The Fight Against Fascists (I Can't Believe This Exists)

[Dill]

(06-22-2021, 08:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Rejecting it based on what?  Look at the bare facts and provide us with an explanation for why Harris was so unpopular.

Accepting it based on what?

I don't have to explain/argue for a thesis I reject. It's up to you to establish that Harris was in fact "intensely unpopular."

I have provided an explanation for why Harris went down in the polls--other candidates had better, more popular policy positions. They drew support away from candidates who did not. That does not make those candidates , including Harris', "intensely unpopular" or "disliked" by anyone other than those who already intensely disliked them.  It wouldn't make sense for Biden to choose an "intensely unpopular/disliked" candidate as a running mate, either. 

(06-22-2021, 08:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: "Progressive prosecutor?"  Either you're very susceptible to bullshit or you have no idea of her record as a prosecutor.  Unless you consider jailing parents of chronic truants to be progressive.  Is that what you're claiming?

??? The caution here should be against hyperbole, projection and confirmation bias. 

A progressive prosecutor is still a prosecutor. That does not mean that either every law supported and every consequence has to be "progressive" or Harris is guilty of "rank hypocrisy."  Checking Harris' progressive credentials means looking at the total body of her work, along with her stated intentions. 

As I said, it is a narrow path to walk. As SF AG, she raised the number of drug prosecutions while starting the "Back on Track" program steering first offenders into education and jobs rather than jail time. The truancy law you linked to was an attempt to preempt crime by reducing one of its causes, which she did. (The effort to address "causes" as well as effects of crime being one progressive goal.) She also refused to prosecute "third strikes" unless they were serious felonies, and is against the death penalty--even in a case where a police officer was murdered. 

(06-22-2021, 08:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:The "silly" sentence establishes that 1) people voting in primaries are making selections based on something more than a "D,"

Which in a Democratic primary rightfully earns you the response of; no shit, Sherlock.

You are still addressing a premise as a conclusion. People do that when not following the argument. 

(06-22-2021, 08:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Absolutely.  At the most you'd see less votes for one of them due to an enthusiasm gap.  You would not see an increase in the black vote for the candidate with the "R" next to their name, which is the point.

Not all of us qualify as "Sherlocks," if some continue to grant that priorities other than a "D" are expressed in primary selection, but insist--without supporting evidence--that those priorities then suddenly play no role in the general. 

I said that Black voters do not think Dem candidates are interchangeable. Your response, to negate that point, was that in the general election they are only voting for a "D."  Now you at least acknowledge an "enthusiasm gap," which means the candidates are not interchangeable. 

Perhaps now you'll also grant that an enthusiasm gap could "at most" cost Dems a national election. Because enough people weren't just voting for a "D." Nothing to do with whether the Black vote for an "R" might increase, as it in fact did in the last election.