Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Did you ask these people if they thought anyone they know in those communities would stay home this election if they didn't get their way? Because that's all I'm saying. The difference between the number of voters in the demographics you mentioned (i) who are excited about (or who can be excited by) Kamala and (ii) those who will absolutely vote to stop our country from going over a cliff and destroying every single vulnerable community is negligible. That's the point.
And I disagree with the "no harm in letting this play out." Those days are over. The more everyone tries to destroy the Democratic front runner (and Bernie has already proven that he is absolutely not a team player--even after he knows he has no chance) during the primary, the weaker the fucking candidate we put up. We should have no more than 3 or 4 candidates at this point. The Party looks like a fucking clown car.
TM
|
The Party looks like an open organization that has a deep bench, where candidates agree with each other on 90% of whats being discussed, and, yes, every front runner needs to show they can take the heat. I don't want a coronation, I don't want a bunch of party leaders choosing who they want. Really, that's crazy. Who should decide who those three or four candidates are and on what basis? Polls? They're mostly about visibility and recognition and have squat to do with how people will vote. The DNC?
So let me revise. There is a lot of good in letting this play out.
As to turnout, actually, we had a substantive discussion on turnout because everyone thought immigrant turnout could be an issue. One of the three may throw a bunch of money at GOTV in the Indian community. The other two of us thought that was a good use of his money.
Threaded Mode