They’re not worse than JD Vance, which was the contention. If the commenter is not coming at it from the disgruntled progressive stance, as so many here are, then that part of my response was off the mark.
The commenter is being very coy about what was meant.
You don’t even know who it’s gonna be and you’re already stating they’ll be better than Vance as if it’s a truism. I can absolutely see the DNC fucking up so badly that Vance looks like a better alternative. INB4 we end up with two Peter Thiel acolytes running against each other; “abundance” vs. “Christian” nationalism, a true clash of ideas.
You don’t even know who it’s gonna be and you’re already stating they’ll be better than Vance as if it’s a truism.
This thread has gotten quite derailed. The original commenter made the supposition that the nominee will be even more ludicrously unsuited than Vance. I take issue with that assumption. Like you said, we don’t even know who the nominee is.
I’m saying that historically the Dem candidates have not been ludicrously unsuited compared to their opponents. If that’s the case, where’s this thought that the next one will be coming from?
I think we’re on different wavelengths because I’m coming at this from the position that there’s a distinction to be made between who is the better candidate and who is better for the country. Trump, despite being a fascist moron who has and continues to destroy the lives of millions while enriching himself and his donors, was a better candidate than Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris. Any of those three would have been better for the country (marginally) but were absolutely god-awful candidates. The only reason Biden even won by a hair is because of how awful Trump’s first term was, that people were willing to hold their nose and vote for Biden despite hating his guts.
“Dem candidates are never bad, progressives are just fickle!” - you
“The party cannot fail, it can only be failed.”
- every moderate fuckwad stuck in 1992
They’re not worse than JD Vance, which was the contention. If the commenter is not coming at it from the disgruntled progressive stance, as so many here are, then that part of my response was off the mark.
The commenter is being very coy about what was meant.
You don’t even know who it’s gonna be and you’re already stating they’ll be better than Vance as if it’s a truism. I can absolutely see the DNC fucking up so badly that Vance looks like a better alternative. INB4 we end up with two Peter Thiel acolytes running against each other; “abundance” vs. “Christian” nationalism, a true clash of ideas.
This thread has gotten quite derailed. The original commenter made the supposition that the nominee will be even more ludicrously unsuited than Vance. I take issue with that assumption. Like you said, we don’t even know who the nominee is.
I’m saying that historically the Dem candidates have not been ludicrously unsuited compared to their opponents. If that’s the case, where’s this thought that the next one will be coming from?
I think we’re on different wavelengths because I’m coming at this from the position that there’s a distinction to be made between who is the better candidate and who is better for the country. Trump, despite being a fascist moron who has and continues to destroy the lives of millions while enriching himself and his donors, was a better candidate than Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris. Any of those three would have been better for the country (marginally) but were absolutely god-awful candidates. The only reason Biden even won by a hair is because of how awful Trump’s first term was, that people were willing to hold their nose and vote for Biden despite hating his guts.