Who is more responsible for this Democrat train wreck

[Anonymous]

I would not characterize this as a train wreck.

Rather an implosion of the Democratic Party.

They had a geriatric, health compromised candidate who got exposed (at the debate). Obviously they knew before the world was aware; they were caught lying about his mental condition.

Pass the torch to an unpopular VP with no process or debate.

Spend a billion dollars (maybe more) in a little over 100 days.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party holds an insulting primary where the leading candidate literally refuses to debate or consider his challengers worthy.

The republicans nominated a vile candidate via process and rules much to their dismay.
Said candidate holds true to banter and rhetoric for entire campaign cycle.
RNC does not interfere or interject in the process - probably because they knew outcome regardless of what they tried to do.
Conveniently- said candidate locked RNC loyalty shortly after winning nomination.

The voters would rather have some belief they get a small role in who runs the country- democrats just tell them this is what you need and shall have.

Republicans are like “yeah, this was not our plan but at least we are transparent about it”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really is a toss up. DNC lost 2 out of 3 elections to Trump. And Trump was actually a more compromised candidate in 2024 than 2016.
I do not think Americans wanted Trump more in 2024; a perfect storm of a feeble and delusional self righteous president and a party that cannot manage anything led to where we are today.

I disagree. If Americans didn't want Trump and viewed him as compromised, they had a perfect alternative: Nikki Haley in the Republican primaries. She's intelligent, qualified, sane, articulate, and in all ways a great conservative candidate. She, too, lost badly to Trump.

The narrative that any halfway decent candidate would have beaten Trump, but Harris/Biden/DNC messed up is an incorrect one. A lot of people very much wanted Trump.

Or, a lot of people didn't want a woman (Clinton, Harris & Haley) despite being vastly more qualified.

Qualified isn't a qualification for the presidency. Getting people to vote for you is the only qualification that matters.

In America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I blame Jill Biden.

She knew Joe was incapable of four more years. She should have intervened well in advance to allow him to bow out gracefully and retain his dignity.

Then the contenders could battle it out. Harris would have been rejected IMO. Not sure who would have emerged as the candidate.

So much this

This. Jill would have seen her husband's decline every day.

His Chief of Staff would have too. She has a different role. She doesn't work with him. Lots of other people do. They could (and should) have said something.

Kamala Harris repeated vouched for him, including attacking the integrity of the special counsel who interviewed him and dared to tell the truth, that he’s a “nice old man with a bad memory”.

[Anonymous]

The Democrats are so washed up that they think bringing “youth” into leadership roles is replacing 80-somethings with 60-somethings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One lost election does not a train wreck make.
What makes it a train wreck is who's coming, but if this is a serious question I'll weigh in.

It might not be a popular answer among my fellow Democrats, but DEI. Not because I think it's wrong, but because it's misunderstood and easily manipulated into easy, hate-filled talking points. But also (this is where I'll duck for cover from my fellow Democrats) it went too far. It was in response to hateful rhetoric but in my opinion (just mine, not even two cents worth) it took it too far. It was a social experiment in terms of a civil rights movement that, in this point in time, wasn't accepted. Maybe later, maybe not. I wished it was toned down to allow for real conversation, but no real conversation was ever allowed to happen because people retreated to their extreme corners and stayed there because any compromise on either side felt like weakness.

So that's my take. I think we as a country aren't able to do DEI correctly. I see it as microcosms in well-intentioned businesses and departments, but utterly failed execution of DEI. So we need to regroup and accept that we aren't there. We need to take baby steps and not beat people over the heads with it.

If we don't learn from this, and how to promote diversity, equity and inclusion in a very organic, real way, THAT will be the train wreck. It's not a department. It's not a training to check off your annual training list. IMHO.

How much DEI was given to Hispanics -- maybe that's why they voted for Trump.

