Do you just not believe someone would ever lie? Or that some accusations could be more credible than others?
Platner’s first accuser was an actual Republican operative. A party that has happily embraced lying for political benefit. No one should trust a word she says about anything. Don’t join the liars party as an active operative and then expect people to trust your word.
Accusations are treated differently for different people because they’re different. That’s just life. You make decisions based on available information without being certain.
I am doing a really bad job at making my point. Maybe I need to go back a few steps.
I don’t know why a political party would support a candidate if there was a possibility the party would have to decide how to handle a scandal.
There is no perfect response to this. No matter what the response is, some voters will disagree. There will be arguments among party members which will take up space instead of organizing for the election.
It’s a distraction. I don’t mean the accusations are a distraction. I mean not immediately dropping the candidate and telling him to handle this and come back next time is a distraction. They don’t have to attack him or attach any comment about if they believe the accusations. They can just be like, “We decided that the candidate has some other matters to attend to and can’t give his candidacy his full attention.”
The fact that this isn’t the first scandal and they just kept going is so confusing to me. I don’t know the timeline but I guess if they literally can’t kick him out if the party that makes the above impossible. In that case “blue no matter who” makes even less sense to me.
Primary voters judged the other scandals not credible or irrelevant. I think he could probably still win even with this.
The problem with delegating ongoing approval to party officials is that they have their own political motivations that don’t necessarily align with the voters. The party is too big to have a well defined platform so voters could trust they’re working toward shared goals. They’d likely want to replace Platner regardless.
Do you just not believe someone would ever lie? Or that some accusations could be more credible than others?
Platner’s first accuser was an actual Republican operative. A party that has happily embraced lying for political benefit. No one should trust a word she says about anything. Don’t join the liars party as an active operative and then expect people to trust your word.
Accusations are treated differently for different people because they’re different. That’s just life. You make decisions based on available information without being certain.
I am doing a really bad job at making my point. Maybe I need to go back a few steps.
I don’t know why a political party would support a candidate if there was a possibility the party would have to decide how to handle a scandal.
There is no perfect response to this. No matter what the response is, some voters will disagree. There will be arguments among party members which will take up space instead of organizing for the election.
It’s a distraction. I don’t mean the accusations are a distraction. I mean not immediately dropping the candidate and telling him to handle this and come back next time is a distraction. They don’t have to attack him or attach any comment about if they believe the accusations. They can just be like, “We decided that the candidate has some other matters to attend to and can’t give his candidacy his full attention.”
The fact that this isn’t the first scandal and they just kept going is so confusing to me. I don’t know the timeline but I guess if they literally can’t kick him out if the party that makes the above impossible. In that case “blue no matter who” makes even less sense to me.
Primary voters judged the other scandals not credible or irrelevant. I think he could probably still win even with this.
The problem with delegating ongoing approval to party officials is that they have their own political motivations that don’t necessarily align with the voters. The party is too big to have a well defined platform so voters could trust they’re working toward shared goals. They’d likely want to replace Platner regardless.