Why does everyone think Kamala was such a bad candidate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The election was 6 weeks ago, so it’s really time to get over it and consider the future. Calling the American people “stupid” does nothing to advance the ball. Try to get it out of your system, and think about viable candidates for 2028.

Pretty sure it's fair to say the average American voter IQ is much less than it was 20 or 30 years ago considering we've elected Trump, Biden, Trump in the past three elections. Nothing wrong with acknowledging this stupidity and trying to deal with it in advance of 2028 so that another Trump or Biden isn't elected.

Pretty sure you have no data to support your sweeping statement.

NP..check out Gallup. 54% of Americans ages 16-72 have under a sixth grade literacy rate. We've become the stupidest country of the free world.

Please link the Gallup study. My Google search returned the National Literacy Institute. By the way, it also said most of those with below sixth grade level literacy are foreign born, so I'm not sure this is the critique against American intelligence that you think it is.

Link: https://www.apmresearchlab.org/10x-adult-literacy

There have always been a high percentage of illiterate people in this country yet we've for the most part been able to elect fit, qualified, and worthy presidents up until recently. Being illiterate doesn't necessarily guarantee someone to be clueless and careless when it comes to politics and government.

Stupidity and carelessness are likely reasons why Americans elected Trump and Biden. Illiteracy is less likely to be a primary reason.

I love all of these people trying to dismiss the importance of low literacy rates in electing Trump. If people weren't so poorly educated, they wouldn't be so susceptible to voting against their self interests. Remember Trump said from the onset of his first run that he " loved the uneducated ". We have to own that America is majority stupid.

That’s why he wants to eliminate the Dept of Education. People are in favor of it too because they love bread and circuses.

Yes, American public schools are doing so well under the guidance of that gaggle of idiotic bureaucrats known as the Department of Education. How dare Trump question their value?

We have seen Democrat plans for education. Weaken/eliminate advanced math and other advanced subjects, as well as gifted programs, Group work to let the better students cover for the weaker students. In Oregon, they eliminated graduation requirements. Algebra in 9th grade for all gets pushed wherever parents aren't noticing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The election was 6 weeks ago, so it’s really time to get over it and consider the future. Calling the American people “stupid” does nothing to advance the ball. Try to get it out of your system, and think about viable candidates for 2028.

Pretty sure it's fair to say the average American voter IQ is much less than it was 20 or 30 years ago considering we've elected Trump, Biden, Trump in the past three elections. Nothing wrong with acknowledging this stupidity and trying to deal with it in advance of 2028 so that another Trump or Biden isn't elected.

Pretty sure you have no data to support your sweeping statement.

NP..check out Gallup. 54% of Americans ages 16-72 have under a sixth grade literacy rate. We've become the stupidest country of the free world.

Please link the Gallup study. My Google search returned the National Literacy Institute. By the way, it also said most of those with below sixth grade level literacy are foreign born, so I'm not sure this is the critique against American intelligence that you think it is.

Link: https://www.apmresearchlab.org/10x-adult-literacy

There have always been a high percentage of illiterate people in this country yet we've for the most part been able to elect fit, qualified, and worthy presidents up until recently. Being illiterate doesn't necessarily guarantee someone to be clueless and careless when it comes to politics and government.

Stupidity and carelessness are likely reasons why Americans elected Trump and Biden. Illiteracy is less likely to be a primary reason.

I love all of these people trying to dismiss the importance of low literacy rates in electing Trump. If people weren't so poorly educated, they wouldn't be so susceptible to voting against their self interests. Remember Trump said from the onset of his first run that he " loved the uneducated ". We have to own that America is majority stupid.

That’s why he wants to eliminate the Dept of Education. People are in favor of it too because they love bread and circuses.

Yes, American public schools are doing so well under the guidance of that gaggle of idiotic bureaucrats known as the Department of Education. How dare Trump question their value?

The money wasted by the DOE would be spent more effectively and efficiently by states and local governments and as long as states and local governments take steps to protect title one services with all that extra cash, abolishing the DOE would be wise if you love our children. I'm not giving Trump any credit for the idea. We've been calling for it since long before Trump entered politics.

[Anonymous]

She wasn’t a bad candidate. Final vote count: she lost by 115,000 votes between three states. Incredibly close race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t a bad candidate. Final vote count: she lost by 115,000 votes between three states. Incredibly close race.

