***Official Political Discussion Thread***

?

Pete campaign was very very smart and Kamala might be the nominee if she ran as good a campaign as Pete.

He's the only candidate other than Warren who actually talked about the real problem with American politics. Your busted *** legislative process filled veto points and radical conservative supreme court.
Famb, I am pointing you one criticism you had, about Harris' overarching ambition to become president, and she then triangulated positions to get to that place. If that is the charge, Pete is guilty of the same thing. Dude is a mayor from a small town, in his 30s, and decided he wanted to be president. And he pretty much adopted the median policy platform to run on.

Harris probably didn't hit on a massive core issue like Pete did, but she did have important points about how we ignore some of the drivers of mass inceratation, and how the tax code is built to reinforce inequality. So Pete's good points make up for his naked ambition, but for Harris it doesn't?

Now Pete was dead one in his criticism of how broken our electoral process was. But he also flipped from trying to present himself as progressive, to trying to president himself as a centrist. He didn't campaign enough in the deep South or try to build a black support base, instead spending most of this time is lilly *** Iowa with the same tired "economic anxiety" message because he thought that would build him momentum.

Their campaigns were different levels of fail. I will agree though, Kamala's was a bigger fail. Sure Pete ran a better campaign all things considered, sure Harris made mistakes, but she was also punished more for them because she was a black woman.

But somehow you don't have a problem with Pete's naked ambition, but for Harris it was a problem. So that is funny to me, like the criticism is whatever, but coming from a Pete supporter it doesn't come off as a principled objection.
 
Last edited:


1597272806418.gif
 
Back
Top Bottom