I’m not asking for a perfect candidate, not sure where you got that from.
My whole point is that Harris’ positions got her some number of voters. We now know that this number was too small, and we also now know that they knew this fact.
Harris could have changed her positions to get more voters, but she didn’t. How is this not completely her fault?
Again, I’m not asking her to be some perfect politician. I’m asking her to look at the polling results (which we know she had) and to adapt her campaign based on those, which she didn’t do.
I have never respected this circular logic. You could use this argument to make any position a “bad one” as long as biases, foolishness or gullibility on the part of the listener override any convincing points. At some point, it is possible for recipients of a message to be bad listeners, and for voters to be irresponsible in their naivety towards a candidate.
Okay, but we’re not talking about any random position, we’re talking about “nothing will change with me” being a terrible position if you want to get elected by people who aren’t doing so well.
At some point, the senders of the messages have to accept blame. Otherwise things will never get better, as the least shitty option will get ever shittier.
The larger the group, the more predictable those behaviors are. It’s everybody’s fault, but she’s a single person who could’ve changed the outcome unilaterally.
I wish I didn’t just become more misanthropic knowing people just kinda turn their brains off in crowds. Obviously, that is the situation, and the Dems should’ve worked with it. But I don’t think it’s wrong to be frustrated by that either
I’m not asking for a perfect candidate, not sure where you got that from.
My whole point is that Harris’ positions got her some number of voters. We now know that this number was too small, and we also now know that they knew this fact.
Harris could have changed her positions to get more voters, but she didn’t. How is this not completely her fault?
Again, I’m not asking her to be some perfect politician. I’m asking her to look at the polling results (which we know she had) and to adapt her campaign based on those, which she didn’t do.
I have never respected this circular logic. You could use this argument to make any position a “bad one” as long as biases, foolishness or gullibility on the part of the listener override any convincing points. At some point, it is possible for recipients of a message to be bad listeners, and for voters to be irresponsible in their naivety towards a candidate.
Okay, but we’re not talking about any random position, we’re talking about “nothing will change with me” being a terrible position if you want to get elected by people who aren’t doing so well.
At some point, the senders of the messages have to accept blame. Otherwise things will never get better, as the least shitty option will get ever shittier.
It is not completely her fault because voters have agency and accountability.
The larger the group, the more predictable those behaviors are. It’s everybody’s fault, but she’s a single person who could’ve changed the outcome unilaterally.
I wish I didn’t just become more misanthropic knowing people just kinda turn their brains off in crowds. Obviously, that is the situation, and the Dems should’ve worked with it. But I don’t think it’s wrong to be frustrated by that either
Yet each individual voter had almost no impact, while she had an incredibly large one.