At my workplace (a "Catholic" hospital) DEI means first black, then transgender, then Muslim. No one else even merits a mention.
New black manager immediately tried to fire Hispanic supervisor and replace him with a friend of hers. He told HR that she obviously had it out for him since he's been in that job for years and all previous managers gave him stellar reviews..HR said he was the biased one and sent him for re-educating. Wonder who he voted for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It really is a toss up. DNC lost 2 out of 3 elections to Trump. And Trump was actually a more compromised candidate in 2024 than 2016.
I do not think Americans wanted Trump more in 2024; a perfect storm of a feeble and delusional self righteous president and a party that cannot manage anything led to where we are today.

In 2024, Americans had seen a full term of Trump plus nearly a full term of the counter to Trump, so they were less susceptible the the scare tactics which were the Democrats' primary weapon against Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the arrogance on display here, lolz! “Dems didn’t win because the public is stupid!”

Hilarious!

Um, yeah they are stupid. They elected a vindictive narcissist who incited an insurrection.

DP. Thanks for confirming my view that the primary responsibility for why Democrats lost lies with rank and file Democrats like yourself.

After that it’s Biden (ego), then Harris (lied about Biden condition and then benefited with nomination without a primary and then ran a poor campaign that treated donors like chumps), the party leaders that forced Biden out too late and then rallied around Harris in the palace coup, and then the DNC.

You are proving PP’s comment.

Voters who base their vote on anonymous comments from a mommy website ARE dumb AF.

Reading that PP’s post as “voters base their votes off DCUM” is what is stupid. Not at all what she said.

NP. You are trying to reason with the “mommy website” poster, who is too dim to be reasoned with. That poster’s reliable go-to when she loses an argument is to lash out about readers of a “mommy website.” She is totally predictable, but not able to understand reason. Good luck to you but you won’t get far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Democrats are so washed up that they think bringing “youth” into leadership roles is replacing 80-somethings with 60-somethings.

How hilariously self-unaware of you to say this, considering you just got Trump, a 78 year old guy with dementia elected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One lost election does not a train wreck make.
What makes it a train wreck is who's coming, but if this is a serious question I'll weigh in.

It might not be a popular answer among my fellow Democrats, but DEI. Not because I think it's wrong, but because it's misunderstood and easily manipulated into easy, hate-filled talking points. But also (this is where I'll duck for cover from my fellow Democrats) it went too far. It was in response to hateful rhetoric but in my opinion (just mine, not even two cents worth) it took it too far. It was a social experiment in terms of a civil rights movement that, in this point in time, wasn't accepted. Maybe later, maybe not. I wished it was toned down to allow for real conversation, but no real conversation was ever allowed to happen because people retreated to their extreme corners and stayed there because any compromise on either side felt like weakness.

So that's my take. I think we as a country aren't able to do DEI correctly. I see it as microcosms in well-intentioned businesses and departments, but utterly failed execution of DEI. So we need to regroup and accept that we aren't there. We need to take baby steps and not beat people over the heads with it.

If we don't learn from this, and how to promote diversity, equity and inclusion in a very organic, real way, THAT will be the train wreck. It's not a department. It's not a training to check off your annual training list. IMHO.

How much DEI was given to Hispanics -- maybe that's why they voted for Trump.

At my workplace (a "Catholic" hospital) DEI means first black, then transgender, then Muslim. No one else even merits a mention.
New black manager immediately tried to fire Hispanic supervisor and replace him with a friend of hers. He told HR that she obviously had it out for him since he's been in that job for years and all previous managers gave him stellar reviews..HR said he was the biased one and sent him for re-educating. Wonder who he voted for.

What specific law did Biden and the Democrats pass requiring your Catholic hospital to put those policies in place?

Oh, don't bother answering, we already know the answer is "none."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One lost election does not a train wreck make.
What makes it a train wreck is who's coming, but if this is a serious question I'll weigh in.

It might not be a popular answer among my fellow Democrats, but DEI. Not because I think it's wrong, but because it's misunderstood and easily manipulated into easy, hate-filled talking points. But also (this is where I'll duck for cover from my fellow Democrats) it went too far. It was in response to hateful rhetoric but in my opinion (just mine, not even two cents worth) it took it too far. It was a social experiment in terms of a civil rights movement that, in this point in time, wasn't accepted. Maybe later, maybe not. I wished it was toned down to allow for real conversation, but no real conversation was ever allowed to happen because people retreated to their extreme corners and stayed there because any compromise on either side felt like weakness.

