As opposed to seeing the election as "Republican" versus "not Republican"? What phoenix is doing, is judging the candidates and officers for what they actually did in office -- before becoming president and during -- and judging them on that basis, as opposed to pure aesthetics and kneejerk media response.
Frankly, Biden did far more damage to this country during his 36 years in the Senate than Trump ever has done or would do -- or for that matter, is even capable. His senatorial track record is that of support for every single piece of legislation that's systemically undermined and harmed this country since Nixon. You name it, he sponsored it, he whipped votes for it, he manufactured consent for it, or in some cases, his office authored or helped author it. The dire socioeconomic circumstances that gave rise to the tea party, and Trump, in the first place can be credited to Joe Biden more than any other senator over the past fifty years.
Biden couldn't even be arsed to reverse Trump's most toxic policies in office, just deliver increasingly-large piles of pork in the name of cutting inflation. Inflation that, lest we forget, is largely artificial and driven by shareholder avarice unleashed (and rewarded with lavish bailouts but no prosecution or re-regulation) by Biden's own senatorial votes in the '80s and '90s. I really wish I could say the Biden administration could have been bothered to try hiding their continuation of Trump's policies, but they didn't -- the media simply chose to not report upon it.
If you look (or looked) at Biden and saw "not Trump", you're an aesthetics voter. Which is far worse, in my opinion, than "enlightened centrism" for whatever that's supposed to mean now. Because with Biden, you got Trump's policies and worse, less transparency, less accountability, and eminently less public attention. At least with Trump, "moderate" (those don't really exist, the conflict is between hard-right paleocons and neocons) Republicans and corporate media had to walk a tightrope of appearing to not support Trump, as the actual policy positions and goals he furthered were very much supported by them.
And Harris will be no better; in fact, she'll be worse as we'll see an inglorious return of "everyone who doesn't support the policies is racist/sexist" as seen between Obama and Clinton as a smoke screen to manufacture consent for...Trump's policies.
I'ma just head you off on that. One wonders why Tulsi would be spontaneously and strangely name-dropped here...
Might the moment the moonbat also-ran single-handedly torpedoed Harris' entire political career (but for the smoke-filled backroom ratfuck lifeline) in a debate be why?
Seriously, y'all planning to vote blue come November should be shitting your pants at the prospect of this woman having to debate Trump. Harris is one of the worst debaters to take a presidential candidate stage since...shit, Dukakis? I think she may actually be worse, in fact.
