I think discussion is fine. I think the article fosters discussion. I also completely agree with them sidelining what could give the Republicans ammo and votes in this critical time.
But I’m just a Canadian who hates headline gore and want to point out that:
Harris isn’t pushing Medicare for All anymore. Progressives say that’s OK.
Is a shitty headline. It doesn’t match the tone or even fully the bias of the article and is click baity at best. It instantly paints the discussion for headline readers and article for the clickers as contrarian.
Harris isn’t pushing Medicare for All anymore. Is that OK?
Is what a headline should look like in this case and would probably foster discussion and less downvotes. But one can’t even tell shitty journalism from manipulation these days, can we?
Edit: whipped out my black highlighter for some bolding.
could give the Republicans ammo and votes in this critical time.
But republicans will immediately pivot to another area they want her to be more conservative with, and this change will have a negative effect on Dem turnout.
This one thing won’t erase her lead, but she’s also said she’s not for banning fracking anymore either. That will also negatively effect Dem turnout.
Everytime she becomes slightly more conservative to appease Republicans, she gains no votes and loses a little.
That’s not even getting into how at the end of the day, we desperately need to do these things she’s now say she won’t even try to do.
There’s no way to look at this and honestly say it’s a good move, unless you just always personally agreed with Republicans on these issues. And for those people, they were probably never going to vote D anyways.
I think discussion is fine. I think the article fosters discussion. I also completely agree with them sidelining what could give the Republicans ammo and votes in this critical time.
But I’m just a Canadian who hates headline gore and want to point out that:
Is a shitty headline. It doesn’t match the tone or even fully the bias of the article and is click baity at best. It instantly paints the discussion for headline readers and article for the clickers as contrarian.
Is what a headline should look like in this case and would probably foster discussion and less downvotes. But one can’t even tell shitty journalism from manipulation these days, can we?
Edit: whipped out my black highlighter for some bolding.
But republicans will immediately pivot to another area they want her to be more conservative with, and this change will have a negative effect on Dem turnout.
This one thing won’t erase her lead, but she’s also said she’s not for banning fracking anymore either. That will also negatively effect Dem turnout.
Everytime she becomes slightly more conservative to appease Republicans, she gains no votes and loses a little.
That’s not even getting into how at the end of the day, we desperately need to do these things she’s now say she won’t even try to do.
There’s no way to look at this and honestly say it’s a good move, unless you just always personally agreed with Republicans on these issues. And for those people, they were probably never going to vote D anyways.