Group 1 unfortunately has a tremendous amount of overlap with groups who typically are unlikely to vote, I think it's why the concern there hasn't even escalated beyond stern words when the cameras are on. Some of the strongest swing groups also tend to be a bit biased against Harris, I think that's why they're hesitant to choose her.

tl;dr: Democrats have decided that young people are going to continue to find a reason to not vote and swing voters trend towards being at least mildly racist/sexist old people.

Putting Bernie in would help Democrats in an area where they're weakest, so they'd never do that.

Realistically, I'm pretty sure even Bernie has said he's too old to be president (could have been propaganda). Not a lot better, but i'd still probably vote for Elizabeth Warren if she was on the ticket. I did always feel like a lot of her ideas were either piggybacked from Bernie or kind of lacking in substance but that could be personal bias somewhere on my part or just the way the media portrayed her. Even then, it did always feel like she was headed to a good place.

Warren isn't an option either though, the real reason is that the party wants an establishment candidate that won't jeopardize the way things are run. They'll never let anyone progressive run on the ticket again.

I don't like some of the other decisions in Garuda, but it's become hard to get away from it when even regular non-technical people who see it are like "Whoa, what is all that" and you literally just finished installing it and didn't even change the wallpaper. It's a very different feeling from what I'm used to with Linux and I'm into it.

I think people underestimate how much the Clinton name helped her even when the sexism hurt her. Beyond maybe Michelle Obama now, I can't think of any other woman out there likely to perform as well as Hilary did. During the race, I heard more than one person make comments along the lines of "If she's in trouble, she can just call her husband". She definitely got a lot more points from the Clinton name than she lost for being a woman. It's a sad world sometimes, yall.

I personally think Bill Clinton's brother Roger could have won that race even with all his controversies and the fact that he has zero qualifications.

That's 20km, only about 12 miles.

Wow, republicans losing Texas, that would be a hell of a win if Colin could pull it off.

If we kill them, do all the other termites turn back into normal ants?

It's kind of sad, but we have to temper expectations on both of the candidates. These two both hit retirement age over a decade ago and we're trying to put them in potentially the most stressful job in the nation.

• Hostilities were mostly over, but these two were technically alive during World War 2.
• The first meeting of the United Nations was after these two were born.
• The current incarnation of India as a country is younger than these two.
• They're both older than NATO.
• We only had 48 states when these two were born.
• These two were already out of high school when Martin Luther King delivered his speech.

I could just keep going forever on these. I am not sure that this is the job for anyone so far removed from their prime.

Welp, they'll have to sell one more ship bundle to cover that.

I'm also wary of any poll that shows such a strong showing for Kamala Harris. Not saying it's wrong, it legitimately looks like it's got a lot of good data, but every other poll I've seen has been fairly unfavorable to the idea of her running against Trump.

I do feel like we may have hit a time where the groups classifying CVEs are a bit desperate for numbers. It's really hard to tell the legitimate ones from the ones where it's like "If you had tiny gremlins with soldering irons living inside your PC, its possible they might be able to determine what year your computer thinks it is. The gremlins are assumed to have full domain admin access".

I'm not a fan of Andrew Tate, but we really got to lay off the hate on wife beaters. Tank tops are real comfy yall.