“Harris might do what I want, but to punish her for not doing it aggressively enough I’m going to make sure the guy who won’t ever do what I want gets elected.”
That doesn’t sound like a hail Mary, that sounds like the tantrum of a petulant toddler who didn’t get enough sprinkles on their ice cream so they decided to a pile dog shit instead.
It doesn’t work during a campaign either, it just tells her that you aren’t going to vote for her so she can write you off as a constituency and focus on other groups.
I don’t follow the logic here, how did that avenue improve anything?
It was a hail mary, it sadly didn’t improve anything because money is more important to her.
It seems like it would have been way more effective to vote her in and then apply pressure for reelection.
What kind of backwards ass logic is that?
“Harris might do what I want, but to punish her for not doing it aggressively enough I’m going to make sure the guy who won’t ever do what I want gets elected.”
That doesn’t sound like a hail Mary, that sounds like the tantrum of a petulant toddler who didn’t get enough sprinkles on their ice cream so they decided to a pile dog shit instead.
Person A might change their mind if you pressure them.
Person B won’t change their mind ever.
Who do you try to get to change their mind on the topic?
Supporting person B doesn’t pressure person A, it just tells person B that you support them.
Good thing no one said to support person B.
They were talking about during the campaigning. i.e. threatening to not vote for her unless she changed her stance before the election.
Trying “to pressure her with losing voters” doesn’t really work after the fact.
It doesn’t work during a campaign either, it just tells her that you aren’t going to vote for her so she can write you off as a constituency and focus on other groups.