Kamala Harris for President

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m kinda scared that she’s pulling a lot of pop culture moves like HRC. She’s not as “smooth” as Obama, and people hyper criticize women as incompetent for trying to seem relatable

The whole “BRAT” thing is beyond embarrassing and pandering.

It really really annoyed me, and then I realized if I was 20 and scrolling on Twitter that a presidential candidate is casually boosting Charli XCX, I’d be pretty f-ing ecstatic to see someone who sorta gets it. I bet her young interns suggested it

It’s not ok. It’s as the kids say, super cringe .

You don’t want to see people your parents age using the new lingo and TikTok verbiage . It’s very cringe . Calling yourself a brat at 60 years old is super super embarrassing

Do you know any young people? I work with them everyday as a professor. They’re eating this up. We’re just old and sick of politicians not acting, you know, political.

Kids are smart and know when they’re being pandered to. If you started a lecture calling yourself a brat like Charli XCX, they’d laugh at you .

I dare you to try and see if you’re taken seriously by them .

Tulsi Gabbard was right. Kamala doesn’t know how to be herself in a campaign because she doesn’t know who she is and what she stands for . She’s an empty pantssuit with a nervous belly laugh and happy smile

I don’t really need to test trial my hipness. I’m not claiming Kamala to be Obama, but my students really like Obama (they make jokes about him bombing people which are out of pocket but they like him), because they like his cool dad energy and Spotify playlists of the year. For black students, she reminds them of their “aunties”- really any older person in the family who’s fun to be around. For my other students, they used to hate her for the constant laughing, but now they have taken her so unseriously that they genuinely like her. One of my students commented that she gives them “Leslie Knope energy, vibes…”

Growing up during an Obama-trump transition must make politics feel like one massive joke.

Obama had depth to counter his levity . He was a great orator . Could make fun of himself in the same way W Bush could.

Good comedic timing. Personable . I knew Barack’s whole life story when he made that stellar 2004 DNC speech/one of the best political star making speeches in history . Republicans even give him that. And he wrote that speech himself. Does the DNC on running a keynote speaker this year that has the same future promise to be the next one in charge?

He also ran on a message of hope and barely mentioned Bush or antagonized him by name something Bush really appreciated.

I can’t say Kamala has that same charm. She comes off as super antagonistic perhaps due to her trial lawyer days . Hillary had the same problem . If she continues to just talk about Donald Trump for most of her speeches , she will lose

She does not come off as antagonistic. Give me a break. She is always smiling. I liked Obama but he often came off as stiff.and low energy and his voice was very flat. If anything, she needs to tone down the exuberance. Her off-the-cuff remarks were she laughs too much make her look unserious and can be cringeworthy. I'm hoping she will get coaching to stop that. But overall she has positive energy and seems like she is a happy person. All that matters is how that contrasts with Trump. He is like a raging Rumpelstilskin figure at this point so she's got an advantage there.

I disagree, I ended up really appreciating Obama. He could joke when it was appropriate but then when he was serious he was captivating.

I need to watch more of Kamala to come to a conclusion about that aspect of her, but she seems like a relatively nice person who can be fun.

I just don’t like her policies. Or at least the policies she had in 2020. She needs to come out being much more restrictive on immigration. Just basing off of her 2020 stance… nope. Not going to vote for her.

If she switches things up on that then maybe. I mean there’s two main reasons I’m not a Democrat anymore and the biggest one is immigration. If they get more Trumpy on immigration but keep everything else I’d be as enthusiastic as I was when I walked myself to my local precinct to caucus for Bernie in 2016.

You were never going to vote for the Dems, and you don’t need to do the whole “I’m a centrist who isn’t represented thing.” We get it. Go vote for trump, he’ll get that border sealed on up, just like in 2016-2020 when we had a great border situation💀

Am the PP you responded to, and I have never voted for a GOP president. Thinking about it very seriously this year though.

Mrs. Give-undocumented-people-the-same-benefits-as-citizens-and-decriminalize-illegal-border-crossings definitely aint going to fix the border. Unless she flipflops from 2020.

I'm pretty sure Dems have flipped quite a bit on the situation, but they refuse to separate parents from their children, which I think is pretty respectable.

That’s fine, how about not continuing to extend and add populations to the “Temporary” Protected Status program, and doing mass deportations and workplace raids? And actually making a point to promise to crack down on immigration and end birthright citizenship (or attempt to) and fully embrace border control and ICE?

You know when FDR managed to pass his new deal, and implement extremely progressive policies and then get re-elected 4 times—there’s was a very strict immigration act in place? And there was the same strict immigration act in place during the probably most loved decade, in our country’s history in the 50’s?

Poll after poll, survery after survey, study after study shows that more immigration means less support for progressive economic policies.

I want progressive economic policies. So immigration gets the short end of the stick.

I also want progressive policy with strict immigration like Bernie outlined, but that just isn't popular with most liberals.

