Its funny right, because her first point is valid, but she' doesn't address the fact that there was a literally ARMY of media and online sycophants defending Joe Biden staying in the race. That wall of cowards is actually what prevented us from having a real primary, or getting Biden to step down, when even going back to 2023, he had almost no chance of winning the race.
Its also telling that there was no mention of Harris's Gaza position. Her disdain for Muslim/ Arab voters. Obama's condesension towards black male voters. Harris's clear step to the right and adopting of neo-conservatives into the campaign. The refusal at the DNC to give a Gazan a microphone and allow them to be a part of the party. It should be pretty obvious to most people right now why Harris is struggling (this should not be a close race), and no, its not because she picked Waltz as a VP.
Even when it's the "most important election ever", they don't just pull out all the stops to ensure it's a shoe-in - they try to finesse it down to a hair, and get away with 99% of the bastardry of the other guy.
Exactly the same thing here in Australia, every single fucking time. And 90% of the time, they lose.
And this story itself is a weak attempt to undercut Democrat voting. We all know what mistakes were made when, and we all know that people will blame others if they need to. That's old news. The obvious reason to report on it right now is as clickbait, which has the obvious side effect of discouraging potential voters.
I also think that Biden's comment can only help her. She's trying to unify people, and he isn't. It's hard to believe there's anyone out there who will change their vote, or potentially stay home, because he's trash talking.
So now I'm pointing a finger at The Hill, and the cycle continues.___
“People are nervous and they’re trying to cover their ass and get a little ahead of Election Day,”
Is this why we keep seeing Democrats say, in the week before the election, that they're confident they'll win? Seems like a dumb thing to do if your number one priority is to win, but a more expected result if the priority is portraying that you haven't fucked up horribly.
Wiki: reliable - The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. The publication's contributor pieces, labeled in their bylines, receive minimal editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources.
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America