Why does everyone think Kamala was such a bad candidate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“everyone” does not think that Kamala was a terrible candidate. She was dealt a difficult hand of a 100 day candidacy while being the vice president of an unpopular president in a country in the mood for change. Kamala did well given the circumstances, and despite Trump’s attempts to spin this as a landslide election, it was in reality very close in both the popular vote and most swing states

And that is driving Jamie Raskin crazy. I wish he would stop yammering about this at every congressional hearing in which he is involved. Almost as silly as Hakim Jeffries referring on the floor to the "violent MAGA Republicans" or his adjective du jour.

They are making me doubt there sexuality as they are acting likely pissy tween mean girls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“everyone” does not think that Kamala was a terrible candidate. She was dealt a difficult hand of a 100 day candidacy while being the vice president of an unpopular president in a country in the mood for change. Kamala did well given the circumstances, and despite Trump’s attempts to spin this as a landslide election, it was in reality very close in both the popular vote and most swing states

But it does seem to be the growing and accepted opinion among Democrats that Kamala did a poor job.

Well she did lose to a felon predator with dementia so what do you expect flowers and roses? But please cite data that Democrats think Kamala did a poor job -rather than just stating you opinion as fact

Please cite data that Trump has dementia. Just because you had your mommy locked up in a memory care ward because she correctly told you that your kids were brats does not make you an expert on dementia.

[Anonymous]

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.

LOLOLOL. She varied between sounding drunk or like a kindergarten teacher.

[Anonymous]

For me it was the fact that she couldn’t think of a single thing she’d do differently. I work on immigration programs in an administrative role (not law enforcement) but could still “see” with my own eyes how the Biden administration had totally wrecked programs meant for asylum and humanitarian parole, just to import more impoverished people. Why they were obsessed with this, I do not know, because it was not the Democrat party of the Obama years or the sort of thing Schumer would have supported 15 or 20 years ago.

I disagree with Trump on many domestic social things, but I am looking forward to the wall and the deportations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who think she interviews well are delusional. Her terrible interviews doomed her 2020 primary campaign. She knows little about policy and doesn’t care much for it (unlike basically everyone else who has ever run for president), making her unable to articulate what she’d actually do in office.

Other than…the person who just won his second term.

Trump has consistently advocated for building a wall, deporting illegals, using tariffs to protect American jobs, and so on. That’s far more than we heard from Kamala, who refused to even take positions on difficult issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On another thread I warned last year Biden would lose, and six months ago that Harris was the wrong pick. She had a chance - she surprised everyone at the first Trump debate, then apathy took over.
1. The Dem Party is out of touch. After Harris, it's clear they have no leadership in touch with America. They should've shifted to strong against illegal immigration as a starter. Americans want law-abiding citizens, not law-breakers importing the issues from their own countries into this one. Period. That anger alone was enough to dethrone Harris. The icing on the cake was ActBlue spamming for money, probably pissing off people out of work or trying to make ends meet.
2. Appeal as a Leader for Change. When she had the chance to distinguish herself after the first debate, she didn't distance herself from Biden's policies. Her abortion and Ukraine stance was good, but that's it. She had the Marie Antoinette vibe on Israel, immigration, border, jobs, economy, and especially on working class struggling to make ends meet. She had no new ideas worth a "s". Trump's 'cut Government' policies are already showing mass appeal. See where this is going?
3. Appeal to Intellectuals. To me, she thinks she's an intellectual, but academically, she's meh. Her only real job experience was as a prosecutor. Good, but not great since her Foreign Policy background was meh. She's no PhD or rocket scientist and not super-rich. Humble versus arrogant would've been a better approach. If she wasn't bright enough to read the room and formulate new policies to help American workers, why didn't she team up with someone who could? A smart move would've been to announce an all-star cabinet before the election with fresh ideas.
4. Appeal on Race. When others portrayed her as playing the 'race card', she ran off to do her "victory speech" at her Historically Black College / University. Rightly or wrongly, this portrayed her as encamped in racist ideals and devisive; reinforcing that she had a hidden agenda to promote Black politics. Of course, Harris supporters would allege this is 'racist', but guess what - now they have to live with a President who won't be sympathetic at all. Congratulations. You helped elect Trump into office by prioritizing Black politics over unifying the country regardless of race.
5. Appeal on VP pick. A high-energy, younger, white, male, Republican strong on border security would've been the ideal pick. Again, Harris and the Democratic Party picked who they thought was 'safe' with Harris, not edgy.
6. Root-cause-analysis. Both the Dems and MAGA have issues. The American public doesn't really want either. I see Trump's election as a protest vote against status-quo, not really that most want Trump. Also, don't discount the Foreign Influence factor. I believe the Russians are far more entrenched in US politics than anyone believes. Since Biden didn't do much about it (didn't shut down the Russian embassy and consulates, waited to the last minute to eject RT, didn't raise awareness by discussing it openly, etc.), inaction led to greater influence. Now Trump will likely suppress any semblence of free press reporting, allowing Russia or other countries to engage openly in influence operations.

