
boariskarloff
Even if all those people voted for her she still would’ve lost. A predictable result of forcing the VP of a deeply unpopular president to be the democratic nominee. Better than Trump? Sure. Easily so. But the Democratic Party did this to themselvesGenuinely, who the hell were they supposed to prop up at that point in the race? It was less than six months until the election. Literally anybody that the dems could have propped up would have come across as a weak, flimsy, and underdeveloped candidate. That’s not a very compelling argument for getting lackadaisical over the fact a fascist candidate had a serious running. At least under Harris you could protest her leadership in the streets without having to worry that you’ll get shot or ICE’d
If just Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania had flipped, Kamala would be president right now. The sum of the differences in Harris’ and Trump’s votes in these three states is 229,766. The sum of the people who voted for the Green Party in these 3 states is 91,420, which is nearly 40% of 229,766. I don’t have data on nonvoters but I think that it’s plausible she could have won with some nonvoters voting for her
And who should we have voted for, o wise one? Jill Stein? The openly transphobic woman who took dirty money from Israel? Or do you mean we should have simply stepped aside and let Donald Trump win, no contest? Harris would have the ability to buckle under political pressure. Trump will have you shot for applying it.