'Left-wing lunatic' and 'a disgrace': How Trump and Harris describe each other

I suppose I can't rule it out, but there are a couple of points to consider:

One may decide to vote for a candidate for reasons other than being well spoken (or lacking such skills) and being intelligent (or lack thereof). So it might not be that half disagree with the first sentence I wrote - they might very well agree, even if they're voting the other candidate.

Also, the nature of US presidential elections, in particular regarding the electoral college, gives a voter in a small midwest state (say North Dakota) more voting power than a person in a larger, more populated state (say California, or Texas). So even if the other candidate wins, he could theoretically do so with less than half of the country behind him.

Finally, this is between those two specific candidates. While we have others in the race, such as Jill Stein or Cornel West. I can easily believe that voters of these candidates, if forced to pick between Harris and the GOP candidate, would agree that Harris comes off as the more intelligent and well-spoken one.

BTW - I think some of the downvotes might be because folks are misinterpreting here. The nature of your comment is such that folks might simply assume you are including yourself in that half that disagrees. I.e. that you're a supporter of the GOP candidate - when from your POV you might have just meant to point out a flaw in the present logic or a warning against complacency.

Now, no one should be pressured into reveal who they'd vote for if they aren't willing to share that, but assuming you're comfortable sharing it might be worth noting who would have your support in a hypothetical 2024 presidential election where voting was mandatory and Stein, West, De la Cruz, the Libertarian candidate, and so on dropped out.

6 comments

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
Even in terms of diction, Harris comes off as the more intelligent and well-spoken candidate. Between these two, as clearly the better candidate.
- Half of the country doesn't agree with you.
  
  I suppose I can't rule it out, but there are a couple of points to consider:
  One may decide to vote for a candidate for reasons other than being well spoken (or lacking such skills) and being intelligent (or lack thereof). So it might not be that half disagree with the first sentence I wrote - they might very well agree, even if they're voting the other candidate.
  Also, the nature of US presidential elections, in particular regarding the electoral college, gives a voter in a small midwest state (say North Dakota) more voting power than a person in a larger, more populated state (say California, or Texas). So even if the other candidate wins, he could theoretically do so with less than half of the country behind him.
  Finally, this is between those two specific candidates. While we have others in the race, such as Jill Stein or Cornel West. I can easily believe that voters of these candidates, if forced to pick between Harris and the GOP candidate, would agree that Harris comes off as the more intelligent and well-spoken one.
  BTW - I think some of the downvotes might be because folks are misinterpreting here. The nature of your comment is such that folks might simply assume you are including yourself in that half that disagrees. I.e. that you're a supporter of the GOP candidate - when from your POV you might have just meant to point out a flaw in the present logic or a warning against complacency.
  Now, no one should be pressured into reveal who they'd vote for if they aren't willing to share that, but assuming you're comfortable sharing it might be worth noting who would have your support in a hypothetical 2024 presidential election where voting was mandatory and Stein, West, De la Cruz, the Libertarian candidate, and so on dropped out.