Would’ve needed a better candidate and a party that actually listens to criticism
Liberals (and independents) complained that Biden was too old (despite Trump being equally old) and it became a serious issue and they replaced him with a younger candidate. That’s called listening to criticism.
You can’t pin this one on us
Not retroactively. But every single 3rd party voter filled out their ballots not knowing if they were going to make the difference or not. Because some elections have come a lot closer than this one and 3rd party voters did make the difference. It’s not particularly meaningful to me that you point out it wasn’t your fault after the fact, when you didn’t know whether it would be your fault or not at the time. That’s like a kid admitting he threw the kitchen knife at his sister but it didn’t hit her so everything is totally fine and the subject can be closed.
The fact remains that it’s patently stupid to vote for a 3rd party presidential candidate because we are NOWHERE NEAR a 3rd party winning a presidential election. I mean the 3rd party candidate with the most votes only got half of a single percentage of the total votes. And that was magician Jill Stein, who disappears into thin air for years at a time and magically reappears a couple months out from every election.
Not retroactively. But every single 3rd party voter filled out their ballots not knowing if they were going to make the difference or not. Because some elections have come a lot closer than this one and 3rd party voters did make the difference. It’s not particularly meaningful to me that you point out it wasn’t your fault after the fact, when you didn’t know whether it would be your fault or not at the time. That’s like a kid admitting he threw the kitchen knife at his sister but it didn’t hit her so everything is totally fine and the subject can be closed.
The question is what you’re looking at. If your primary concern is understanding why Kamala lost, then it is very relevant to point out the fact that we did not cost her the election. If your primary concern is establishing the moral standing of individual voters, then I suppose it’s less relevant.
To be perfectly clear, if we cost a candidate like Kamala the election, I would be perfectly fine with it. I wish that we did represent a larger contingent of the vote so that we had the power to deny a win to any candidate that doesn’t meet our demands. It would be preferable if our kitchen knife hit and we could claim credit for it. Unfortunately, your candidate lost for other reasons.
If course, the only analysis liberals seem capable of is looking at the moral purity of individual voters. It is inconceivable to punch up and critique our rulers. The Democratic party can never fail, it can only be failed. This aversion to self-critique and reflection is itself part of why the Democrats failed, and why they will continue to fail.
Liberals (and independents) complained that Biden was too old (despite Trump being equally old) and it became a serious issue and they replaced him with a younger candidate. That’s called listening to criticism.
Not retroactively. But every single 3rd party voter filled out their ballots not knowing if they were going to make the difference or not. Because some elections have come a lot closer than this one and 3rd party voters did make the difference. It’s not particularly meaningful to me that you point out it wasn’t your fault after the fact, when you didn’t know whether it would be your fault or not at the time. That’s like a kid admitting he threw the kitchen knife at his sister but it didn’t hit her so everything is totally fine and the subject can be closed.
The fact remains that it’s patently stupid to vote for a 3rd party presidential candidate because we are NOWHERE NEAR a 3rd party winning a presidential election. I mean the 3rd party candidate with the most votes only got half of a single percentage of the total votes. And that was magician Jill Stein, who disappears into thin air for years at a time and magically reappears a couple months out from every election.
The question is what you’re looking at. If your primary concern is understanding why Kamala lost, then it is very relevant to point out the fact that we did not cost her the election. If your primary concern is establishing the moral standing of individual voters, then I suppose it’s less relevant.
To be perfectly clear, if we cost a candidate like Kamala the election, I would be perfectly fine with it. I wish that we did represent a larger contingent of the vote so that we had the power to deny a win to any candidate that doesn’t meet our demands. It would be preferable if our kitchen knife hit and we could claim credit for it. Unfortunately, your candidate lost for other reasons.
If course, the only analysis liberals seem capable of is looking at the moral purity of individual voters. It is inconceivable to punch up and critique our rulers. The Democratic party can never fail, it can only be failed. This aversion to self-critique and reflection is itself part of why the Democrats failed, and why they will continue to fail.