• Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    13 days ago

    If Kamala was a garbage candidate, what does that make Trump?

    For bonus points, how is it not the voters fault considering any rational answer to the above question? You may open your book to look up topical issues like peace, climate, genocide, rights, hate, juvenile bullying, criminal bullying, felony conviction, bigotry (don’t miss misogyny relating to to “garbage candidate”, see above), and tariffs.

    • missingno@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      13 days ago

      If Kamala was a garbage candidate, what does that make Trump?

      The guy who told voters what they wanted to hear. “I know you’re upset at the world, and I’m going to make it great again.”

      The best Kamala could do was “I won’t do anything differently from the Biden administration.”

    • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      13 days ago

      Turns out, lecturing the voters doesn’t make them want to vote for you. Everything you said is correct, but those weren’t the concerns that resonated. To quote Bill Clinton’s strategist in 92, “it’s the economy, stupid.” Yeah, the economy is doing great right now, but you have to ask, “for who?”

      • Katana314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 days ago

        I agree that right now, our economists have a terrible way of defining a “good economy”. They have praise for a set of numbers such as the stock market rates, which have almost no connection to the well-being of common people.

        We need more medians and fewer averages; not to measure wealth when it’s spread among the extremes.

      • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        13 days ago

        It’s not the economy, it’s a popularity contest when the majority of the electorate stop choosing candidates based on what they do and have done and instead only pay attention to what they say or choose based on uninformed vibes.

            • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 days ago

              Now you’re going to try and nit pick to back peddle? The economy was the star of the show and Kamala didn’t have an easy to understand answer. The messaging, as always, was piss poor from the democrats.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      Ok…

      Weird this hasn’t come up before for you.

      But different people have different standards.

      For Republican voters, it’s usually just the letter by someone’s name.

      Dem voters have always had higher standards than Republican voters.

      For bonus points, how is it not the voters fault

      Because the entire point of a candidates campaign is to get votes. And Kamala and her campaign couldn’t even beat fucking trump.

      For all those reasons you just listed he’s terrible, Kamala still couldn’t beat him.

      What metric do you think a candidate and their campaign should be judged by except number of votes?

      Bonus points:

      Why don’t you think a shit tier opponent wouldnt make it easier? And how can a candidate who can’t beat trump not be considered “garbage”?

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        13 days ago

        People insisting “no, Kamala Harris was the better candidate!” Are exactly the people this meme are calling out.

        Clearly she wasn’t. That doesn’t mean she was a worse human being than Trump. That’s a hard standard to beat. But she was a worse candidate because she lost the election to him, which is the one thing you need to do in order to be the better candidate.

        • MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          13 days ago

          Since the election I’ve written comments the length of essays attempting to explain what you just put so succinctly. “She was a worse candidate because she lost the election to him, which is the one thing you need to do” 100% this.

          For what it’s worth, I do try to make the distinction between her and her campaign. She might have been the winning candidate had her campaign made different decisions, but at the end of the day, she’s responsible for her campaign. They can’t force her to say anything she doesn’t want to.

          I think there’s a lot of people talking past each other because they don’t agree on what the purpose of being a candidate is. We might think it’s getting elected, others might think it’s being the best representation of the party. Obviously, she wasn’t option 1, but some people may think she was better because they are libs who agree with her ideologically and are somehow still under the delusion that Rs represent state rights, “godliness”, and fiscal responsibility. They see Trump and think “how can people say he’s a better representative of Rs than Kamala is of Ds” and the answer is that they have no idea what Rs want and are incapable of recognizing the broad spectrum of people that normally vote D. I hope people can rid themselves of that kind of thinking because it’s obviously not serving them or the party. Either recognize that candidates need to be ELECTED to mean anything, or be prepared to be in this same position for the foreseeable future.

        • Bustedknuckles@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          If I had a 95 meter head start on Usain bolt in the 100m, I could probably beat him. That doesn’t make me a better runner.

            • Bustedknuckles@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              12 days ago

              Nah, but he had some serious advantages. Dems would do better to talk about why voters gave him preference on things like the economy. And of course, voters would do better to vote their self-interest

              • FaceDeer@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                12 days ago

                Dems should do better to talk about why they didn’t focus on the economy, when that’s what the electorate wanted them to focus on. It’s not their job to tell the electorate what’s more important to them.

    • FinnFooted@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      13 days ago

      Trump won. Sadly this means he was the better candidate. Which damning for the Democrats because he’s dog shit.