• Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    Right, the most progressive candidate we’ve ever had is unelectable. For a thing the administration she was part of decriminalized.

    That doesn’t make sense.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Right, the most progressive candidate

      Exactly. She has to win not just in the deep blue progressive states. She also has to win the competitive states. She can’t just coast to a victory; She has to actually compete against Trump. ~~~~

      If “most progressive” was something that the swing states voted for, they wouldn’t be swing states; they would be blue. “Most progressive” will win her the popular vote, and lose the election. Just like it did with Hillary.

      Contrast with Mark Kelly, a solid blue candidate with a known record of being able to win in red states. Kelly would poach votes from Trump, turning the competitive states blue, and some of the red states competitive.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        You’re confusing “most progressive candidate” we’ve ever had with “democratic socialist”.

        Mark Kelly is a great politician but he would be starting from behind her on this. Newsome who was already prepping for a 2028 run would be the more logical choice if you want to replace Harris.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Harris is a lawyer turned politician. Kelly is a fighter pilot turned test pilot turned Navy Captain turned Astronaut turned Senator, with an identical twin brother with a nearly identical career, and a wife who survived an assassination attempt.

          You can’t swing a dead cat Trump’s toupee in DC without hitting a dozen lawyer-turned-politican Democrats.

          Kelly might be starting from behind but he has every advantage here.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Tell me you don’t remember Swift Boating without telling me you don’t remember it. The playbook on kneecapping anyone who leans on their service is already written. Mark Kelly was successful in Arizona because he kept his composure against Martha McSally and advocated common sense policies.

            But he doesn’t have the funding, donors, or national ground game he would need for a presidential campaign. That, along with her record, is why Harris is getting the nod.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              John Kerry was a low-level officer in a race with another low level officer.

              Kelly was a high-ranking officer, running against a malingering draft dodger.

              Completely different circumstances

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Mark Kelly’s opponent was Martha McSally, 20+ year veteran of the Air Force and a fighter pilot.

                John Kerry faced off against a delinquent national guard pilot while he was a decorated combat veteran. Unable to match Kerry’s military record, Bush got navy veterans who were mad about Kerry’s anti war activities to say mean shit about him and insinuated they served under him. His actual crew made the rounds for him but it was useless.

                Just so we’re clear, since you seem to have confused them.

                • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Just so we’re clear, since you seem to have confused them.

                  I didn’t confuse them. I was talking about his future opponent, not the previous one.

                  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Then you need to use the words, “will be” instead of “was”.

                    You also neglected to tell us how you would avoid that swift boating.

    • BigFatNips@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      But they didn’t though? Gonna vote for Kamala either way but you don’t have to lie. At best the administration she was part of nicely suggested that we should reschedule it to a lower but still very criminal schedule 3. Please don’t give them credit for shit they didn’t even do, or promise to do.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I did think they got it lower than that. But schedule 3 can be prescribed and some are available behind the counter at the pharmacy. So it’s a way better position than it was.

        • BigFatNips@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I’m glad you’re getting upvoted for a blatant lie while my correction of that lie is getting downvoted, and now that you’re admitting it was bullshit all along you leave it there unedited to mislead more people. Great job. Look, I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but you don’t see making up reasons to lick boot.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            I don’t think it is a blatant lie. It’s a huge improvement. There’s obviously more work to be done to get it to recreational status. But schedule 3 reduces tax burden and opens up banking options for dispensaries. If a grower wanted to get their product nation wide they can apply to the FDA for a license now. Could you imagine buying concentrate from the counter at Walgreens 2 years ago?

            Framing this as an all or nothing thing really misses the point in my opinion.

          • curiousaur@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            It’s because people really need to believe she’ll beat Trump. It’s the same wishful unrealistic thinking that led the same folks to assume Hillary would just beat him. Dangerous, lazy, hopeful complacency.

            • BigFatNips@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              She’s got a better shot than Biden, but we still don’t need to be making up reasons to give Dems a sloppy toppy. Let them actually do some shit before you heap on the praise.