I think there might also be a subcultural difference, too, because there are different types of “tryna” that are used by different groups of people, and maybe being used to a more versatile “tryna” would make “tryna not x” more natural to speak.
Tryna A: “I’m just tryna screw in this lightbulb,” “I’m not tryna hurt you”
Tryna B (expanded tryna, not spoken by everyone, mostly skews younger and bro-ier I think): “You tryna go to Taco Bell right now?” “You tryna chill tomorrow?”
That’s interesting. I feel differently. “Trying not to kill myself” sounds a lot more natural than the split “trying to not kill myself.” “Trying to not kill myself” sounds like internet slang that makes the statement sound awkward on purpose so it’s taken less seriously. But the former format is way more natural to speak.
That’s a very interesting idea. It might also incentivize creators because it gives them a more stable audience that’s at least a little insured against viewership changes on any single platform due to changes in that platform outside of their control.
And you’re ignoring history and the way the parties have always worked when they have the incumbent
Nope, that DID happen. But you are ignoring the obvious reality in this case.
lol, you believe this?
Do I believe that about four months ago the Democratic Party made a desperate move to replace the incumbent candidate and there were very few viable options at the time? Yes, I believe that, because we just went through it about four months ago. It’s pretty much political suicide to withdraw an incumbent candidate. You don’t plan that from the beginning, because that would be a stupid plan. It was very likely “planned” as in “plan B,” but it’s kind of idiotic to think that it was plan A. The primary was not hijacked, the incumbent is always the candidate. Primaries are always a formality for the incumbent party.
They ran Harris because she was the only viable option when it was clear that Biden was not. They did not run Harris thinking she would win at all, they ran her out of desperation because the incumbent was flatlining. It was not a choice, and it certainly was not one based on demographics. It was a “Hail Mary” and it failed as it was likely to do from the outset, and everyone who was paying attention knew that, yet had no choice but to hope for the best.
That’s been a common and roughly true trope for a long time, but I think we may have hit the point where high technology has been ubiquitous for multiple generations now and it’s probably not quite as true as it once was (that the younger generation is always better with technology than the previous)
I don’t disagree with that assessment.
I’m generally on your side of this argument but the number of non-voters is hard to quantify yet clearly had a major effect on the outcome, and a lot of the anti-Harris rhetoric from the left demotivated people into not voting at all (as opposed to voting third party). The third party vote counts are somewhat irrelevant to this line of reasoning.
Do you have a specific rebuke for something I said where you can logically point out where I’m wrong or are you just hand-waving?
This is actually very great