What lesson exactly? That if the ideal candidate isn’t run, a subset of liberals will pick the worse of two options?
All that does is teach the conservatives that if they can convince you that the democrat candidate fails you enough on a single issue, they effectively have your vote. Regardless of the conservative candidate’s stance on that issue.
You have made the choice to make the problem you care about profoundly worse because there wasn’t a way to make it completely better. Have fun watching that play out as you intended I guess.
What lesson exactly? That if the ideal candidate isn’t run, a subset of liberals will pick the worse of two options?
All that does is teach the conservatives that if they can convince you that the democrat candidate fails you enough on a single issue, they effectively have your vote. Regardless of the conservative candidate’s stance on that issue.
You have made the choice to make the problem you care about profoundly worse because there wasn’t a way to make it completely better. Have fun watching that play out as you intended I guess.
To teach that supporting genocide is a red line and not doing anything about it will not get you elected.
Ah, genocide at home, in Gaza AND possibly in Ukraine instead.
Genius!
Delusional take. I’ll see you in 4 years when no genocide occurred here in America.
Even before Trump is in office, his cabinet picks don’t exactly inspire confidence in his reign to be any better than Harris’ likely would’ve been.
Curious.