Why does everyone think Kamala was such a bad candidate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:lol at all these posters who think being an AG or a senator is no big accomplishment.

She only had to beat Loretta Sanchez to win her Senate seat. It wasn’t exactly a contested race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has always come across as intelligent, articulate and very well-informed on the issues.
She put Trump to shame during the debate.
I don’t even think her answer on The View that she couldn’t really think of anything she would do differently from Biden was particularly damning. She is his Vice-President, what the heck could she really have said?

And this is coming from someone who voted for Trump, but I would have done so no matter who was on the Democratic ticket.

She wasn't but our country is racist and misogynistic. I actually told a friend they needed to put in a white male otherwise democrats will lose. It's so sad but so true. They literally voted for a rapist over her.

Rapists get more respect from our adversaries and many friendly governments than someone chirping about freedom and joy. Even the wife of the man she served as Vice President threw shade at Harris’s Joy campaign. Harris positioned herself as the Maria Kondo of world leaders. Well organized underwear drawers do not stop bombs

Yup. The country (and world) is misogynistic.

Womyns Studies are going the way of DEIsm. Time for you to drop your benighted belief that misogyny is the reason that there had never been a US female president. If a woman like those who headed many countries were nominated, she would win.

Thanks for proving my point, a$$wipe.

DP. Whoooooosh. You have so clearly missed the PP's point.

[Anonymous]

I agree she was a terrible candidate w/a confusing message. But maybe not all her fault given the timing, and lack of prep.

But the question now, are the Dems going to try and re-brand and trot her back out in the 2028 ?

Bernie was the most interesting to me, but will be too old by 2028. Who else is available?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s LITERALLY never accomplished anything in her life. And no, merely holding a particular job is not an achievement.

Going to law school, being a prosecutor, a state AG, a senator, and VP are “literal” non-accomplishments to you? lol Have you never voted for someone who WAS accomplished by your criteria then??

She has to take the bar exam 3 times and gained admission to law school under affirmative action.

I think she took it 4 times,,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s LITERALLY never accomplished anything in her life. And no, merely holding a particular job is not an achievement.

Going to law school, being a prosecutor, a state AG, a senator, and VP are “literal” non-accomplishments to you? lol Have you never voted for someone who WAS accomplished by your criteria then??

She has to take the bar exam 3 times and gained admission to law school under affirmative action.

I think she took it 4 times,,

Well, the President of S. Korea who was just impeached took the bar exam ten times although the passage rate back then for Korea was extremely competitive at 1 or 2 percent not 40 to 50 percent applicabl for Kamala.

[Anonymous]

Don't forget that her first run at president ended with her being the first candidate to drop out. She was polling low in her home state of California, there was constant infighting among her staff, she had no money, and she had no message. Seems her second run was much the same.

She would not have been the nominee had there been a true primary. The only reason she was the nominee is because Joe Biden endorsed her minutes after he dropped out. Another bad decision by Joe - who is known for making poor decisions. And the party rallied around her because they were so relieved that Joe had withdrawn his name. It wasn't support for Harris as much as it was relief that Joe dropped out.

Her speech the other day to students in Maryland was a stark reminder of just how bad she is. She says a lot of words and yet says nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a serious question? WTAF.

I mean how bad does a candidate have to be until everyone recognizes their innate loser qualities? I say this with sincerity.

She lost to Trump a convicted disgusting felon with $1B in donations from all walks of life. She's a female diversity candidate who could not rally females and diversity voters. Some people truly do not know when to stop, sigh.

There are lots of reasons for this other than Kamala being a bad candidate, but I doubt Democrats will give a woman the nomination again for a very long time.

Why would you say that? Democratic men have lost before and we never said that we won't run a man again

America will never elect a woman as POTUS. The position is too tied up in concepts of military power, masculinity, and toughness. We'll never elect a gay man either. Just the way it is.

Statistically, at least one of the presidents had to be gay. My money is on Wilson.

Likely Buchanan. Unmarried and had his niece take role of first lady.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree she was a terrible candidate w/a confusing message. But maybe not all her fault given the timing, and lack of prep.

But the question now, are the Dems going to try and re-brand and trot her back out in the 2028 ?

Bernie was the most interesting to me, but will be too old by 2028. Who else is available?

She’s leading in the polls now, which is worrying and doesn’t say a lot of positive things about the Democratic party. However, just like in 2019, once it becomes a contest her polling will probably drop like a stone.

