I guess but taking action against Israel is not really consistent with her election strategy of winning over Never Trumpers.
zero_gravitas@aussie.zone 1 month ago
I’d argue Kamala Harris is costing Kamala Harris votes in a key state.
Ilandar@aussie.zone 1 month ago
jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
The only correct take to have.
WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Both can be (and are) true.
The transparently Russia-backed spoiler candidates with absolutely no path to victory in a FPTP election have no value to anyone beyond their ability to siphon off votes from the two viable candidates.
RFK pulled out when it became clear that he would disrupt Trump more than Harris, and Stein remains in the race because she remains a valuable diversion for would-be Democrat voters.
…and yes - Kamala sacrificing the left to court the centre right by adopting Republican framing and policies isn’t particularly effective because if people want a Republican, they’ll vote Republican.
Hildegarde@lemmy.world 1 month ago
the green party has nominated a candidate, and ran in every single presidential election since 1996. why would they suddenly decide to drop out now?
WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 month ago
They should drop out because they have no path to victory, typically capture <1% of the vote, peaked at 2.7%, have no Senate seats, no house seats, no governorships - state or territorial, no chambers seats - upper or lower… But most importantly, they’re siphoning votes away from the more progressive viable option, providing meaningful support to the worst possible option in doing so.
Hildegarde@lemmy.world 1 month ago
those are not circumstances unique to this election.
if the democrats are running a campaign that cannot succeed without a third party abandoning the strategy they’ve been using constantly for the past 28 years, they have already lost.
the greens are not a chaotic force doing unpredictable things. if democrats don’t account for the greens doing what they always do, its their own fault if they lose.