My responses were brief. I should be more clear and less of a dick. I’m sorry for that.

As I said earlier in the thread that you didn’t read or didnt understand, “The politically adept way to answer protesters with a substantial base of support that you don’t want to alienate is to say, ‘I hear you.’”

If she wants their votes she needs policy and actions that will win those votes.

It’s a protest at a press conference. When protesting its beneficial to take your message to the press and politicians. I’m not claiming it was their turn to speak because the entire point of a protest is taking a stand and making your voice heard even if it isn’t convenient.

Historically effective protest movements weren’t convenient for politicians.

I’m sorry, I had no idea this concept could be so alien to anybody.

Protests are not effective if they can be ignored. THE ENTIRE POINT IS THAT IT ISN’T THEIR TURN TO SPEAK.

Edit: The politically adept way to answer protesters with a substantial base of support that you don’t want to alienate is to say, “I hear you.”

It likely is, but she most recently used the same phrase to shutdown pro-palestine protestors at a rally.

Describing people begging for a genocide to stop as just having hurt feelings and being impatient is a wild approach.

Protests aren’t supposed to be silent. That’s the entire point and the only way to get anything done. If Harris was already campaigning on a ceasefire they would have nothing to protest about and she wouldn’t be interrupted. These are constituents making their voices heard.

“I’m speaking.”

She has used this multiple times, but most recently it was to shut down people protesting the genocide of palestinians.

Edit: Who’s downvoting my factual and verifiable answer to their question?

I thought it was the microplastics.

I thought it was just his normal guy vibe without the shooting glasses. Pretty sure the hand in the pocket is common and I haven’t heard anything about a hilarious back story.

Leave language alone motherfuckers not speaking in Old English. smh

Work was supposed to be slow today. D’:

Or he could be leading by 4 points.

Edit: 3 points. I guess I struggle with addition now D:

It’s for cleaning your horse while riding.

Harris has already been performing better than Biden in polls vs Trump. Other alternatives have been performing similarly to Biden, but that’s without considering that they don’t all have the name recognition of being the current president and the likely nominee. If the party rallies behind any of those candidates those polls will reflect that change. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/

If you remember to open your eyes when you read this please don’t fixate on the outliers and try to look at the trends.

I simply don’t understand this reply.

Biden looks like a losing candidate. Wouldn’t both the moral and strategic answer be to run somebody who can beat Trump? Stopping the Christofacists from getting even more power seems both strategically and morally good.

Stopping that is important so why should the Democratic party not run the candidate most likely to win? If you think Joe Biden is the most likely to win Democratic candidate then I’d argue your misinformed or willfully ignorant.

Its unbelievable that you think the problem is not Biden or the Democratic Party’s flaws, but talking about their flaws.

Republican voters are happy with their nominee. While the Democratic party has its die hard fans many people vote for them as damage control. Many people can not be bothered to vote because they don’t feel like either party represents them. Wheeling out somebody with a sub 40% approval rating and abysmal polling isn’t going to increase voter turnout.

My argument is not that Trump is a better option than Biden. My critique is that running Biden shows an increased likelihood of a Trump presidency when looking at polling data. Keeping Biden in is a losing play and no amount of covering your ears when polls are brought up will change that. So, eat me.

Republican voters do not give a single fuck.

There are plenty of people who will vote for the democratic nominee even if it’s Biden, but if his performance reduces voter turnout then we get Trump. You overestimate the political literacy of the average person. A lot of people are burnt out or apathetic. You should want somebody who will beat Trump. Why are people hellbent on sticking with the candidate that has a poor approval rating and is polling poorly?

Did you expect Trump to hype up his political opponent?

After reading I now appreciate David Gerard’s dedication.

The date?