Was Walz a mistake?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, as a woman, I can say that Waltz would have had a better chance as the actual candidate. I wish the Democrats would stop nominating women for the foreseeable future, it's not going to go well if we continue to do so.

Although I get that this is coming from a place of pragmatism, you do realize this is a horrible thing to say? How about we dig deeper and educate re: internalized biases in this country? Ideally in a less condescending manner.

I said in another thread that America will elect a female president and she's going to be a Republican with no-nonsense grandma vibes. America does not want a liberal wine aunt/schoolmarm lecturing them. (See: Gwen Walz)

Of all the people in his campaign, my heart goes out to Gwen Walz. I can't even imagine the crap she has taken and is still standing.

[Anonymous]

The Walz family were creeps.

[Anonymous]

I am telling you, my guy instinct days Ru Paul should’ve been on the ticket. Many Americans would vote for him as a middle finger to the establishment.

[Anonymous]

Kamala was the mistake. She has no one to blame but herself.

Remember, she dropped out of the last Democratic primary early for a reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was Kamala. Kamala was the wrong pick. Michelle Obama could’ve won if she’d ran. Kamala lacks depth and personality.

I used to think Michelle Obama could win if the nominee; but after last night's results, I don't think so. The outcome was a full-on rejection by the majority of the country of many of the policies and actions of Democrats.

What qualifications does Michelle Obama have other than being married to a former President?

Same as Kamala.

[Anonymous]

Putting up Harris as a candidate was a mistake, the country is still too socially backward for that. I think it might take another 100 years before a woman of color would have a chance. Or maybe any woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was Kamala. Kamala was the wrong pick. Michelle Obama could’ve won if she’d ran. Kamala lacks depth and personality.

I used to think Michelle Obama could win if the nominee; but after last night's results, I don't think so. The outcome was a full-on rejection by the majority of the country of many of the policies and actions of Democrats.

What qualifications does Michelle Obama have other than being married to a former President?

Same as Kamala.

I think the presidential election result shows that qualifications aren’t a factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Putting up Harris as a candidate was a mistake, the country is still too socially backward for that. I think it might take another 100 years before a woman of color would have a chance. Or maybe any woman.

I disagree. It's the ultra liberal policies she represented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, he hasn't the wrong pick. It wouldn't have mattered if it was Shapiro, Whitmer, Sanders, Kelly or Jesus. It didn't matter in the end. People were pissed off over inflation (rightfully or wrongfull) and allowing the border to become a humanitarian disaster (definitely Biden's greatest screwup) along with the hubris of Biden and the DNC to not run a primary. Maybe, just maybe, if Biden had announced he wasn't running in 2023 and someone unaffiliated with the Biden administration ran and won the nomination, they might have done better.

+1 All of this, plus Democrats' response to crime

[Anonymous]

I think Harris and Walz were the throwaway picks. DNC knew it was an uphill battle; time was short, and Biden had damaged the brand. They were resigned to the very real possibility of losing the election. So, they tossed in Harris to get her out of the running in 2028 and Walz because they are saving some combination of Shapiro, Newson, and Whitmer to run in 2028.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting up Harris as a candidate was a mistake, the country is still too socially backward for that. I think it might take another 100 years before a woman of color would have a chance. Or maybe any woman.

I disagree. It's the ultra liberal policies she represented.

But she’s NOT ultra liberal!

[Anonymous]

Well, no one better agrees to the losing proposition, so…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Harris and Walz were the throwaway picks. DNC knew it was an uphill battle; time was short, and Biden had damaged the brand. They were resigned to the very real possibility of losing the election. So, they tossed in Harris to get her out of the running in 2028 and Walz because they are saving some combination of Shapiro, Newson, and Whitmer to run in 2028.

If this is the best the Dems have (I am a very moderate dem) they are in big trouble. Newsom is a hypocrite and pretty far left in his luxury beliefs that he tries to impose on us in CA.
Shapiro is too supportive of Israel (I don’t care about it but it’s a losing proposition rn)
Whitmer is a woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Walz family were creeps.

I don’t agree but I think having his SN son in public was playing against him (it’s ableist blah blah but let’s face it)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, he wasn’t even from a swing state. He offered no value to the ticket

+1. She should have picked Josh Shapiro or Mark Kelly. She lost Michigan anyway with Walz but at least she could have picked up Pennsylvania maybe. And Walz proved to be a gaffe machine with a penchant for exaggeration similar to Biden.

Shapiro is too pro Israel