When you lose two out of the three most recent elections to someone as awful as Trump, there is lots of blame to go around and nothing or no one to be proud of but none of that blame should be placed on Harris. She did the best she could and better than most under those circumstances. Blame Biden along with the Trump and Biden voters.

[Anonymous]

She was historically stupid which is why they kept her under wraps. Biden is completely go e which is why they have hid him. Most corrupt government of all time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t a bad candidate. Final vote count: she lost by 115,000 votes between three states. Incredibly close race.

DP. I was the one who said a year+ ago that Biden would lose (when the dems lose in Nov..). If you look at him now, you understand now why I was right. I also posted that Harris was a bad pick but if she was the candidate, to win she needed to pick a white male Republican who was strong on border security and crime. She would've likely squeaked by if that happened.

They had their chance to win after the first debate, and blew it. She was supposed to be a prosecutor, yet went limp on the border and crime. She was supposed to unite the parties and support all people of all backgrounds, yet played the race card in interviews and even had her "victory speech" planned at Howard U. She picked a weak VP without a strong border / crime platform. I can go on, but the Democratic Party won't listen anyway.

Would've, should've, could've. Imagine if Harris was paired with a younger prosecutor or maybe former law enforcement turned republican politician. That way Harris could've talked less, and let the younger VP talk. If he made a mistake, she could step in and recover. Also, she should've announced her planned cabinet positions early (again half Republican). It would've shown that she can work with moderate republicans and sapped away votes. She should've come out strong on Border and Crime. That would've given people hope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t a bad candidate. Final vote count: she lost by 115,000 votes between three states. Incredibly close race.

People will be using this kind of fuzzy math with great frequency as we near 2028. I'm looking forward to the complete amnesia the democrats will have, as they pour over their fake polling numbers that show that they are up by one gazillion points in Iowa and the swing states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t a bad candidate. Final vote count: she lost by 115,000 votes between three states. Incredibly close race.

DP. I was the one who said a year+ ago that Biden would lose (when the dems lose in Nov..). If you look at him now, you understand now why I was right. I also posted that Harris was a bad pick but if she was the candidate, to win she needed to pick a white male Republican who was strong on border security and crime. She would've likely squeaked by if that happened.

They had their chance to win after the first debate, and blew it. She was supposed to be a prosecutor, yet went limp on the border and crime. She was supposed to unite the parties and support all people of all backgrounds, yet played the race card in interviews and even had her "victory speech" planned at Howard U. She picked a weak VP without a strong border / crime platform. I can go on, but the Democratic Party won't listen anyway.

Would've, should've, could've. Imagine if Harris was paired with a younger prosecutor or maybe former law enforcement turned republican politician. That way Harris could've talked less, and let the younger VP talk. If he made a mistake, she could step in and recover. Also, she should've announced her planned cabinet positions early (again half Republican). It would've shown that she can work with moderate republicans and sapped away votes. She should've come out strong on Border and Crime. That would've given people hope.

When was the last time in history that someone ran on a 2-party ticket?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t a bad candidate. Final vote count: she lost by 115,000 votes between three states. Incredibly close race.

DP. I was the one who said a year+ ago that Biden would lose (when the dems lose in Nov..). If you look at him now, you understand now why I was right. I also posted that Harris was a bad pick but if she was the candidate, to win she needed to pick a white male Republican who was strong on border security and crime. She would've likely squeaked by if that happened.

They had their chance to win after the first debate, and blew it. She was supposed to be a prosecutor, yet went limp on the border and crime. She was supposed to unite the parties and support all people of all backgrounds, yet played the race card in interviews and even had her "victory speech" planned at Howard U. She picked a weak VP without a strong border / crime platform. I can go on, but the Democratic Party won't listen anyway.

Would've, should've, could've. Imagine if Harris was paired with a younger prosecutor or maybe former law enforcement turned republican politician. That way Harris could've talked less, and let the younger VP talk. If he made a mistake, she could step in and recover. Also, she should've announced her planned cabinet positions early (again half Republican). It would've shown that she can work with moderate republicans and sapped away votes. She should've come out strong on Border and Crime. That would've given people hope.

I agree with most of what you say but I think her biggest hurdle was being the VP of a sitting POTUS with a 40% approval rating while you are campaigning for the next presidential term! No VPs of very unpopular one term presidents have ever had any luck running for president themselves.

