Kamala Harris plans to use her new running mate, Tim Walz, as her anti-MAGA attack dog against Donald Trump and J.D. Vance.
    • SuperIce@lemmy.worldEnglish
      59·
      3 months ago

      I think that’s why Kamala is skyrocketing in the polling averages. We actually have a candidate who is energetic and fights back against the Republican candidate instead of trying to just ignore it and try not to offend anyone.

      • finley@lemm.eeEnglish
        174·
        3 months ago

        Yes, we all remember President Hillary Clinton…

          • Monument@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            31·
            3 months ago

            Do you understand “since 2016” to be inclusive of, or exclusive of the year?

            To over explain:
            I understand “since 2016” to be inclusive of the year, which would imply you’re saying they won 2016.
            But the only way your statements make sense to me is if you understand them to exclude 2016.

            Not attempting to argue. I literally can’t tell if I’m shifting off the linguistics baseline as I age/my neurodiversity seems to be getting worse, or if I’m just fucking losing it.

            Edit: Another, more likely meaning occurred to me. You may be asserting they won the presidential election, which - they did not. They won the popular vote. They lost the election, however, because presidential elections are designed so that landowners have more say than raw numbers of voters.
            It’s an unjust and inequitable electoral approach, but it is the way U.S. presidential elections are determined.

              • Monument@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
                11·
                3 months ago

                I’m not sure how to respond, other than to note that you’re 1.) excessively hostile and attribute intent to an inquisitive, non-challenging comment that offered you an extreme amount of leeway in which you could respond in a not-dickish manner, and 2.) you implied something in a medium where you do not know your audience and cannot convey subtext, then got defensive when your failure to explicitly communicate resulted in others misunderstanding you.

                My main comment was about linguistics, really. “Since 2016” is factually wrong with no hint you’re implying something else. I was willing to accept that perhaps I was not up with shifting language trends. What you believe you were saying - the implied ‘since Trump’s 2016 win’ makes perfect sense, but that is not what you wrote.
                Considering that others actually challenged you on that point and you are generally underwater in your vote ratio, I think it’s fair to say that you are the outlier, and it is not others reaching to misunderstand you or attempt to correct you. It must be a very frustrating existence to poorly communicate and expect others to understand you.

                And my edit was offering you an opportunity to sidestep the whole linguistics part of it (of which, I remind you - I was not telling you that you were wrong, but asking you if my interpretation was wrong.), and say you meant that the democrats won the popular vote, which is true. My other additions were my own lamentations of the bullshit electoral system, which you seem to have taken as a personal attack.

                I hope you have a day that is as lovely as you.

  • Doorbook@lemmy.world
    144·
    3 months ago

    I dont understand why democrat feel like they pretended there was no one else except Biden - Kamala to be the next president when they had a normal person like Walz. He seems more qualify, energetic, and likeable than Kamala.

    • sik0fewl@lemmy.ca
      131·
      3 months ago

      Because Biden wanted to be president again and the incumbent always gets the say. Glad it was different this time.

    • Etterra@lemmy.world
      2·
      3 months ago

      Tradition. Tradition is frequently stupid. That’s why they had to sweet-talk Biden into calling off his bid. Granted there are reasons to do it that way, but nobody cares much anymore, they just didn’t want to stick their necks out and be called traitors, even if there was little to no risk of splitting the party.