The article is literally about the opposite happening though, so your comment reads both as a total non-sequitur and like you didn’t read even the headline.
The comment is trying to point out, albeit obtusely, that democrats have also funded crazy people on opposite end of the political spectrum. In 2022 the democrats funded far right candidates in hopes they would win the primary and be an easy victory royale for the dem candidate. The comment is trying to analogize these two things, which is fair because it is a similar political strategy.
Trump actually was one of those candidates. However, I don’t think it is directly analogous. Trump won and it was bad for Democrats. If RFK wins on the other hand, it would certainly be good for Republicans.
Right, but this is an example of funding a far-right candidate in a Democratic primary, where they stand essentially no chance of winning it. There’s some other goal here, such as landing trolls inside the Democratic convention to disrupt the ability to negotiate a party platform.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
We’ve been doing it too.
The article is literally about the opposite happening though, so your comment reads both as a total non-sequitur and like you didn’t read even the headline.
I’m sorry you didn’t understand the point I was making at all.
The comment is trying to point out, albeit obtusely, that democrats have also funded crazy people on opposite end of the political spectrum. In 2022 the democrats funded far right candidates in hopes they would win the primary and be an easy victory royale for the dem candidate. The comment is trying to analogize these two things, which is fair because it is a similar political strategy.
Trump actually was one of those candidates. However, I don’t think it is directly analogous. Trump won and it was bad for Democrats. If RFK wins on the other hand, it would certainly be good for Republicans.
Right, but this is an example of funding a far-right candidate in a Democratic primary, where they stand essentially no chance of winning it. There’s some other goal here, such as landing trolls inside the Democratic convention to disrupt the ability to negotiate a party platform.