So that's my take. I think we as a country aren't able to do DEI correctly. I see it as microcosms in well-intentioned businesses and departments, but utterly failed execution of DEI. So we need to regroup and accept that we aren't there. We need to take baby steps and not beat people over the heads with it.

If we don't learn from this, and how to promote diversity, equity and inclusion in a very organic, real way, THAT will be the train wreck. It's not a department. It's not a training to check off your annual training list. IMHO.

How much DEI was given to Hispanics -- maybe that's why they voted for Trump.

At my workplace (a "Catholic" hospital) DEI means first black, then transgender, then Muslim. No one else even merits a mention.
New black manager immediately tried to fire Hispanic supervisor and replace him with a friend of hers. He told HR that she obviously had it out for him since he's been in that job for years and all previous managers gave him stellar reviews..HR said he was the biased one and sent him for re-educating. Wonder who he voted for.

What specific law did Biden and the Democrats pass requiring your Catholic hospital to put those policies in place?

Oh, don't bother answering, we already know the answer is "none."

He took an 80 year old desegregation act to the stratosphere.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/25/fact-sheet-president-biden-signs-executive-order-advancing-diversity-equity-inclusion-and-accessibility-in-the-federal-government/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One lost election does not a train wreck make.
What makes it a train wreck is who's coming, but if this is a serious question I'll weigh in.

It might not be a popular answer among my fellow Democrats, but DEI. Not because I think it's wrong, but because it's misunderstood and easily manipulated into easy, hate-filled talking points. But also (this is where I'll duck for cover from my fellow Democrats) it went too far. It was in response to hateful rhetoric but in my opinion (just mine, not even two cents worth) it took it too far. It was a social experiment in terms of a civil rights movement that, in this point in time, wasn't accepted. Maybe later, maybe not. I wished it was toned down to allow for real conversation, but no real conversation was ever allowed to happen because people retreated to their extreme corners and stayed there because any compromise on either side felt like weakness.

So that's my take. I think we as a country aren't able to do DEI correctly. I see it as microcosms in well-intentioned businesses and departments, but utterly failed execution of DEI. So we need to regroup and accept that we aren't there. We need to take baby steps and not beat people over the heads with it.

If we don't learn from this, and how to promote diversity, equity and inclusion in a very organic, real way, THAT will be the train wreck. It's not a department. It's not a training to check off your annual training list. IMHO.

How much DEI was given to Hispanics -- maybe that's why they voted for Trump.

At my workplace (a "Catholic" hospital) DEI means first black, then transgender, then Muslim. No one else even merits a mention.
New black manager immediately tried to fire Hispanic supervisor and replace him with a friend of hers. He told HR that she obviously had it out for him since he's been in that job for years and all previous managers gave him stellar reviews..HR said he was the biased one and sent him for re-educating. Wonder who he voted for.

What specific law did Biden and the Democrats pass requiring your Catholic hospital to put those policies in place?

Oh, don't bother answering, we already know the answer is "none."

He took an 80 year old desegregation act to the stratosphere.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/25/fact-sheet-president-biden-signs-executive-order-advancing-diversity-equity-inclusion-and-accessibility-in-the-federal-government/

You seem very confused or grossly misled.

Executive Orders are about how the Federal government runs and implements things and that has absolutely nothing to do with how your Catholic hospital runs or hires. And even in Federal government employment they do not do the "evil DEI things" you claim are happening at your own place of employment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One lost election does not a train wreck make.
What makes it a train wreck is who's coming, but if this is a serious question I'll weigh in.

It might not be a popular answer among my fellow Democrats, but DEI. Not because I think it's wrong, but because it's misunderstood and easily manipulated into easy, hate-filled talking points. But also (this is where I'll duck for cover from my fellow Democrats) it went too far. It was in response to hateful rhetoric but in my opinion (just mine, not even two cents worth) it took it too far. It was a social experiment in terms of a civil rights movement that, in this point in time, wasn't accepted. Maybe later, maybe not. I wished it was toned down to allow for real conversation, but no real conversation was ever allowed to happen because people retreated to their extreme corners and stayed there because any compromise on either side felt like weakness.