Even against an opponent as weak as Trump, that hurdle was too high to clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t a bad candidate. Final vote count: she lost by 115,000 votes between three states. Incredibly close race.

DP. I was the one who said a year+ ago that Biden would lose (when the dems lose in Nov..). If you look at him now, you understand now why I was right. I also posted that Harris was a bad pick but if she was the candidate, to win she needed to pick a white male Republican who was strong on border security and crime. She would've likely squeaked by if that happened.

They had their chance to win after the first debate, and blew it. She was supposed to be a prosecutor, yet went limp on the border and crime. She was supposed to unite the parties and support all people of all backgrounds, yet played the race card in interviews and even had her "victory speech" planned at Howard U. She picked a weak VP without a strong border / crime platform. I can go on, but the Democratic Party won't listen anyway.

Would've, should've, could've. Imagine if Harris was paired with a younger prosecutor or maybe former law enforcement turned republican politician. That way Harris could've talked less, and let the younger VP talk. If he made a mistake, she could step in and recover. Also, she should've announced her planned cabinet positions early (again half Republican). It would've shown that she can work with moderate republicans and sapped away votes. She should've come out strong on Border and Crime. That would've given people hope.

Meh. She said she’d have a republican in her cabinet and the only undecided people moved by that was the far left… moving further away.

Until Americans take their responsibility to vote seriously and until we teach Americans how to identify and avoid propaganda, we’re screwed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t a bad candidate. Final vote count: she lost by 115,000 votes between three states. Incredibly close race.

DP. I was the one who said a year+ ago that Biden would lose (when the dems lose in Nov..). If you look at him now, you understand now why I was right. I also posted that Harris was a bad pick but if she was the candidate, to win she needed to pick a white male Republican who was strong on border security and crime. She would've likely squeaked by if that happened.

They had their chance to win after the first debate, and blew it. She was supposed to be a prosecutor, yet went limp on the border and crime. She was supposed to unite the parties and support all people of all backgrounds, yet played the race card in interviews and even had her "victory speech" planned at Howard U. She picked a weak VP without a strong border / crime platform. I can go on, but the Democratic Party won't listen anyway.

Would've, should've, could've. Imagine if Harris was paired with a younger prosecutor or maybe former law enforcement turned republican politician. That way Harris could've talked less, and let the younger VP talk. If he made a mistake, she could step in and recover. Also, she should've announced her planned cabinet positions early (again half Republican). It would've shown that she can work with moderate republicans and sapped away votes. She should've come out strong on Border and Crime. That would've given people hope.

Meh. She said she’d have a republican in her cabinet and the only undecided people moved by that was the far left… moving further away.

Until Americans take their responsibility to vote seriously and until we teach Americans how to identify and avoid propaganda, we’re screwed.

It shouldn't take the brains of Einstein to figure out that voting for 80 year old people to serve in the most important and demanding job in the world is a very, very, very bad idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t a bad candidate. Final vote count: she lost by 115,000 votes between three states. Incredibly close race.

DP. I was the one who said a year+ ago that Biden would lose (when the dems lose in Nov..). If you look at him now, you understand now why I was right. I also posted that Harris was a bad pick but if she was the candidate, to win she needed to pick a white male Republican who was strong on border security and crime. She would've likely squeaked by if that happened.

They had their chance to win after the first debate, and blew it. She was supposed to be a prosecutor, yet went limp on the border and crime. She was supposed to unite the parties and support all people of all backgrounds, yet played the race card in interviews and even had her "victory speech" planned at Howard U. She picked a weak VP without a strong border / crime platform. I can go on, but the Democratic Party won't listen anyway.

Would've, should've, could've. Imagine if Harris was paired with a younger prosecutor or maybe former law enforcement turned republican politician. That way Harris could've talked less, and let the younger VP talk. If he made a mistake, she could step in and recover. Also, she should've announced her planned cabinet positions early (again half Republican). It would've shown that she can work with moderate republicans and sapped away votes. She should've come out strong on Border and Crime. That would've given people hope.

Imagine if Democrats had kept Trumps policies that stopped the overwhelming illegal immigration

Imagine if Democrats focused on helping US workers first and repealed the job outsourcing visa programs.

