Well it’s one of those technically true things that’s not really true.
Your candidate has no name recognition, got no press, made no waves, and had no chance. As in baseball, at the end of the season all teams lose. Except one.
Meanwhile Kamala had all the press, and made no waves and had no chance, losing even the popular vote to an insane game show host and disgraced former president.
She did manage to grab and waste the space of opposition, ensuring the GOP victory was complete.
No, it’s not baseball. In baseball, when you fuck up this bad, people don’t die. Here, they do. And you hogs are chomping at the bit to do it again.
Me, I’m personally fine - I saw the way this wind was blowing when Biden won the primary in 2020, and started making plans to leave the US then. Which I’ve already done.
Objectively wrong because there were third party candidates already on the ballot! How could you say they would’ve won when they already were running and lost?! “Oh they would’ve won if they were there” They were there! [These are they!](Third-party and independent candidates for the 2024 United States presidential election - Wikipedia https://share.google/xcOuOQvNZvwLprps9)
I didn’t say they would’ve won, stop moving goal posts.
I said they couldn’t have lost more than Kamala did. Because it was a binary thing on three counts?
Did she win the Presidency? No.
Did she keep the Senate? No.
Did she win the House? No.
No matter what you think of Claudia De La Cruz or Jill Stein, it’s just a simple fact neither one of them could have given a worse outcome than that one. And given the resources Kamala had, that’s particularly pathetic.
Ok so with a winner takes all election, a loser is a loser no matter how many votes they get. Sure. I get that.
But there’s still more nuance to that. If you got to choose between something that has 49% of a chance of winning or .01% chance of winning, you’d go with the 49%, right? That’s a better chance of keeping the Republicans from winning.
Don’t get me wrong, Democrats suck ass, and are spineless cowards. But with the system we have now, and had at the last election, they had a better chance of defeating Republicans than the socialist party of America or the Green party.
They didn’t have a better chance though - they lost to a historically bad candidate. Multiple times.
The Democrats are a problem precisely because they occupy the line of resistance to the GOP. You want to stop the GOP, you’ve got to stop their enablers first.
Well yeah, you do. The problem is that takes a lot of time, and will take massive voting reform, which no one in power has a vested interest in doing.
But we’re not talking about future plans, we’re talking about what happened in the past. Since there wasn’t that voting reform in the past, there was no way for a third party candidate to win.
And again, you’re pretending that the Democrats didn’t lose as well. If there was no way for a third party candidate to win (because they didn’t) there was also no way for the Democrats to win with how they ran.
No third party candidate could have lost as bad as Kamala did. Presidency and both Houses.
ALL third party candidates in the last 50 years have always lost everything. Also, Kamala wasn’t running for house or senate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(U.S._politics)#Electoral_results
She was running for Presidency. And lost. Badly. As her party lost both houses.
Pick any third party, they won just as much as Kamala did - and didn’t spend a billion and a half to do so.
What, so you and I are as successful at federal elections as any third party?
I mean - okay. But some idiots gave them $200 Million for that. We did it for free, apparently.
I’m saying they’re an unworkable idea at almost any price.
I mean, yeah, I’ve won as many delegates as Kamala ever has, so . . .
Can I have some of your $200 million? Or were you one of those low-effort third parties.
That’s the point - my candidate didn’t need $200 million to do just as well as Kamala did in results.
Well it’s one of those technically true things that’s not really true.
Your candidate has no name recognition, got no press, made no waves, and had no chance. As in baseball, at the end of the season all teams lose. Except one.
But it’s not baseball.
Meanwhile Kamala had all the press, and made no waves and had no chance, losing even the popular vote to an insane game show host and disgraced former president.
She did manage to grab and waste the space of opposition, ensuring the GOP victory was complete.
No, it’s not baseball. In baseball, when you fuck up this bad, people don’t die. Here, they do. And you hogs are chomping at the bit to do it again.
Me, I’m personally fine - I saw the way this wind was blowing when Biden won the primary in 2020, and started making plans to leave the US then. Which I’ve already done.
Objectively wrong because there were third party candidates already on the ballot! How could you say they would’ve won when they already were running and lost?! “Oh they would’ve won if they were there” They were there! [These are they!](Third-party and independent candidates for the 2024 United States presidential election - Wikipedia https://share.google/xcOuOQvNZvwLprps9)
I didn’t say they would’ve won, stop moving goal posts.
I said they couldn’t have lost more than Kamala did. Because it was a binary thing on three counts?
Did she win the Presidency? No.
Did she keep the Senate? No.
Did she win the House? No.
No matter what you think of Claudia De La Cruz or Jill Stein, it’s just a simple fact neither one of them could have given a worse outcome than that one. And given the resources Kamala had, that’s particularly pathetic.
So are you saying that the third party candidates would’ve won given her resources and backing?
I’m saying it’s literally impossible for them to have performed worse.
So talking about how third party candidates “can’t win” is nonsense, since the Democrats apparently can’t win either.
Ok so with a winner takes all election, a loser is a loser no matter how many votes they get. Sure. I get that.
But there’s still more nuance to that. If you got to choose between something that has 49% of a chance of winning or .01% chance of winning, you’d go with the 49%, right? That’s a better chance of keeping the Republicans from winning.
Don’t get me wrong, Democrats suck ass, and are spineless cowards. But with the system we have now, and had at the last election, they had a better chance of defeating Republicans than the socialist party of America or the Green party.
They didn’t have a better chance though - they lost to a historically bad candidate. Multiple times.
The Democrats are a problem precisely because they occupy the line of resistance to the GOP. You want to stop the GOP, you’ve got to stop their enablers first.
Well yeah, you do. The problem is that takes a lot of time, and will take massive voting reform, which no one in power has a vested interest in doing.
But we’re not talking about future plans, we’re talking about what happened in the past. Since there wasn’t that voting reform in the past, there was no way for a third party candidate to win.
And again, you’re pretending that the Democrats didn’t lose as well. If there was no way for a third party candidate to win (because they didn’t) there was also no way for the Democrats to win with how they ran.