4 ms·
It's not enough to have a plan, as a sibling commenter pointed out. Looks more like straight-up irrational team-based tribalism to me. That and ordinary ignoran
by usefulcat 2y ago
It's not enough to have a plan, as a sibling commenter pointed out. Looks more like straight-up irrational team-based tribalism to me. That and ordinary ignorance. How else do you explain a Republican candidate campaigning on raising taxes and winning?
- idle_zealot 2y agoIt's not about the concrete details of a plan, it's the feeling, the messaging and the rhetoric. Kamala did not read that the electorate wanted a promise of dramatic action, and ran on competent administration and minor, incremental improvements while largely staying the course. That does not motivate people upset with the status quo to come out and vote.
- intended 2y agoThis is the wrong question - in that if you spend your time focusing on why Harris lost, you will miss the question of what allowed Trump to run in the first place. The second question tells you far more about the actual arena within which the electoral narratives are sold. Here the Dems are the Heels, and the meta story is about having the information warfare power to sell these stories. Focusing on Harris is the mistake of assuming if you are perfect, you can get people in an unfair relationship to treat you better. Betting on winning in an unfair fight, is bad strategy and tactics. At some point, its far more effective to spend your energy on ensuring the arena terrain is even and not severely slanted against one team.