Traitor Watch - The 45 & 47 Thread
- Thread starter Wheelimus
- Start date
Kamala suffered, yes, from an anti-incumbent wave.
She also suffered from the awkwardness of a VP where she could not effectively establish her own identity apart from Biden.
When Biden was being asked to step down there was a period in there where the public thought maybe anyone could be the candidate. Maybe Michelle Obama. Maybe Oprah. Maybe Gavin Newsom. But it was always the truth that it could only Kamala. Anything else would be WAY too much of a hat trick and would have been very disgraceful to and disrespectful of Kamala Harris who was actually elected (though not with this scenario ever in mind) to the job of being ready to replace Biden if needed.
If reality had been different and there really was an open field one of the most important weaknesses that Kamala had would have been allayed by choosing someone who was currently running for the Senate or a Democratic governorship. Remember over the summer when people kept on talking about how Kamala wasn't been specific enough and wasn't sitting for interviews. People talked like she maybe didn't understand the issues or was entitled or something. What was going on was that she had to hit the road immediately and start campaigning, but usually a candidate comes to the primary with their platform in hand and hones it a bit against their competitors and someone gets to the national convention with a solid book. Kamala is around politics. She understands the issues. She has beliefs about them. But she didn't know what were the most important issues to discuss and she didn't have a holistic coalated set of her firm positions and she didn't have time to do it. Someone who was running for Governor or Senate would already have that and would just broaden out their appearances. They'd already be on message. So at the end of the day she was asking us to vote for (and I did!) my opponent is a criminal and a weirdo, I'll protect your abortion rights (she can't), and the economy isn't as bad as they act like it is (cannot be effectively communicated ever). She needed something else to talk about. She hinted at it. She was a new generation of leadership to face our future challenges. It's a good line, but I don't know what it means other than that she isn't old. I was willing to give her a shot, certainly when she up against THAT guy, but it is easy to see why other people didn't.
She also suffered from the awkwardness of a VP where she could not effectively establish her own identity apart from Biden.
When Biden was being asked to step down there was a period in there where the public thought maybe anyone could be the candidate. Maybe Michelle Obama. Maybe Oprah. Maybe Gavin Newsom. But it was always the truth that it could only Kamala. Anything else would be WAY too much of a hat trick and would have been very disgraceful to and disrespectful of Kamala Harris who was actually elected (though not with this scenario ever in mind) to the job of being ready to replace Biden if needed.
If reality had been different and there really was an open field one of the most important weaknesses that Kamala had would have been allayed by choosing someone who was currently running for the Senate or a Democratic governorship. Remember over the summer when people kept on talking about how Kamala wasn't been specific enough and wasn't sitting for interviews. People talked like she maybe didn't understand the issues or was entitled or something. What was going on was that she had to hit the road immediately and start campaigning, but usually a candidate comes to the primary with their platform in hand and hones it a bit against their competitors and someone gets to the national convention with a solid book. Kamala is around politics. She understands the issues. She has beliefs about them. But she didn't know what were the most important issues to discuss and she didn't have a holistic coalated set of her firm positions and she didn't have time to do it. Someone who was running for Governor or Senate would already have that and would just broaden out their appearances. They'd already be on message. So at the end of the day she was asking us to vote for (and I did!) my opponent is a criminal and a weirdo, I'll protect your abortion rights (she can't), and the economy isn't as bad as they act like it is (cannot be effectively communicated ever). She needed something else to talk about. She hinted at it. She was a new generation of leadership to face our future challenges. It's a good line, but I don't know what it means other than that she isn't old. I was willing to give her a shot, certainly when she up against THAT guy, but it is easy to see why other people didn't.
Hillary and Kamala had the same problem: they're both perceived as coastal elites.
Gavin Newsom will have the same problem if he's the nominee in 2028, which I'm already presuming.
Gavin Newsom will have the same problem if he's the nominee in 2028, which I'm already presuming.
I need the democrats to understand that the stock market is not the economy.
The millions here at the bottom give less than 2 shits about Wall Street. We care about the price of groceries. Rent and utility costs. All those things that keep going up because, again, billionaires and stock holders are demanding more blood from the stone. And understanding that their financial positions are strengthened by the GOP holding office, they make sure that they tip the scale as best they can.
The millions here at the bottom give less than 2 shits about Wall Street. We care about the price of groceries. Rent and utility costs. All those things that keep going up because, again, billionaires and stock holders are demanding more blood from the stone. And understanding that their financial positions are strengthened by the GOP holding office, they make sure that they tip the scale as best they can.