So that's my take. I think we as a country aren't able to do DEI correctly. I see it as microcosms in well-intentioned businesses and departments, but utterly failed execution of DEI. So we need to regroup and accept that we aren't there. We need to take baby steps and not beat people over the heads with it.

If we don't learn from this, and how to promote diversity, equity and inclusion in a very organic, real way, THAT will be the train wreck. It's not a department. It's not a training to check off your annual training list. IMHO.

How much DEI was given to Hispanics -- maybe that's why they voted for Trump.

At my workplace (a "Catholic" hospital) DEI means first black, then transgender, then Muslim. No one else even merits a mention.
New black manager immediately tried to fire Hispanic supervisor and replace him with a friend of hers. He told HR that she obviously had it out for him since he's been in that job for years and all previous managers gave him stellar reviews..HR said he was the biased one and sent him for re-educating. Wonder who he voted for.

What specific law did Biden and the Democrats pass requiring your Catholic hospital to put those policies in place?

Oh, don't bother answering, we already know the answer is "none."

He took an 80 year old desegregation act to the stratosphere.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/25/fact-sheet-president-biden-signs-executive-order-advancing-diversity-equity-inclusion-and-accessibility-in-the-federal-government/

You seem very confused or grossly misled.

Executive Orders are about how the Federal government runs and implements things and that has absolutely nothing to do with how your Catholic hospital runs or hires. And even in Federal government employment they do not do the "evil DEI things" you claim are happening at your own place of employment.

I do not believe you are literate.

Maybe a 6 year old learning how to use ChatGPT?

The whole pronoun thing came from this Executive Order and required all contractors to comply with this new world order.

Advances equity in the workplace for LGBTQ+ public servants. For too long, LGBTQ+ employees have faced discrimination and harassment in the workplace. To advance opportunity for LGBTQ+ employees in the Federal workforce, the Executive Order directs agencies to ensure that the Federal health benefits system equitably serves LGBTQ+ employees and their dependents by expanding access to comprehensive gender-affirming health care. Agencies are also directed to take steps to ensure that federal benefits like sick leave and life insurance equitably serve LGBTQ+ individuals and all families with diverse family structures. The Order charges all agencies to ensure that the usage of gender markers and pronouns in the Federal employment process respects transgender, gender non-conforming and non-binary employees, and directs all agencies to take steps to expand access to gender-neutral facilities inside federal workplaces. Finally, the Order charges all agencies with ensuring that their employee support services equitably serve LGBTQ+ employees, including, transgender and gender non-conforming and non-binary employees who wish to legally, medically, or socially transition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One lost election does not a train wreck make.
What makes it a train wreck is who's coming, but if this is a serious question I'll weigh in.

It might not be a popular answer among my fellow Democrats, but DEI. Not because I think it's wrong, but because it's misunderstood and easily manipulated into easy, hate-filled talking points. But also (this is where I'll duck for cover from my fellow Democrats) it went too far. It was in response to hateful rhetoric but in my opinion (just mine, not even two cents worth) it took it too far. It was a social experiment in terms of a civil rights movement that, in this point in time, wasn't accepted. Maybe later, maybe not. I wished it was toned down to allow for real conversation, but no real conversation was ever allowed to happen because people retreated to their extreme corners and stayed there because any compromise on either side felt like weakness.

So that's my take. I think we as a country aren't able to do DEI correctly. I see it as microcosms in well-intentioned businesses and departments, but utterly failed execution of DEI. So we need to regroup and accept that we aren't there. We need to take baby steps and not beat people over the heads with it.

If we don't learn from this, and how to promote diversity, equity and inclusion in a very organic, real way, THAT will be the train wreck. It's not a department. It's not a training to check off your annual training list. IMHO.

How much DEI was given to Hispanics -- maybe that's why they voted for Trump.

At my workplace (a "Catholic" hospital) DEI means first black, then transgender, then Muslim. No one else even merits a mention.
New black manager immediately tried to fire Hispanic supervisor and replace him with a friend of hers. He told HR that she obviously had it out for him since he's been in that job for years and all previous managers gave him stellar reviews..HR said he was the biased one and sent him for re-educating. Wonder who he voted for.

