world for just like ten seconds and see how trump is constantly talking out of both sides of his mouth about abortion and see how the anti-choice zealots realise he's obviously lying and still support him instead of crying about staying home and not voting "in principled protest" because they understand that in the real world you win elections by getting the most votes, not by being the best virtue signaler.
I was going to add to my comment that of course Trump needs the votes of both his qanon base and fools who are willing to give him a second chance to rule. The GOP has been happy to accept voters who vote against their interests. Trump fans laugh at those voters and appreciate the "sucker" vote. But for a Democratic candidate to respond to endorsements that not a single Democratic voter over 40 wants nor values is the opposite of that. The Democratic response is mainly, "no, we don't want the votes of billionaires, billionaire war criminals, and the few people left alive who think that Reagan and Bush 43 were good presidents. We don't want the votes from people who think they can whitewash their bios by endorsing Harris." Compare this the GOP, which needs millions of crossover votes. The Democrats don't need that many defectors. Why must the Democrats even think of courting those votes? We outnumber the GOP in living registered voters by about 8 Million. Maybe 10 Million. If Harris was more of an Obama Democrat and less of a Neocon, she might win this thing. It's incredible. We're seeing the Clinton 'Pied Piper' strategy play out again. The Harris campaign is not for me. It's for readers of The Atlantic and the Washington Post, the pundits, the editors, and the cable news producer class.
no, i would actually like the votes of all these people, i want as many votes as i can get.
I can also do math and if I can take away a hesitant trump voter, it'll actually count double because it'll be minus one for him and plus one for Harris, which is literally the best possible voting outcome. even if they don't vote for Harris, all these shithead republicans saying trump fucking sucks don't vote for him can hopefully move someone to say, well I'm never going to vote for Harris, but I don't want to vote for trump now either and that's still an outcome I will take because it's still minus one for him.
Exactly, for every progressive they might lose, they'll pick up two moderate republicans in the suburbs. Just like in 2016. There's no reason why Hillary Clinton style triangulating can't work a second time.
These bitter, pinched-face shitlibs and their towering condescension for anyone that disagrees with them on absolutely anything are almost certainly driving people away from voting at all every time they open their stupid f*cking mouths to unleash some more fact-free invective at all the people that are actually smarter than them. Anything the Dems do, say, or fail to say or do is fine with these fucking losers with zero actual political beliefs. It's absolutely exhausting having to listen to these dipshits reach a new low day after day in service of a candidate that seems bent on repelling the voters in her base at every opportunity.
You don’t win elections in this dumb country by winning the most votes. You win by courting an extremely small sliver of the population in a few crucial states. Hence why you have Kamala about facing on fracking and essentially embracing Trump’s border policies.
Katherine Krueger has documented this her whole life it seems. I agree. But I fail to see how Wall Street prefers that abortion be illegal. After all, it was Nixon-era Republicans who made it legal in the first place. The mistresses needed medicine.
So I think you may be missing the stories on the falling birth rates (worldwide) and how not being able to control how many children you have drives down women's wages and makes for desperation/acceptance of worse working conditions. Wall Street isn't sitting in a cabal planning, but capitalism needs people in poverty and desperate to cheapen labor. They see that America's empire abroad, the thing that made the large middle class possible, is in decline. They know that abortion is always legal to those wealthy enough. Everything is legal if you have enough money--look at Epstein, look at Diddy.
I mean, you could pay attention to the real world for just like ten seconds and see how trump is constantly talking out of both sides of his mouth about abortion and see how the anti-choice zealots realise he's obviously lying and still support him instead of crying about staying home and not voting "in principled protest" because they understand that in the real world you win elections by getting the most votes, not by being the best virtue signaler.
I was going to add to my comment that of course Trump needs the votes of both his qanon base and fools who are willing to give him a second chance to rule. The GOP has been happy to accept voters who vote against their interests. Trump fans laugh at those voters and appreciate the "sucker" vote. But for a Democratic candidate to respond to endorsements that not a single Democratic voter over 40 wants nor values is the opposite of that. The Democratic response is mainly, "no, we don't want the votes of billionaires, billionaire war criminals, and the few people left alive who think that Reagan and Bush 43 were good presidents. We don't want the votes from people who think they can whitewash their bios by endorsing Harris." Compare this the GOP, which needs millions of crossover votes. The Democrats don't need that many defectors. Why must the Democrats even think of courting those votes? We outnumber the GOP in living registered voters by about 8 Million. Maybe 10 Million. If Harris was more of an Obama Democrat and less of a Neocon, she might win this thing. It's incredible. We're seeing the Clinton 'Pied Piper' strategy play out again. The Harris campaign is not for me. It's for readers of The Atlantic and the Washington Post, the pundits, the editors, and the cable news producer class.
no, i would actually like the votes of all these people, i want as many votes as i can get.
I can also do math and if I can take away a hesitant trump voter, it'll actually count double because it'll be minus one for him and plus one for Harris, which is literally the best possible voting outcome. even if they don't vote for Harris, all these shithead republicans saying trump fucking sucks don't vote for him can hopefully move someone to say, well I'm never going to vote for Harris, but I don't want to vote for trump now either and that's still an outcome I will take because it's still minus one for him.
Exactly, for every progressive they might lose, they'll pick up two moderate republicans in the suburbs. Just like in 2016. There's no reason why Hillary Clinton style triangulating can't work a second time.
james what makes you think anyone who reads this blog will want to hear your clueless lib nonsense, let alone take it seriously
These bitter, pinched-face shitlibs and their towering condescension for anyone that disagrees with them on absolutely anything are almost certainly driving people away from voting at all every time they open their stupid f*cking mouths to unleash some more fact-free invective at all the people that are actually smarter than them. Anything the Dems do, say, or fail to say or do is fine with these fucking losers with zero actual political beliefs. It's absolutely exhausting having to listen to these dipshits reach a new low day after day in service of a candidate that seems bent on repelling the voters in her base at every opportunity.
hey James how'd this work out for you
You don’t win elections in this dumb country by winning the most votes. You win by courting an extremely small sliver of the population in a few crucial states. Hence why you have Kamala about facing on fracking and essentially embracing Trump’s border policies.
Katherine Krueger has documented this her whole life it seems. I agree. But I fail to see how Wall Street prefers that abortion be illegal. After all, it was Nixon-era Republicans who made it legal in the first place. The mistresses needed medicine.
So I think you may be missing the stories on the falling birth rates (worldwide) and how not being able to control how many children you have drives down women's wages and makes for desperation/acceptance of worse working conditions. Wall Street isn't sitting in a cabal planning, but capitalism needs people in poverty and desperate to cheapen labor. They see that America's empire abroad, the thing that made the large middle class possible, is in decline. They know that abortion is always legal to those wealthy enough. Everything is legal if you have enough money--look at Epstein, look at Diddy.
I'm an old, broken, traumatized New Yorker. It saddens me to encounter someone a lot more broken than myself.