• whereisk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    2 months ago

    By making him sound like an insane conspiracy theorist instead? Nah. He could have given a plausible answer like “it wasn’t going far enough” which would have been sufficient.

    • spirinolas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      The thing is, that insane answer didn’t put out any of his base. A bad answer to the actual question would.

          • colmear@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Exactly. At this point it can’t be about convincing undecided voters (whoever is still undecided won’t pay attention to any of this and will still be undecided). It’s more about whether or not people can be arsed to go out of their homes to vote.

            Saying this: Please vote (as long as you are not planning to vote for the convicted felon of course)