What specific law did Biden and the Democrats pass requiring your Catholic hospital to put those policies in place?

Oh, don't bother answering, we already know the answer is "none."

He took an 80 year old desegregation act to the stratosphere.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/25/fact-sheet-president-biden-signs-executive-order-advancing-diversity-equity-inclusion-and-accessibility-in-the-federal-government/

You seem very confused or grossly misled.

Executive Orders are about how the Federal government runs and implements things and that has absolutely nothing to do with how your Catholic hospital runs or hires. And even in Federal government employment they do not do the "evil DEI things" you claim are happening at your own place of employment.

I do not believe you are literate.

Maybe a 6 year old learning how to use ChatGPT?

The whole pronoun thing came from this Executive Order and required all contractors to comply with this new world order.

Advances equity in the workplace for LGBTQ+ public servants. For too long, LGBTQ+ employees have faced discrimination and harassment in the workplace. To advance opportunity for LGBTQ+ employees in the Federal workforce, the Executive Order directs agencies to ensure that the Federal health benefits system equitably serves LGBTQ+ employees and their dependents by expanding access to comprehensive gender-affirming health care. Agencies are also directed to take steps to ensure that federal benefits like sick leave and life insurance equitably serve LGBTQ+ individuals and all families with diverse family structures. The Order charges all agencies to ensure that the usage of gender markers and pronouns in the Federal employment process respects transgender, gender non-conforming and non-binary employees, and directs all agencies to take steps to expand access to gender-neutral facilities inside federal workplaces. Finally, the Order charges all agencies with ensuring that their employee support services equitably serve LGBTQ+ employees, including, transgender and gender non-conforming and non-binary employees who wish to legally, medically, or socially transition.

I think you are the one who is illiterate. No, this EO *DOES NOT* require all contractors to comply. Nor does it apply to the Catholic church example given above. It simply does not, and the quotation you posted does not support that conclusion either.

And in fact even within federal agencies (the only place the EO did apply) most of it was taken as optional. Pronouns *ARE NOT* mandatory in any federal agency that I know of.

Again, you are proving to me that you are anti-trans to the point of hysterical about it (which in and of itself is bizarre because a pronoun never killed anyone), and that you DON'T actually know what you're talking about. You keep confirming that quite solidly.

Trying to shout the same wrong info louder and posting quotations that don't support your premise is not a winning strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One lost election does not a train wreck make.
What makes it a train wreck is who's coming, but if this is a serious question I'll weigh in.

It might not be a popular answer among my fellow Democrats, but DEI. Not because I think it's wrong, but because it's misunderstood and easily manipulated into easy, hate-filled talking points. But also (this is where I'll duck for cover from my fellow Democrats) it went too far. It was in response to hateful rhetoric but in my opinion (just mine, not even two cents worth) it took it too far. It was a social experiment in terms of a civil rights movement that, in this point in time, wasn't accepted. Maybe later, maybe not. I wished it was toned down to allow for real conversation, but no real conversation was ever allowed to happen because people retreated to their extreme corners and stayed there because any compromise on either side felt like weakness.

So that's my take. I think we as a country aren't able to do DEI correctly. I see it as microcosms in well-intentioned businesses and departments, but utterly failed execution of DEI. So we need to regroup and accept that we aren't there. We need to take baby steps and not beat people over the heads with it.

If we don't learn from this, and how to promote diversity, equity and inclusion in a very organic, real way, THAT will be the train wreck. It's not a department. It's not a training to check off your annual training list. IMHO.

How much DEI was given to Hispanics -- maybe that's why they voted for Trump.

At my workplace (a "Catholic" hospital) DEI means first black, then transgender, then Muslim. No one else even merits a mention.
New black manager immediately tried to fire Hispanic supervisor and replace him with a friend of hers. He told HR that she obviously had it out for him since he's been in that job for years and all previous managers gave him stellar reviews..HR said he was the biased one and sent him for re-educating. Wonder who he voted for.

What specific law did Biden and the Democrats pass requiring your Catholic hospital to put those policies in place?

