When you keep walking back on your promises two months before the election that’s called not having coherent policy. Running on saving democracy is not having coherent policy. “There’s not a thing that comes to mind” is not coherent policy. The only policies she stuck to until election day were the insane border wall and watered down Biden campaign promises.
I think your plan is smarter than whatever he could come up with. Although apparently he has complained about the dollar being “overvalued” so maybe you’re right!
It’s a silly thing to focus on to a lot of people though, because the vast majority of people who the Democrats were supposed to be talking to weren’t ever considering voting for Trump. Of course I say supposed to because in actuality you’re right they were trying to appeal to Trump voters, and they failed again spectacularly as they usually do when they try to appeal to Republicans. However for the rest of us it’s a moot point. They don’t want to be told it’s good compared to trump, because that was never an option. So saying their plan was better than Trump is like saying shooting yourself in the foot is better than shooting yourself in the head. That’s not going to motivate people who would just prefer not to be shot at all.
Like I said, anyone who cares about that was going to vote Harris either way. The people who didn’t show up are the people who didn’t care about that comparison, or at least didn’t care enough to go vote. Harris failed to appeal to these people in part because independently of Trump she didn’t have coherent policy leading up to the election.
Honestly it wasn’t that deep. Just an off the cuff joke about MTG saying they stole the house. You’re right overall. I don’t think it was a coherence issue but maybe
They… Didn’t though. That’s exactly why they lost.
Pro tip: the coherent policy does still exist even if you don’t bother to look it up. It’s not like trees falling in the forest or something.
When you keep walking back on your promises two months before the election that’s called not having coherent policy. Running on saving democracy is not having coherent policy. “There’s not a thing that comes to mind” is not coherent policy. The only policies she stuck to until election day were the insane border wall and watered down Biden campaign promises.
Did you need someone to google that policy for you?
Do you need to look at the election results that say they failed miserably at vocalizing that supposedly coherent policy?
How cute. You think people on the whole care about policies and are very studious in examining them when considering candidates?
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Well maybe a lot of people do care about policies, and that’s why they stayed home upon seeing hers.
And yet they “failed miserably at ‘vocalizing’” the policies. Uh huh.
Compared to Trump they certainly did. I would be the first to tell you they fucked up, but I mean, Trump still doesn’t seem to understand tariffs.
He understands just fine. He wants to replace the taxes that he doesn’t pay with tariffs. A tax on poor people.
The tariffs will also crash the economy, letting Trump and Musk buy up large parts of the country for pennies on the dollar.
Maybe he does! But has he ever acknowledged the fact that consumers pay the cost publicly? He always acts like he’s making other countries pay.
Of course he could just be lying for manipulative purposes, it would be very on brand. But what makes you think so in this case specifically?
He’s tried tariffs before, and had the entire Republican party tell him how shit an idea they are.
But he might not believe them. He is pretty stupid and stubborn.
But I’m thinking he wants to crash the economy to buy everything at pennies on the dollar.
I think your plan is smarter than whatever he could come up with. Although apparently he has complained about the dollar being “overvalued” so maybe you’re right!
I mean why are you comparing with Trump? Anyone who cares about that comparison was going to vote for her anyway.
Because we’re talking about the election? What a weird question
It’s a silly thing to focus on to a lot of people though, because the vast majority of people who the Democrats were supposed to be talking to weren’t ever considering voting for Trump. Of course I say supposed to because in actuality you’re right they were trying to appeal to Trump voters, and they failed again spectacularly as they usually do when they try to appeal to Republicans. However for the rest of us it’s a moot point. They don’t want to be told it’s good compared to trump, because that was never an option. So saying their plan was better than Trump is like saying shooting yourself in the foot is better than shooting yourself in the head. That’s not going to motivate people who would just prefer not to be shot at all.
I have been making the same argument you are for months. Absolutely no idea what you think you’re arguing with but it isn’t me. I agree with you.
Then why do you keep using Trump as your barometer?
I don’t think he should be a barometer. The election was effectively just between him and Harris, so the comparison is obviously relevant.
Like I said, anyone who cares about that was going to vote Harris either way. The people who didn’t show up are the people who didn’t care about that comparison, or at least didn’t care enough to go vote. Harris failed to appeal to these people in part because independently of Trump she didn’t have coherent policy leading up to the election.
Honestly it wasn’t that deep. Just an off the cuff joke about MTG saying they stole the house. You’re right overall. I don’t think it was a coherence issue but maybe