I believe you when you say you’re trying to help your Arab community. That’s the right thing to do. What you should spend some time considering is the opportunity for progress you take away by declaring the Harris platform not good enough. The opportunity for a less-than-worst outcome for Palestine has now exited the room. Have you considered what Trump will do? Have you considered how the world react when that happens? If feels like you haven’t given consideration for the now what.

We as a nation lessen our ability to make those type of influential impacts on foreign affairs when we elect unpredictable and egotistical leaders. Put your own mask on before you help others. As long as we keep infighting like this, the Christian nationalists will continue to win. FPTP is strategic voting and strategic voting only. This type of division foments and spreads and it is so crucial that we instead focus on supporting empathic leaders who can evolve and iterate their platform for the greater good. You stopped paying attention to her campaign if you didn’t see that. But it goes back to the nuance of the situation in a post-inflationary economy, and unfortunately the incumbent historically has always lost. The first chance at harm reduction was for the GOP to not choose Trump. The second chance was to buck with history and reelect the incumbent party.

Prepare for Gaza to be handed to Israel under Trump. Same with Ukraine to Russia. And we’re only talking about the tangible situations without even considering the soft power impacts of putting him back in power. That’s the world order risk, and you can choose to “win” the battle (spoiler: you won’t) but it will forfeit all future ones (e.g. Korea, Taiwan, who knows what else domestically). You can’t choose to criticize one platform by one measure yet use a different measure for the other. Trump is objectively worse if you care at all about genocide, and therefore yes you as a candidate do demand the vote of others who think the other is worse. FPTP demands strategic voting. You vote for the person that aligns closest with you. You do your neighbors poorly when you decide to vote based on a single issue, so I think your observations about her campaign say more about you than it does about her.

Just to be super clear, yes we were watching different candidates then. The country needs to walk a very nuanced path if we want to continue the recovery started by the Fed (interest rates) and Biden (IRA and CHIPS). Don’t get me wrong: Biden deciding to run for reelection was the worst possible decision he could have made. The second worst: dropping out 107 days from the election. I’m sure the private discussions about his decision were passionate, but of course she’s not going to publicly lay her boss out like that. That’s not realistic to expect her to undermine any progress Biden. You privately disagree and publicly commit. You do that until the circumstances change. The DNC is absolutely to blame. Not Harris though. It was as good as it could have been given the duration.

And then there’s the elephant in the room: she does not exist in a vacuum. We had a front row view to a horribly misogynist, criminal, fascist wannabe since (checks notes) 2015. People comparing these 2 and selecting to risk the world order just to save their regressive social views are also to blame. Because remember: all economists agree how dangerous his plan is.

Well let’s be real honest with ourselves here. Her platform was fine and her campaign was executed very, very well. But she had only, what, 107 days to pull it off? Economists agree that her platform would have the best impact on the country, but she or anyone who would have taken her place were all swimming upstream against inflation. And since we’re being honest here, we both recognize that the Fed, not controlled by the executive branch, are the ones responsible for righting the ship. And Biden did everything he could from his chair up to and including working across the aisle in GOP majority house, and only failed when Trump intervened for sake of an election year talking point.

The map is the outcome, but it’s not evidence of any campaign tanking. She is intelligent, empathetic, and very well spoken. But the settling dust is indicating that the outcome was driven by a number of factors beyond her control.

Trump is representative of the systemic issues America has left unresolved

Him and literally every other politician, so thanks for defining politics for us. The problem is that enough people think he’s the right solution. Oh boy are they wrong.

Remember, the universe for those stats are only voters which account for less than half of the total US population.

What evidence are you using to support your belief that she tanked? That’s a surprise to me and I’d like to understand more.

deleted by creator

I recognize this isn’t what the article is about but they mentioned Sawant, and I find it ironic that she routinely wouldn’t show up to meetings as a council member, yet does show up when she’s not.

There’s actually legal reasons why publications would pay special care to their word choice like this. The difference between seeming violation and violation comes down to hard proof. Whether we like Elon’s sideshow or not, if there is a defendable claim that his post didn’t violate (e.g. new policy that allows it was approved internally but not yet published publicly), NYT could land themselves in a lawsuit that they have a chance of losing. Then ask yourself how many stories do they publish a day? The risk starts to add up quick.

So the word seeming is doing some heavy lifting there. If you ignore the ass covering, they did still report truth on something important.