• village604
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    That’s why its a good practice to ignore campaign bullshit and look at their voting history. Pretty much no one actually follows through on campaign promises.

    Harris ran a bad campaign, but she was actually a good option if you look at the stats that matter.

    • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 days ago

      It seemed DNC thought they could gain votes by appealing to republicans that were on the fence, and underestimate their core base found it incredibly distasteful and apparently had amnesia from the previous trump admin.

    • Cherries@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      It doesn’t matter how good the restaurant is if all their advertising says, “we put bugs in our food!” It is kinda useless to consider how good the Kamala presidency might have been, how much of her campaign she would or would not have followed through on. People made their choice based on what she said she would do, and people did not like what she was promising.

      It is possible that she would have given less weapons to Isreal, but that’s not what she said she would do. It’s possible that she would have reined in ICE and defunded them, but that’s not what she said she would do. It’s possible that she would have protected the rights of minority groups, but that’s not what she said she would do. Even if Kamala Harris had a perfect voting record and had a history of supporting progressive changes, I think it would be very reasonable to become skeptical of her based on her campaign promises.