Which is why we implement strict immigration policies first. Otherwise we will never get the buy-in needed for progressive policies.

I really don't see it. The progressive wing haven't really thought up yet that you can't have strong social services and a ton of immigration. People like AOC think any immigration tightening is basically racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it disconcerting that everyone is on board with a candidate that was anointed by the donor class, not the people. No matter how you slice it, this just isn’t representative democracy.

I keep seeing this argument (almost like there’s a coordinated campaign to promote it, so weird), and it just does not resonate for me. She was literally already on the ticket.

It’s like the twilight zone around here. I can’t believe this needs to be explained… On the ticket as VP, not President. Imagine if we’d had open primaries? Imagine if Biden’s state had not been intentionally hidden from the people for the last 2 years? That in and of itself is something we should be fuming about. This just isn’t how democracy is supposed to work.

Precisely this. It’s a real bait-and-switch courtesy of the Democrats behind the scenes who deliberately hid Biden’s true decline - and ostracized anyone who dared speak out about it. This wouldn’t have happened if Biden had bowed out last year and voters had actually had a chance to *choose* another candidate, instead of having one foisted upon them.

[Anonymous]

So we were so concerned about Biden’s cognitive status that he was forced out of the candidacy, yet we trust his judgment in endorsing Harris?
He was only clinging to the familiar for comfort, which is what many older people do. I’m sure it also makes him feel less disempowered to be able to take credit for her candidacy.
I have very mixed feelings, honestly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many conspiracy theories, all since midnight. Either trolls or people who really need to get some sleep….

Zero reason to assume they are good faith U.S. voters or even human. Influence trolls and AI bots are everywhere. This is an anonymous forum in an election year.

Eyes up, folks. Be careful what you allow into your brain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has failed her first test in refusing to preside over Netanyahu’s address to Congress. This is her job as VP and she refuses to do it.

It would be her job if he had been invited by the White House. He wasn’t, and she doesn’t have to change her schedule to accommodate his showing up.

It is her job. Change her schedule?

You mean the appointment she made with a sorority in Indiana?
lol
She has known about this visit for months.
This demonstrates how “serious” she will be when it comes to foreign policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it disconcerting that everyone is on board with a candidate that was anointed by the donor class, not the people. No matter how you slice it, this just isn’t representative democracy.

I keep seeing this argument (almost like there’s a coordinated campaign to promote it, so weird), and it just does not resonate for me. She was literally already on the ticket.

It’s like the twilight zone around here. I can’t believe this needs to be explained… On the ticket as VP, not President. Imagine if we’d had open primaries? Imagine if Biden’s state had not been intentionally hidden from the people for the last 2 years? That in and of itself is something we should be fuming about. This just isn’t how democracy is supposed to work.

Democracy is what happens in November. This is party business.

If Haley can give her delegates to Trump why can’t Biden give his to Harris?

Also there’s been literally NO pushback from any Dems.

The perception will be (is) that the party is handling its business undemocratically and that that will spill over into how it runs the country.

Of course there hasn’t been pushback from the base.

But it isn’t the base you need to convince, in order to win.

If the only people you talk with about this IRL, and respect, are the “I would vote for a ham sandwich” people, you’re talking to the base and you’re in a bubble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it disconcerting that everyone is on board with a candidate that was anointed by the donor class, not the people. No matter how you slice it, this just isn’t representative democracy.

Actually the donor class wanted to dump Biden and Harris. You haven’t been paying attention or are just concern trolling.

But they didn’t, did they. Are you paying attention?

So the donors wanted her but not until they also didn’t want her?

All I know is Harris has raised more money from small donors than anyone has ever done in two days. It’s hard to express how powerful the public surge of excitement for her is.

TBD whether that money is “organic” because of Harris, or if it was money being withheld from Biden-Harris because of grave concerns about Biden.

Any new frontrunner would have had an enthusiasm bump; in this case, it was Harris, who was not particularly popular just one week ago. TBD whether that is going to sustain itself for four months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it disconcerting that everyone is on board with a candidate that was anointed by the donor class, not the people. No matter how you slice it, this just isn’t representative democracy.

I keep seeing this argument (almost like there’s a coordinated campaign to promote it, so weird), and it just does not resonate for me. She was literally already on the ticket.

It’s like the twilight zone around here. I can’t believe this needs to be explained… On the ticket as VP, not President. Imagine if we’d had open primaries? Imagine if Biden’s state had not been intentionally hidden from the people for the last 2 years? That in and of itself is something we should be fuming about. This just isn’t how democracy is supposed to work.

+ 1

Although I don’t necessarily agree that “Biden’s state was intentionally hidden for two years” — but I understand that’s what people believe to be true.

But yes - she was not elected in primaries as a presidential candidate. She was not elected in primaries as a vice-nominee, either.

The GOP absolutely will make hay out of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has failed her first test in refusing to preside over Netanyahu’s address to Congress. This is her job as VP and she refuses to do it.

