Getting rid of Biden loyalists and bringing in Obama people was really smart. They know you can’t just expect people who were going to vote for Trump to not do it now that she’s the presumptive (at this point we can just probably drop the presumptive) nominee. You have to do the work.
Obama’s people were really good at both doing the work themselves and organizing others to do so.
On one hand I reaally want Bernie to call on the old 2016 grassroots crowd. On the other hand I expect that would backfire.
If it didn’t though, the potential wave of support would be tremendous. It’s then reassuring that Harris is showing initiative within the party, something we’ve missed for many years.
Bernie told people to vote for Biden this year. I’m sure he’ll put his support behind Harris as well.
deleted by creator
That’s an odd thing to say “Biden loyalists” when there’s no Biden running. There’s literally nothing to be “loyal” to.
But let’s separate this out, she brought on Obama campaigners because she needs the energy they brought to the election campaign. When it comes to her staffing the administration if she wins, I wouldn’t be surprised if she brings back many of Biden’s secretaries and other staff, who you would call loyalists but really are just good workers.
I can’t help what they’re called. Just do a search for “Biden loyalists.”
For example, from one day ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/02/kamala-harris-hires-new-senior-strategists-campaign-expands-portfolio-others/
You can use your own terms you know.
The term Biden loyalist is pretty much an oxymoron now.
I can, but I decided to use the term that people seem to agree upon so that I could be most easily understood.
I’m sorry you don’t like it because it isn’t literally true.
No offense but part of critical thinking is to not simply accept terms, portrayals, or ideas that others present. When you think critically about that term and portrayal, it falls apart because it’s essentially an oxymoron. Especially when you can replace it with a very easy and more accurate “Biden campaign staffers”.
And part of language is to use terms that people understand whether or not the term makes sense.
You must have a lot of trouble with people who say things are old news or taste bittersweet.
You think people can’t understand “Biden campaign staffers”?
I think you just turned to personal attacks, so cheers. (But to respond, old terms are old terms. You use them in the old context, but this is the new context. Nor is this bittersweet, which honestly doesn’t make any sense and I think is a blind attempt to ‘rub it in’ in the hope that it hurts. Anyways cheers.)
NC Newsline - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for NC Newsline:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
STOP GOING AFTER WHITE VOTERS.
Jesus Christ when are they going to learn. The last couple Democrat wins came from black and youth voters. White Americans (especially older) do not vote Democrat. You’d have an easier time teaching a dog Mandarin then flipping the Republican or nothing voter. Even with moderates Republicans they fall in line and independent conservatives are a tiny minority
Ignoring 71% of the US is great advice. Spasibo, Ivan!
No kidding huh.
Considering this
White voters are more likely to swing conservative. You can get pissed all you want to that’s just how it is. White ppl who vote Democrat are going to vote Democrat regardless of whether they’re catered to.
Research shows that the last Democrat win was due to youth voters and black women. Over 50% of that “71%” ISN’T VOTING DEMOCRAT. Obama won due to the youth vote and the black vote. Biden won to youth and black women.
Also white ppl make up 57.8 percent of the population
So going after 28% of the population that statically NEVER votes for you instead of going after the 42.2% that statically don’t get out and vote and the more than 50% of voters under the age of 40 makes more sense?
Wow, you’re right, campaigns can only target one group to the exclusion of all others. I understand much better now.
Or you do what the last black president did who won 2 elections in a row and focus on groups who will ACTUALLY VOTE FOR YOU
It sounds like you feel very strongly about this. Instead of shouting online in a way that accomplishes nothing (which, again, you feel very strongly about) why not volunteer your time to reach out to the group you think should be focused on? You’ll help what you think is important and maybe get some coaching on how to effectively persuade people.
Guess I’m not white. Does being gay just fully cancel out my skin color? Or is it my neurodivergence?
Live in Texas and have never voted for and never will vote for a Republican. My first political rally was a Sanders event.
I’m a straight white man, by definition I should be a Trump supporter, but I am also college educated so I guess that’s what cancels out my white maleness.
Welcome to the club. People keep insisting Jews aren’t white, so why not queer and neurodivergent people as well? My daughter would be like triple non-white.
WE CAN LITERALLY GO AFTER WHITE VOTERS IN ADDITION TO ALL THE OTHER VOTERS. THIS IS NOT A DIFFICULT CONCEPT, I’M SORRY YOU ARE HAVING A HARD TIME.
If you hadn’t realized, EVERY GODDAMN VOTE MATTERS.
More THAN HALF DONT VOTE DEMOCRAT
There are segments of the traditional GOP voter that are incredibly sick of Trump and have become persuadable. With outreach tailored to that segment, she may be able to get some of them to vote for her - and even larger segments to at least not vote for him.
I would agree but based off the last mid terms white voters were more likely to vote conservative. I ask you which makes more sense. Changing conservative voters minds who often go party over country? Or convincing groups who overwhelmingly vote Democrat who often don’t make it to the polls to actually go vote?
What makes the most sense is ignoring your fallacious false choice.
Por que nos los dos?
