Were either Clinton or Harris the "lesser of two evils"?

[Sympthsical]

39. No one here

But in the wider world, discontent is very much a thing that exists.

So, to tack on to the other poster, what is the purpose? You'll never wrangle people who vote for Democrats at large - it's too diverse a group with too varied motivations. What if someone actually said, "They weren't great candidates, but I still voted for them." Then what? We browbeat them into believing that they were? Past candidates who are unlikely to run again? We must declare post-election loyalty and admiration for non-candidates? What, exactly, are you taking the temperature on? Sufficient enthusiasm? And what if it's found wanting?

Sometimes you can get a vote without admiration. Demand for both is an investment in an individual's personality and persona that is unbecoming in a democratic society. I find some of the . . . overly effusive affection for the powerful a little distasteful, to be honest. They're servants - not celebrities. I don't have to like them or believe they were the best we can do. But I will vote for who I think is better of the viable options. Just like I'm currently doing in California.

The only other motivation I can fathom for this bit of shit stirring is to measure for purity here, in this space. This isn't the first instance of, "One person decides they will monitor, measure, and report what makes and who is a Good Democrat," which is a penchant that is frankly very weird.

Why that's anyone's self-appointed job is totally beyond me. I don't think "Making sure Democrats in an expressly Democratic space are the Democratiest Democrats who ever Democratted," is screamingly productive. But we may be having very different Thursday mornings. I'm currently procrastinating on midterm studying.