They would have dominated the elections and would be choosing the next 3 supreme court justices

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t a bad candidate. Final vote count: she lost by 115,000 votes between three states. Incredibly close race.

DP. I was the one who said a year+ ago that Biden would lose (when the dems lose in Nov..). If you look at him now, you understand now why I was right. I also posted that Harris was a bad pick but if she was the candidate, to win she needed to pick a white male Republican who was strong on border security and crime. She would've likely squeaked by if that happened.

They had their chance to win after the first debate, and blew it. She was supposed to be a prosecutor, yet went limp on the border and crime. She was supposed to unite the parties and support all people of all backgrounds, yet played the race card in interviews and even had her "victory speech" planned at Howard U. She picked a weak VP without a strong border / crime platform. I can go on, but the Democratic Party won't listen anyway.

Would've, should've, could've. Imagine if Harris was paired with a younger prosecutor or maybe former law enforcement turned republican politician. That way Harris could've talked less, and let the younger VP talk. If he made a mistake, she could step in and recover. Also, she should've announced her planned cabinet positions early (again half Republican). It would've shown that she can work with moderate republicans and sapped away votes. She should've come out strong on Border and Crime. That would've given people hope.

Imagine if Democrats had kept Trumps policies that stopped the overwhelming illegal immigration

Imagine if Democrats focused on helping US workers first and repealed the job outsourcing visa programs.

They would have dominated the elections and would be choosing the next 3 supreme court justices

Imagine if Democrats didn’t hate America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She was historically stupid which is why they kept her under wraps. Biden is completely go e which is why they have hid him. Most corrupt government of all time.

Worse than Nixon?

[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: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.

The election was 6 weeks ago, so it’s really time to get over it and consider the future. Calling the American people “stupid” does nothing to advance the ball. Try to get it out of your system, and think about viable candidates for 2028.

Pretty sure it's fair to say the average American voter IQ is much less than it was 20 or 30 years ago considering we've elected Trump, Biden, Trump in the past three elections. Nothing wrong with acknowledging this stupidity and trying to deal with it in advance of 2028 so that another Trump or Biden isn't elected.

Pretty sure you have no data to support your sweeping statement.

NP..check out Gallup. 54% of Americans ages 16-72 have under a sixth grade literacy rate. We've become the stupidest country of the free world.

Please link the Gallup study. My Google search returned the National Literacy Institute. By the way, it also said most of those with below sixth grade level literacy are foreign born, so I'm not sure this is the critique against American intelligence that you think it is.

Link: https://www.apmresearchlab.org/10x-adult-literacy

There have always been a high percentage of illiterate people in this country yet we've for the most part been able to elect fit, qualified, and worthy presidents up until recently. Being illiterate doesn't necessarily guarantee someone to be clueless and careless when it comes to politics and government.

Stupidity and carelessness are likely reasons why Americans elected Trump and Biden. Illiteracy is less likely to be a primary reason.

I love all of these people trying to dismiss the importance of low literacy rates in electing Trump. If people weren't so poorly educated, they wouldn't be so susceptible to voting against their self interests. Remember Trump said from the onset of his first run that he " loved the uneducated ". We have to own that America is majority stupid.

That’s why he wants to eliminate the Dept of Education. People are in favor of it too because they love bread and circuses.

Canada doesn't have a federal department of education. And yet they consistently have higher academic scores for reading, math, science literacy, etc.

There are many ways of doing things. Interestingly, the same people on this thread who think the US is bombing educationally also believe we should keep doing it the same way, and are outraged by the concept of moving this to the state and locals, where students may be better served than they are under the current structure.

+100000

I'm a liberal democrat but this. I mean things are clearly not working. Not sure how people believe our current govt works effectively? Man, we need overhauling for sure. Like all of it. Not suggesting Trump is the right leader of this effort but at least he's admitting change is needed.

Exactly. States are supposed to be the laboratories of Democracy. Let the states innovate and other states can follow the successful models if they want.

Lots of states are in the business of killing women now. Lest you forget, we are the UNITED States. Basic rights should be guaranteed. You do know that states said in federal filings they wanted pregnant teens because it meant more federal $$ for the states. So, no, it shouldn’t be up to the states. Unless you like serfdom.

Kamala Harris lost because she said things as stupid as this.

People don’t like it when women use their voices.

There is only one party that came up with both Karen and TERF in response to women using their voices.

And it wasn’t republicans.