This has never been about the party platform, its been about presidential nominees from the start. You're trying to move the goalpost because you know Im right about Biden and Harris

Cool that you're rehashing points we covered the other day, saves me the effort of having to type out a whole new reply

Let me remind you where the goalpost is since you're trying to move it. They want a candidate who's "interested in some of their policy preferences." It's not just about what someone is able to accomplish, it's about what they believe is right to push for. Private over public hc is corporatist

These ones. We've been over this.

You said she "only started winning AFTER she started pivoted from a center perspective." She was elected in 2018. Your articles from 2023 and 2024. So no, she wasn't losing before the "pivot".

Not true. Biden surged in the last few weeks before the 2020 election. Hillary fell off towards the end too, but like with Harris there was a reason, namely Comey.
Point is its not a steafast rule that the polls will always tighten at the end of the race: only if theres a problem with the candidate

The data doesnt bear that out. She was on a downward trajectory in the final weeks of the election because the more people got to know her the less excited they were to vote for her

So would she have won if we enthusiastically backed her?
If yes, then you did need us. If not, then your whole argument here is pointless.

Not watching a whole podcast, mate. The data shows her stance in Israel was the detriment

You're "allowed" to criticize anything, its America. But you don't have a point in your criticisms though if you're saying they have no impact on the election and you didn't need them to vote Harris. You're flipping on whether our votes matter or not depending on what's convenient at the moment.

Finally found the survey I was initially referring to. Voters making their decision based on electability preferred Biden (that perception is why he won). Voters who felt policy was most important for support preferred Sanders. This goes beyond just the issue of M4A vs Public Option

The Yahoo story is literally reposted from the Hill. Its the same article. Nowhere in it is he quoted as saying they should talk less about idpol, its all about how they should cover economics more in addition.

That caption totally misconstrues what Bernie actually said. It wasn't "talking about race and gender is bad," its that you need to do more in addition than that to win.

Okay so now you're going back on this post and think that patient service workers' don't deserve any more money and their skills arent worth any more pay? Which is it?

I will never understand why people lie about what they said on the internet when you can debunk them by just scrolling up a bit. You said they arent paid enough.

Also wait, NOW all of a sudden the marketplace is great at determining the value of work and fair pay? That's not what you said yesterday. You said the patient service workers aren't paid enough. Didn't "the market" just determine that their "skills and talent aren't that valuable"?

Even by your logic, either the supply of "talent" isnt that low since the current CEO took a 40% paycut from the previous CEO's pay, or $11 million is the fair market price meaning the previous guy was massively overpayed 😂

Okay and? Thats not really really relevant to the argument i was having that you butted in to. This guy was suggesting that non-profits were somehow immune from their owner making decisions that enrich themsleves to make them more wealthy. The high UPMC CEO pay proves otherwise

Zuckerberg claims the changes to Meta's policies are being done in the name of "free expression," yet he's taking away users' freedom to use optional LGBT themes. What a sick joke.