• GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    Just saying this is a hypothetical reality. As you say, it doesn’t get people to the polls.

    What it means is folks have to live with a FURTHER candidate because they aren’t smart enough to serve their own interests and take the NEARER candidate.

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      The difference is that expecting the candidate to change was a realistic expectation, while expecting the voters to change was not.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I disagree, especially on Israel. Change would mean deviation from the official position. Imo it is a weakness with running a candidate who is already in the Whitehouse. They can’t just say things, weather or not they want to, if that will have strategic/military implications. An outside candidate is free to say whatever. (To be clear, I don’t believe Harris wanted to deviate much)

        Lastly, I think my whole point is I’m not expecting anything from anyone, I’m observing how voter’s inability to accept a good not great candidate results in a much worse candidate, so inaction results in a even less satisfying outcome.