this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2026
332 points (100.0% liked)
People Mastodon
370 readers
49 users here now
People tooting stuff. We allow toots from anyone and are platform agnostic (Mastodon, BlueSky, Twitter, Tumblr, FaceBook, Whatever)
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ronald Reagan came third in the 1968 Republican primary, didn't run in 1972, and came second in 1976. If you were writing this in the late 1970s you'd be arguing that Ronald Reagan was wildly unpopular because he'd never won a single primary despite running for president twice. Whatever you think of his legacy (and I think he's responsible for a lot of the worst parts of the last half century) he was wildly popular as president.
Was Harris popular? Not especially. But, the issue wasn't her laugh. Aside from being non-white and non-male, she was also running as a pro-establishment candidate at a very anti-establishment time. Trump's absolute destruction of the establishment will go down as history as the point at which the US really started to self-destruct. It shows how good the status quo actually was for a lot of things Americans take for granted. But, the message that "everything is fine, I'm just going to continue with existing policies" was the absolute wrong one to use.
I agree. Harris was a Glass cliff candidate who's entire purpose was to sacrifice herself to further the party line. Fascism didn't win the 2024 election, neoliberalism lost, just like it is losing across Europe where it is dressed up as cis-het white males like Starmer and Macron. But because an afro-indian woman was the face of neoliberalism here instead of her cis-het running mate, liberals can blame racism and misogyny instead of looking at their fundamentally evil and unpopular beliefs.
I don't think she was meant as a glass cliff candidate. This wasn't an election that they knew they were going to lose. I think they thought she was their best hope at that late stage in the election cycle. Maybe they were right, and there weren't any better candidates who had a chance given how little time there was. Maybe not. But, this isn't like the typical case like say the 1984 election where Walter Mondale was sent out to compete with an extremely popular Ronald Reagan.
Harris bowed out months before the votes were even cast, and was in something like 6th place at the time she quit. How is this at all comparable?
Are the goalposts on wheels so they can be moved more easily?
Is it really goalpost moving for 'she never won' to be elaborated on, into 'she gave up before the voting even began because she was that unpopular'?
Does that really change the comparison between her and someone who came third and second in primaries? The essence of your retort was 'neither did Reagan but look at him', but the fact is that 'they both failed to win primaries', while technically correct, is definitely not equivalent to saying they were on equal standing. This is basically the exchange that just happened:
Yes.
You see, in the first instance the goalposts were at "she never won".
Then the goalposts were moved.
Now the goalposts are at "she gave up before the voting even began".
The crux of "she never won" was to argue that she was not popular. Pointing out that not only did she not win, she gave up while in 6th place before the official voting even started, only serves to magnify the original argument. It's not a goalpost move.
Merc like the merc?
I guess so.
There is a streamer, former army vet, who streams protest coverage under the handle "merc'
https://m.youtube.com/@MercadoMedia