Yeah, monarchies are usually inherited.

And football is theoretically the thing he’s good at.

They’ll keep rolling her out for campaigns like do with Bill Clinton. They view reaching high station in the party as being perpetually loved by the rank and file.

WHAT SOCIAL PROGRAM?? The Democrats didn’t run on any of this woke mind virus bullshit you’re complaining about. Trans people were the target of choice for the conservatives despite being basically a miniscule sliver of the population and Democrats just mumbled some generic pablum about privacy and compassion before changing the topic as quickly as possible. In no remote sense was “trans rights” a purity test for the Democrats, as clearly evidenced by all the fucking Republicans involved in the campaign.

This is just divorced from reality, and maybe that’s the real sentiment you two have landed on, but it’s not because the Democrats did anything to foster it.

We’ll never know for sure but there is a clear divide on people who believe progressives were ignored and others that say the party is too extreme left.

And the important difference between them is any rational mind will see that there wasn’t much further right the party could be and even pretend to be Democrats. What more could have been sacrificed in the name of expediency? Proposing some trans bans rather than just mumbling and changing the subject? Embracing a state by state abortion-rights regime? Lowering taxes for the top 1%?

Like the only progressive thing I can remember was expanding Medicare services. And I’m pretty sure promising old people more stuff isn’t what the “too far left” people are talking about. There were probably some whitepapers somewhere with tightly restricted benefits that might qualify as something a conservative thinks is progressive, but if so they were basically announced once and then ignored. A campaign isn’t really about the words in its platform, it’s about what it spends time talking about and promoting.

It is, as long as we say they’re both right and make sure neither side’s theory of politics is ever tried again.

I’d sandwich Merrick Garland in there as well, unless Biden just gets full credit for his failures.

You could literally just look in my history for “Jill Stein”, but you’re a blowhard who doesn’t do self-reflection. I already told you this, but just go on being aggressively ignorant.

I honestly don’t know. He’s not as viscerally mean as Trump, but he’s also a lot smarter. I think some part of him is a fancy boy who wants to be liked and to win by being clever and insightful rather than just brutal. He used to write about his nice life in San Francisco doing community gardening. If he could get the upper-crust to like him (not just use him) that seems like something he’d enjoy.

But then again, he sold out to the guy he thought was Hitler, so he might just be completely without shame or conscience.

Yeah, and the problem is people just kind of stop at “they’re dumb” like that’s just the end of it. “They’re dumb and our opponents are unscrupulous so we’ll never win until dumbness is eradicated”. It’s an influence campaign. Figure out a way to make the dumb people want to vote for you! The dumb people exist, some of them vote, and others could probably be encouraged to vote who don’t.

No ad agency would stay in business by saying “sorry, we didn’t get you any extra sales, but it’s not our fault because the consumers are dumb, and also you should hire us to do it all over again next time because our failure was the absolute best that could have been done under the circumstances”.

Trump gives his little guys entertainment and the promise to hurt the types of people they don’t like. His little guys are well-accounted for, just not in a way that would ever make them not stuck at the bottom. Their propaganda has made them think the problems in their lives are trans minority immigrants rather than the boss that hasn’t given them a pay raise in three years because “times are tight”.

Prosecute is probably the word you’re looking for, but I wouldn’t mind a bit of persecution being mixed in. Better than just letting him walk.

I’m not nearly as much of a downvote magnet as either of you, and I still have some dude following me around claiming I’m a Stein shill despite every mention of her in my history being to shit on her. They’ve just got the one move.

Because the Tea Party was useful to just make the Republicans more unapologetically anti-government (something rich people like) while Occupy was demanding that Democrats become unapologetically antagonistic to rich people.

I’d even be happy to settle for someone in the middle of the party willing to fight for the party’s supposed ideals. Remember when one of her slogans was “when we fight, we win”? Not “when we bipartisan, we win” or “when we coopt conservative issues, we win”.

He didn’t win by 5 million. Running up the numbers in California doesn’t win you the White House. He won in a few swing states by nail-biting margins.

Blue state examples are often particularly confusing for the politically uninvolved, as Eric Adams is pretty close to a Republican. Once a state gets blue enough, anyone with ambition will just say they’re Democrats and then do center-right stuff. Often the state parties are not ideological enough to deny the brand when it’s just easier to make a bigger and bigger tent of insiders.

What exactly do you think should have been done differently for Harris to activate this “just win with centrists” option? Because it very much seems like that was just tried and failed miserably.

Trump seems to have turned out just as many as before. Plus, I don’t think any of the blue wall states changed their vote by mail policies.

She was (briefly) leading the race at one point and packing large speaking venues. She had four hour lines of people waiting to get a picture with her. Wonkier doesn’t equal “unable to connect with voters”.