Objectively great? She lost to the worst previous president we’d ever seen, who’d literally attempted a coup after losing re-election just a few years earlier. She had almost unlimited money, and instead of absolutely unloading on the POS, she ran a pretty typical, run-of-the-mill style campaign. She could have produced sooooo many supercut ads of nothing but the POS being a stupid crazy POS during his first time, with just a tagline of “More of this? Really?” or something, and that probably would have done it. I live in a swing state, and her “attack” ads were fucking pathetic. There was likely fuckery, too, but it never should have been close enough for that to swing it.
You’re telling me nothing I don’t already know but continue to miss the point.
The point isn’t how bad Trump was or how milquetoast or excellent Harris was; it was a matter of an uneven playing field. Fascists control what people see. That is all that matters, second to maybe Biden forcing her to run a blitz campaign.
Circular reasoning. You’ve yet to establish the relevance of the premise in the first place.
Yes, I think Harris made some errors, but really no major blunders relative to incessant scandals from Trump. It was one of the cleanest runs I’ve seen since Obama’s 2008 probably.
But that’s just it now, isn’t it? That Harris needed to run a FLAWLESS campaign and do EVERYTHING right, while Trump can just trip and stumble, lie, cheat, steal, rape his way just fine.
… All because the Republican propaganda machine is very, very strong.
All because the Republican propaganda machine is very, very strong.
No shit, that’s the entire point, and why combating that with everything you’ve got in the form of blistering and effective ads is paramount, which she absolutely, positively could have done, but didn’t for some reason. How is that circular reasoning, exactly?
Hindsight is 20/20; if perfection was easy, everyone would do it. Why they didn’t isn’t going to be figured out by a lemmy strategist. After all, it was her team who got Obama elected twice against a white war POW war hero and a rich white businessman. Not like they were traitors or some shit, lol.
Look, these are all objective facts:
Harris had one of the best campaigns possible given the short time she had and surrounding forces.
Trump had ENORMOUS advantages, counter to the implied claim from the original user, claiming “she spent $1b and lost”
On hindsight, Harris team could’ve maybe performed better.
But, importantly, it should’ve been more than enough.
So let’s stop blaming the candidate, acting like “if you would’ve thrown a few more pebbles at the tank, maybe you would’ve won the fight! Weak!”
Given all this, my compromise is this: Michelle Obama should run in 2028 because, like you said, we need all the advantages we can get. Democrats will not get a more perfect candidate.
Objectively great? She lost to the worst previous president we’d ever seen, who’d literally attempted a coup after losing re-election just a few years earlier. She had almost unlimited money, and instead of absolutely unloading on the POS, she ran a pretty typical, run-of-the-mill style campaign. She could have produced sooooo many supercut ads of nothing but the POS being a stupid crazy POS during his first time, with just a tagline of “More of this? Really?” or something, and that probably would have done it. I live in a swing state, and her “attack” ads were fucking pathetic. There was likely fuckery, too, but it never should have been close enough for that to swing it.
You’re telling me nothing I don’t already know but continue to miss the point.
The point isn’t how bad Trump was or how milquetoast or excellent Harris was; it was a matter of an uneven playing field. Fascists control what people see. That is all that matters, second to maybe Biden forcing her to run a blitz campaign.
Oh, fascists somehow controlled Harris’ ad content and ad buys? Guess I did miss that point, would love to hear more.
Circular reasoning. You’ve yet to establish the relevance of the premise in the first place.
Yes, I think Harris made some errors, but really no major blunders relative to incessant scandals from Trump. It was one of the cleanest runs I’ve seen since Obama’s 2008 probably.
But that’s just it now, isn’t it? That Harris needed to run a FLAWLESS campaign and do EVERYTHING right, while Trump can just trip and stumble, lie, cheat, steal, rape his way just fine.
… All because the Republican propaganda machine is very, very strong.
No shit, that’s the entire point, and why combating that with everything you’ve got in the form of blistering and effective ads is paramount, which she absolutely, positively could have done, but didn’t for some reason. How is that circular reasoning, exactly?
Hindsight is 20/20; if perfection was easy, everyone would do it. Why they didn’t isn’t going to be figured out by a lemmy strategist. After all, it was her team who got Obama elected twice against a white war POW war hero and a rich white businessman. Not like they were traitors or some shit, lol.
Look, these are all objective facts:
So let’s stop blaming the candidate, acting like “if you would’ve thrown a few more pebbles at the tank, maybe you would’ve won the fight! Weak!”
Given all this, my compromise is this: Michelle Obama should run in 2028 because, like you said, we need all the advantages we can get. Democrats will not get a more perfect candidate.