Suppose a candidate runs on restricting abortion, and then pro-choice voters don't want to vote for that. Which side deserves the blame for those lost votes?

April 09, 2026 - 01:34 UTC

2
0
43
Sounds like those people needed to put in some work during the primaries rather than passively waiting for the perfect candidate. But I imagine that's too much work for many, yet they'll think a revolution somehow easier
10
1
1
Oooh they got you running fast
0
0
3
The primaries the DNC said in court don't matter because they're a private company that chooses what candidates they want? Those primaries?
ivn.us/posts/dnc-to-court-we-are-a-private-corporation-with-no-obligation-to-follow-our-rules
0
0
1
answer the question, todd
0
0
13
Just answer the question.
1
0
20
Remind me how many primaries Kamala Harris won?
0
0
9
"I imagine that's too much work for many" says guy who apparently thinks answering a simple question is too much work
0
0
9
you would elect somebody to rape your mom if the alternate said they would torture her first
1
0
2
Primaries?

Whenever libs fear they will lose a national primary, they rug pull the game

Libs ran a candidate that never even competed in a primary, ever

you turd
2
0
11
I have asked that question to three people. You are now the fourth person to try to dodge it instead of just saying one side or the other.

Which sure is strange, since within your logic the answer is pretty obvious.
1
0
50
Buddy, the revolution is starting already. I don't know if you noticed, but tons of people have been doing something about things instead of waiting for a hero from a party that keeps backstabbing us all.
1
0
1
Damn, that's an effective question
1
0
0
Something about phrasing it in this specific way causes them to slam facefirst into a wall of cognitive dissonance.

They can't (correctly) say "the candidate" because it's too obviously self-contradictory, but on some level they know saying "the voters" would sound horrible. And thus: Sidestepping.
1
0
2