It would be her job if he had been invited by the White House. He wasn’t, and she doesn’t have to change her schedule to accommodate his showing up.

It is her job. Change her schedule?

You mean the appointment she made with a sorority in Indiana?
lol
She has known about this visit for months.
This demonstrates how “serious” she will be when it comes to foreign policy.

She is meeting with him privately during the day.

And I guess you don't understand the importance of a national service sorority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it disconcerting that everyone is on board with a candidate that was anointed by the donor class, not the people. No matter how you slice it, this just isn’t representative democracy.

I keep seeing this argument (almost like there’s a coordinated campaign to promote it, so weird), and it just does not resonate for me. She was literally already on the ticket.

It’s like the twilight zone around here. I can’t believe this needs to be explained… On the ticket as VP, not President. Imagine if we’d had open primaries? Imagine if Biden’s state had not been intentionally hidden from the people for the last 2 years? That in and of itself is something we should be fuming about. This just isn’t how democracy is supposed to work.

+ 1

Although I don’t necessarily agree that “Biden’s state was intentionally hidden for two years” — but I understand that’s what people believe to be true.

But yes - she was not elected in primaries as a presidential candidate. She was not elected in primaries as a vice-nominee, either.

The GOP absolutely will make hay out of this.

Donald Trump endorsed the cancellation of his own party's state primaries, pushed out critics within his own party, refused to participate in primary debates, and has generally failed to engage in transparency and good faith with party leaders.

VP Harris clinched a majority of delegates through a transparent process in which those state delegations, not the Harris campaign, endorsed her after she and her staff did the work of meaningful outreach and listening to critics--for many years now, not just the past two days.

We are not humoring this ridiculous conversation. Just because VP Harris quickly consolidated enthusiastic support on the strengths of her own merit as a candidate and the trust that state and local leaders have in her as a leader does not mean she was "coronated."

Democrats want a public servant. The GOP wants a king.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it disconcerting that everyone is on board with a candidate that was anointed by the donor class, not the people. No matter how you slice it, this just isn’t representative democracy.

I keep seeing this argument (almost like there’s a coordinated campaign to promote it, so weird), and it just does not resonate for me. She was literally already on the ticket.

It’s like the twilight zone around here. I can’t believe this needs to be explained… On the ticket as VP, not President. Imagine if we’d had open primaries? Imagine if Biden’s state had not been intentionally hidden from the people for the last 2 years? That in and of itself is something we should be fuming about. This just isn’t how democracy is supposed to work.

+ 1

Although I don’t necessarily agree that “Biden’s state was intentionally hidden for two years” — but I understand that’s what people believe to be true.

But yes - she was not elected in primaries as a presidential candidate. She was not elected in primaries as a vice-nominee, either.

The GOP absolutely will make hay out of this.

I mean, there are reports that many insiders knew and were worried as early as 2021. Many people on the hill and even cabinet members had very little direct interaction with the man over the last few years.

If this isn't years-long intentional hiding, what is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it disconcerting that everyone is on board with a candidate that was anointed by the donor class, not the people. No matter how you slice it, this just isn’t representative democracy.

Your concern for us is duly noted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many conspiracy theories, all since midnight. Either trolls or people who really need to get some sleep….

Zero reason to assume they are good faith U.S. voters or even human. Influence trolls and AI bots are everywhere. This is an anonymous forum in an election year.

Eyes up, folks. Be careful what you allow into your brain.

This sounds like a conspiracy theory. Eyes up, folks. The AI bots are projecting.

Sure, okay. As if the problem of foreign influence campaigns isn’t real.

Sure, okay. As if the problem of people reflexively throwing claims of "conspiracy theory" at every opinion they don't like and having it blow up in their faces again and again isn't real.

No matter what your opinion is and whether or not I agree with you, if you’re a human U.S. voter posting in good faith, I’ll say the same to you that I’d say to anyone: eyes up.

It’s 2024. One should not assume everyone in an anonymous political forum in a pivotal election year, is what they seem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has failed her first test in refusing to preside over Netanyahu’s address to Congress. This is her job as VP and she refuses to do it.

It would be her job if he had been invited by the White House. He wasn’t, and she doesn’t have to change her schedule to accommodate his showing up.

It is her job. Change her schedule?

You mean the appointment she made with a sorority in Indiana?
lol
She has known about this visit for months.
This demonstrates how “serious” she will be when it comes to foreign policy.

It’s not her job. If the WH invited him, it’s her job. She doesn’t work for Netanyahu.

[Anonymous]

Here’s the thing. The reason people who who voted for Biden in 2020 and in 2024 primaries aren’t freaking out and weeping over their disenfranchisement as Republicans hope we will is that…we voted for her. Joe Biden could have won the election and resigned on January 20, 2025 at 9pm and she’d have been the President. Leaving a race is legal. Leaving the Presidency is legal.

The Republican misunderstanding of someone not rabidly and desperately clinging to power is where the cognitive dissonance is.