And I'm reluctant to talk about it too. I am afraid of talking myself off a cliff.
My mom really liked Laura Bush. My mom is gone, but if you'd asked her 10 years ago if she'd like there to be a female President, she would've said yes. If you had asked her what they'd be like, you would find she was describing Laura Bush. And I am fearful, belaboring the point past there. I don't know Laura Bush. I just have an impression of her public persona. She is sweet and kind and soft-spoken and loves everyone she meets. That's what my mom's public persona was too. It was a li'l different behind closed doors (I love my mom!), but that is what she thought a woman should be like. Well, a woman like that can run the country. There's nothing in that that conflicts with being wise, responsible, tough, and decisive. But I don't think a woman like that can win an election. A MAN like that can't either. Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton got to their level of success in politics by displaying some characteristics and political skill that they have in common with the men who get to that level. Characteristics and skills that absent in me and absent in most men, but are traditionally viewed as masculine. I think my mom feels more betrayed when she sees a woman acting like that than my dad does.
You make my point far more eloquently than I could.
Taking my wife as an example. This is before the event of a few weeks ago. She is not the same person anymore. She genuinely hated Hillary, but couldn't articulate why except she pissed her off. Much the same with Kamala, she didn't have a reason she could articulate, just that she hated seeing her out there, how she acted and presented herself. It made her mad.
Look at the female backlash to the Equal Rights Amendment. I think there's far more Phyllis Schlaflys out there than we want to admit.
The Democrats running a white man so out of touch he broke COVID protocols for a party at a fancy restaurant 99% of people couldn’t afford to eat at *would* be the most Democrat thing ever…
Unfortunately they're bought and paid for by Big Business just as much as the Republicans are. To an extent this is because they wouldn't be able to afford to campaign if they weren't. The few people who have a lot of money and genuinely wish to do as much good as possible with it are going to put it towards running charitable foundations, not donate it to politicians. And until such time as a law is passed that puts a hard limit on campaign spending (which will never happen because the only people around to pass such a law are politicians who are bought by big business), I don't see that ever changing. I really don't know how so many countries have managed to avoid this problem.
"Coastal elite" is such a bullshit category, considering Trump is more "coastal" than Hillary (she's originally from Chicago and became well-known in Arkansas) and far more "elite(ist)" than Kamala.
But I know the false perception of such a thing exists, and it's just another example of how it is in fact true to say that Democrats lost because people who vote for Republicans are ignorant.
If pointing out and correcting the ignorance of the less-informed voters does not work, then we don't have a world where good, honest people can win.
But I know the false perception of such a thing exists, and it's just another example of how it is in fact true to say that Democrats lost because people who vote for Republicans are ignorant.
If pointing out and correcting the ignorance of the less-informed voters does not work, then we don't have a world where good, honest people can win.
Most of them haven’t!
Backlash is widespread against established parties who have done little to meaningfully improve their constituents lives because that would run afoul of rich, entrenched interests.
People are mad at enshittification of *everything* and are voting out parties they hold responsible because almost no one consistently targets the real problem ie the super wealthy.
Backlash is widespread against established parties who have done little to meaningfully improve their constituents lives because that would run afoul of rich, entrenched interests.
People are mad at enshittification of *everything* and are voting out parties they hold responsible because almost no one consistently targets the real problem ie the super wealthy.
No question: Gavin Newsom is utterly reviled by a lot of people (and not just hyper-conservatives). He'd have the lefist base, but he'd have an uphill battle winning over enough of the rest of the nation to be elected.
I don't say it's impossible for 2028, but if he ran this year (especially if hampered by the timeline set by Biden's withdrawal), I'm confident he'd have lost, too.
I doubt it. There's not much she could have done as President with congress being busy with their own campaigns. It wouldn't have been her fault, but it wouldn't have helped.
The word of the year next year is going to be "kakistocracy".
www.independent.co.uk
www.comicsands.com
RFK Jr wants to promote raw milk as HHS secretary – experts say it’s dangerous
RFK Jr. promises to wage a ‘war on public health’ beginning with the legalization of raw milk consumption
www.independent.co.uk
Conservative Has Brutal Warning For GOP After Trump Picks 'Vile Sex Pest' Gaetz For AG
With friends like these...
www.comicsands.com
Definitely not. If the trend is anti-incumbant, it might even have been worse....
When the Tiananmen Square massacre happened, Trump was... probably off partying or having questionably-consensual sex with some woman who wasn't his wife and not watching the news, but if he had been, he probably would have been like "Now that's how you show people who's boss."