The next President will have to deal with a stream of unnatural disasters. So perhaps it would be wise for Harris to more aggressively remind voters of the stakes.
  • bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net
    112·
    18 days ago

    Nope. The democrats ceded this ground ala immigration. When both sides of the duopoly agree fracking is good, it takes the issue off the table. Just look at the shifts in polling on the police or immigration. The timing is AFTER the DNC joins the GOP position because 70% if not more of dems are “blue no matter who” voters who just take on the policy positions the party dictates to them. The DNC chose “become the GOP circa 2000” as their strategy this cycle, and don’t really have a choice but to execute on that as best they can at this point, and just hope nobody under 50 or male votes.

        • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
          21·
          16 days ago

          Nader, the spoiler candidate that gave us GW Bush instead of Al Gore, the climate guy? If you’re in FL you should be profoundly embarrassed, and if you’re in a different state just regular embarrassed.

          • bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net
            21·
            16 days ago

            George W Bush, the Kamala supporter? Dems can’t complain about W or Cheney anymore, they’re the thought leaders of your warmonger, do nothing party.

            • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
              21·
              16 days ago

              When I think of a “do nothing party”, the Greens are at the top of the list. They quite literally do nothing and have no power, except to spoil tight races in the direction of conservatism/fascism. I guess if that’s you’re goal, you’re happy.

              The Cheney cohort supports Harris not because she is a conservative warmonger, they support her because she’ll broadly maintain US legal and political structures, which as they’ve stated, they feel are more important than specific policy. I.e., she will preserve the state of the Republic and not do the fascism thing. They’re endorsement says a lot more about Trump than it does about Harris, which you probably know but are being purposely disingenuous about.

              Good luck with your third parties in a system that mathematically will never support a third party though, real big brain stuff. You’re literally playing a different game than everyone else.

              To be clear, I’m not trying to convince you of anything, this is for anyone else that may happen upon this thread that might be smart enough to connect the dots about an alternate reality where Gore won the election with respect to climate change.

              • bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net
                21·
                16 days ago

                Just saying, you can’t blame someone for W and Cheney coming to power 24 years ago while your candidate literally campaigns with them and salutes their service. I mean, you CAN, but… Kinda a weird position to take.

                Also, even if you think a Gore/Lieberman administration would have even bothered trying to do climate change legislation (neolibs aren’t known for trying to pass non-GOP legislation so they would not) this is passing Denny Hastert’s house how? He literally invented the Hastert Rule.

                • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
                  2·
                  16 days ago

                  It’s like you’re willfully ignoring all context, wild.

                  “I helped put W and Cheney into power, now even those ghouls think Harris is better than Trump, so I guess I’ll help out Trump in power” --> you.