Wow. It’s bizarre. But, Hannity viewers would never vote for D anyway, and they always vote. So who cares? The good guys just have to energize their voters.
If people didn’t concede it, then they would be arguing against it. That’s how debates work. And saying that something is obviously a strawman is not showing that it is a strawman. It actually implies the opposite: that you can’t prove it was a strawman, so you just call it “obvious.”
You still have not established why said hammering would be any worse than any other candidate. You still have not established why Democrats should care if Republicans get riled up. You haven’t established that anyone watching Fox News wasn’t already going to vote against them.
The problem is that you keep assuming something that other people have challenged you on. You can call people political doofuses or mock them for not believing that Biden was just as vulnerable as Clinton, but you haven’t actually answered their questions.
You just keep assuming that something is axiomatically true. But that doesn’t work if you’ve been challenged on it.
The only person he “just quoted” is you. And he is right that no one has asserted that Rice would not energize the Trump base. Some have asked what that means. Some have asked why it matters. Others have asked why it would be any worse than for anyone else. And still others have just said that it’s wrong to let that determine who becomes the nominee.
None have said that Republicans wouldn’t be energized. They’ve only questioned the assumptions you’ve made about that.
Funny thing is, I can actually see a point in what you said. I can see an argument that her past history makes her an easier target to rile people up. Problem is, you didn’t make those arguments. You just started acting like everyone was stupid for challenging your assumptions.
You know another word for challenging assumptions? Debating.