Four years is a long time. It is really hard to judge the public mood four years from now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't forget that her first run at president ended with her being the first candidate to drop out. She was polling low in her home state of California, there was constant infighting among her staff, she had no money, and she had no message. Seems her second run was much the same.

She would not have been the nominee had there been a true primary. The only reason she was the nominee is because Joe Biden endorsed her minutes after he dropped out. Another bad decision by Joe - who is known for making poor decisions. And the party rallied around her because they were so relieved that Joe had withdrawn his name. It wasn't support for Harris as much as it was relief that Joe dropped out.

Her speech the other day to students in Maryland was a stark reminder of just how bad she is. She says a lot of words and yet says nothing.

These are all facts. There are people who are capable of putting aside personal affinity and dealing with these facts and there are people who cannot.

[Anonymous]

I'm 95 percent certain Kamala Harris will effectively disappear from public life after January 20th. She doesn't have the disposition or the fire to devote the next four years to running for president after a humiliating loss. You need to be a freak of nature to go through all that again - like Trump. That's not Harris. She's presumably intelligent and self-aware enough to understand that she does not have what it takes. She isn't driven by ego or by a passion for policy. She's an opportunist who had a nice career but finally hit her wall. I think she knows that. She has a comfortable life to fall back on. And that's what she'll likely do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree she was a terrible candidate w/a confusing message. But maybe not all her fault given the timing, and lack of prep.

But the question now, are the Dems going to try and re-brand and trot her back out in the 2028 ?

Bernie was the most interesting to me, but will be too old by 2028. Who else is available?

She’s leading in the polls now, which is worrying and doesn’t say a lot of positive things about the Democratic party. However, just like in 2019, once it becomes a contest her polling will probably drop like a stone.

Four years is a long time. It is really hard to judge the public mood four years from now.

She’s leading in the polls because of name recognition. That’s not likely to be enough to win in 2028. It’s just a basic factor like being a US citizen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm 95 percent certain Kamala Harris will effectively disappear from public life after January 20th. She doesn't have the disposition or the fire to devote the next four years to running for president after a humiliating loss. You need to be a freak of nature to go through all that again - like Trump. That's not Harris. She's presumably intelligent and self-aware enough to understand that she does not have what it takes. She isn't driven by ego or by a passion for policy. She's an opportunist who had a nice career but finally hit her wall. I think she knows that. She has a comfortable life to fall back on. And that's what she'll likely do.

She’s running again. Watch her recent speeches from this week. She’s openly running on race stuff now. You can find the videos online/the news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm 95 percent certain Kamala Harris will effectively disappear from public life after January 20th. She doesn't have the disposition or the fire to devote the next four years to running for president after a humiliating loss. You need to be a freak of nature to go through all that again - like Trump. That's not Harris. She's presumably intelligent and self-aware enough to understand that she does not have what it takes. She isn't driven by ego or by a passion for policy. She's an opportunist who had a nice career but finally hit her wall. I think she knows that. She has a comfortable life to fall back on. And that's what she'll likely do.

What do former VPs normally do? They don’t normally stay in elective politics. Dick Cheney. Al Gore. Dan Quayle. Walter Mondale.

They get on corporate boards, do public appearances and make some money.

I think Harris will get some no show job at the University of California that pays a lot.

[Anonymous]

Harris wasn't an ideal candidate, but Trump was a far worse candidate than Harris.

But here we are and Trump is going to be President. We Americans are on the whole, incredibly stupid people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 95 percent certain Kamala Harris will effectively disappear from public life after January 20th. She doesn't have the disposition or the fire to devote the next four years to running for president after a humiliating loss. You need to be a freak of nature to go through all that again - like Trump. That's not Harris. She's presumably intelligent and self-aware enough to understand that she does not have what it takes. She isn't driven by ego or by a passion for policy. She's an opportunist who had a nice career but finally hit her wall. I think she knows that. She has a comfortable life to fall back on. And that's what she'll likely do.

What do former VPs normally do? They don’t normally stay in elective politics. Dick Cheney. Al Gore. Dan Quayle. Walter Mondale.

They get on corporate boards, do public appearances and make some money.

I think Harris will get some no show job at the University of California that pays a lot.

Mondale had the same misfortune as Harris. He was VP of a very unpopular POTUS and lost his bid for The White House in much more of a landslide defeat than Harris because he was running against a legitimate POTUS candidate in Reagan while Harris was running against a terrible opponent in Trump. Biden deserves 99.9% of the blame for Trump's 2024 victory.