Oh, don't bother answering, we already know the answer is "none."

He took an 80 year old desegregation act to the stratosphere.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/25/fact-sheet-president-biden-signs-executive-order-advancing-diversity-equity-inclusion-and-accessibility-in-the-federal-government/

You seem very confused or grossly misled.

Executive Orders are about how the Federal government runs and implements things and that has absolutely nothing to do with how your Catholic hospital runs or hires. And even in Federal government employment they do not do the "evil DEI things" you claim are happening at your own place of employment.

I do not believe you are literate.

Maybe a 6 year old learning how to use ChatGPT?

The whole pronoun thing came from this Executive Order and required all contractors to comply with this new world order.

Advances equity in the workplace for LGBTQ+ public servants. For too long, LGBTQ+ employees have faced discrimination and harassment in the workplace. To advance opportunity for LGBTQ+ employees in the Federal workforce, the Executive Order directs agencies to ensure that the Federal health benefits system equitably serves LGBTQ+ employees and their dependents by expanding access to comprehensive gender-affirming health care. Agencies are also directed to take steps to ensure that federal benefits like sick leave and life insurance equitably serve LGBTQ+ individuals and all families with diverse family structures. The Order charges all agencies to ensure that the usage of gender markers and pronouns in the Federal employment process respects transgender, gender non-conforming and non-binary employees, and directs all agencies to take steps to expand access to gender-neutral facilities inside federal workplaces. Finally, the Order charges all agencies with ensuring that their employee support services equitably serve LGBTQ+ employees, including, transgender and gender non-conforming and non-binary employees who wish to legally, medically, or socially transition.

I think you are the one who is illiterate. No, this EO *DOES NOT* require all contractors to comply. Nor does it apply to the Catholic church example given above. It simply does not, and the quotation you posted does not support that conclusion either.

And in fact even within federal agencies (the only place the EO did apply) most of it was taken as optional. Pronouns *ARE NOT* mandatory in any federal agency that I know of.

Again, you are proving to me that you are anti-trans to the point of hysterical about it (which in and of itself is bizarre because a pronoun never killed anyone), and that you DON'T actually know what you're talking about. You keep confirming that quite solidly.

Trying to shout the same wrong info louder and posting quotations that don't support your premise is not a winning strategy.

I get it, your are way passed your bedtime and ChatGPT is still hard and cannot discern this part of the executive order:

“ Finally, the Order charges all agencies with ensuring that their employee support services equitably serve LGBTQ+ employees, including, transgender and gender non-conforming and non-binary employees who wish to legally, medically, or socially transition.”

I will give you a hint as you plug this in to AI - “employee support services” were translated to contract support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's the DNC's fault for not keeping up with the times and rules of the game that is the modern election cycle.

The truth no longer matters as much as a snappy headline. The game changed and the GOP figured out the rules before we did and adapted to be able to win. The Dems are lagging and need to keep up.

The average attention span for an American adult is now only 8 seconds. It's decreased 25% over the last 12 years. We now have a lower attention span than the common goldfish. WTG, humans!

Young people aren't reading long, thought out articles with citied evidence. Young people go by what the latest influencer on TikTok tells them. Did you see how many young, hot (not appearance hot) TikTok influencers were invited to the DNC? They were given incredible access for vlogging and got more facetime with Harris than many donors did at other events. Young people care about the truth, but they want the TL;DR version of that truth.

Old people, the group most susceptible to fake news and misinformation, don't read the articles either. They go off what the headline tells them and what others in the comments are saying. They then parrot those mistruths in other places.

The Dems also hasn't fully embraced the fact that the largest voting body, Gen Z, grew up with Cancel Culture. The Gen Z voters literally said for months, we are not going to vote for Harris if she doesn't come out and fully support Palestine and denounce Isreal, but no one took them seriously. Well, they should have. They are the generation of "if you don't do/say/behave how *we* want you to, we're canceling you."

There's no more "when they go low, we go high" crap. I don't want to hear that BS. That was true when the rules were different. That was true before Trump had his first term but certainly not now. Now? Anything goes.

TLDR

Took more than 8 seconds.