She’s a nothing-burger. If she is the candidate, we have all the same problems, except we don’t have a reasonable excuse for why she can’t speak coherently. But it’s her turn!
we don’t have a reasonable excuse for why she can’t speak coherently.
Which has been half of the Republican smear campaign taglines for more than the last 6 months.
Biden being unable to speak well is not a reasonable excuse to not go to the polls, but now voters don’t have that. It’s up to them now to accept or reject Trump for what he is. It’s time to stop taking “…but but but [nominee] is unelectable!” as a response.
Arguably with no confirmed nominee and the presumptive candidate withdrawing from the race, now is precisely the time to be deciding who is most electable.
I agree, but in terms of whether it will be met with slander, it doesn’t matter who the DNC picks. Even if a candidate with the cleanest record and the noblest and most inoffensive intentions were to exist, arguments will be made as to why they are unelectable. (Low-energy? Too aggressive? Too radical? Too bureaucratic?, so on and so forth).
This is true, but having a candidate that hasn’t been in power for the last four years at least forces them to invent new attacks rather than just rehearse the same bullshit and substitute “Harris” for “Biden.” Read Trump’s invective. It’s only minorly about his age, it’s mostly about "the state of the country under this administration. "
Regardless of the fact that it’s basically completely false, it is ready-made to be applied to Harris. Buttigieg or Kelly would require new angles of attack on short notice, which could be advantageous for a democratic candidate.
She’s a nothing-burger. If she is the candidate, we have all the same problems, except we don’t have a reasonable excuse for why she can’t speak coherently. But it’s her turn!
Which has been half of the Republican smear campaign taglines for more than the last 6 months.
Biden being unable to speak well is not a reasonable excuse to not go to the polls, but now voters don’t have that. It’s up to them now to accept or reject Trump for what he is. It’s time to stop taking “…but but but [nominee] is unelectable!” as a response.
Arguably with no confirmed nominee and the presumptive candidate withdrawing from the race, now is precisely the time to be deciding who is most electable.
I agree, but in terms of whether it will be met with slander, it doesn’t matter who the DNC picks. Even if a candidate with the cleanest record and the noblest and most inoffensive intentions were to exist, arguments will be made as to why they are unelectable. (Low-energy? Too aggressive? Too radical? Too bureaucratic?, so on and so forth).
This is true, but having a candidate that hasn’t been in power for the last four years at least forces them to invent new attacks rather than just rehearse the same bullshit and substitute “Harris” for “Biden.” Read Trump’s invective. It’s only minorly about his age, it’s mostly about "the state of the country under this administration. "
Regardless of the fact that it’s basically completely false, it is ready-made to be applied to Harris. Buttigieg or Kelly would require new angles of attack on short notice, which could be advantageous for a democratic candidate.