Again, congratulations Democrats. You are helping to dismantle US democracy. But if you don't believe what's written above, that's fine. Keep hiding your head in the sand.

You sound like a MAGA idiot LARP’ing as an I-told-you-so Monday Morning Quarterback and literally everything you say is wrong. Like 100% of it, is 100% WRONG.

[Anonymous]

She was the perfect candidate for the democratic party and their identity politics. They ran a DEI candidate and it showed, so they lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Trump and I watched her concession speech on that Wednesday. I think it was the best speech I’ve ever seen her give. She was relaxed, she looked….happy?……… She sounded confident and assured. If the Kamala Harris that gave THAT speech would’ve been the Kamala Harris on the campaign trail, I really think she might’ve pulled it off.

She hid her best self during the campaign, presumably following the advice of campaign managers and consultants. She should’ve just been herself instead.

Please. Spare us. There is no way you would vote for vice president Harris.

I didn’t imply anywhere in my post that I would’ve changed my vote to her. I’m a Trump supporter, period. I NEVER said she would’ve changed my mind. I was voting for Trump, for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with her. I didn’t vote against Kamala - I voted for Trump.

What I said was that I thought she might’ve swayed enough uncommitted/undecided voters if she’d been more like the Kamala giving the concession speech than the Kamala of the campaign.

Your lack of reading comprehension is the problem here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For me it was the fact that she couldn’t think of a single thing she’d do differently. I work on immigration programs in an administrative role (not law enforcement) but could still “see” with my own eyes how the Biden administration had totally wrecked programs meant for asylum and humanitarian parole, just to import more impoverished people. Why they were obsessed with this, I do not know, because it was not the Democrat party of the Obama years or the sort of thing Schumer would have supported 15 or 20 years ago.

I disagree with Trump on many domestic social things, but I am looking forward to the wall and the deportations.

The "wall" is a fanciful idea. Most of what's there now is more like a fence and the chances of there ever being a wall covering the whole US Mexican border are very slim. The wall will have to cover over 1900 miles. Currently in parts, it covers 650 miles. There's a long way to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Trump and I watched her concession speech on that Wednesday. I think it was the best speech I’ve ever seen her give. She was relaxed, she looked….happy?……… She sounded confident and assured. If the Kamala Harris that gave THAT speech would’ve been the Kamala Harris on the campaign trail, I really think she might’ve pulled it off.

She hid her best self during the campaign, presumably following the advice of campaign managers and consultants. She should’ve just been herself instead.

Please. Spare us. There is no way you would vote for vice president Harris.

I didn’t imply anywhere in my post that I would’ve changed my vote to her. I’m a Trump supporter, period. I NEVER said she would’ve changed my mind. I was voting for Trump, for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with her. I didn’t vote against Kamala - I voted for Trump.

What I said was that I thought she might’ve swayed enough uncommitted/undecided voters if she’d been more like the Kamala giving the concession speech than the Kamala of the campaign.

Your lack of reading comprehension is the problem here.

Hilarious that someone who voted for Trump is criticizing anyone else’s reading comprehension as if you are some bastion of intelligence.

Why should anyone care what you have to say at all.

[Anonymous]

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.

Ha. No.

And "coming from someone who voted for Trump?" Sure. How hard was it for you to type that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On another thread I warned last year Biden would lose, and six months ago that Harris was the wrong pick. She had a chance - she surprised everyone at the first Trump debate, then apathy took over.
1. The Dem Party is out of touch. After Harris, it's clear they have no leadership in touch with America. They should've shifted to strong against illegal immigration as a starter. Americans want law-abiding citizens, not law-breakers importing the issues from their own countries into this one. Period. That anger alone was enough to dethrone Harris. The icing on the cake was ActBlue spamming for money, probably pissing off people out of work or trying to make ends meet.
2. Appeal as a Leader for Change. When she had the chance to distinguish herself after the first debate, she didn't distance herself from Biden's policies. Her abortion and Ukraine stance was good, but that's it. She had the Marie Antoinette vibe on Israel, immigration, border, jobs, economy, and especially on working class struggling to make ends meet. She had no new ideas worth a "s". Trump's 'cut Government' policies are already showing mass appeal. See where this is going?
3. Appeal to Intellectuals. To me, she thinks she's an intellectual, but academically, she's meh. Her only real job experience was as a prosecutor. Good, but not great since her Foreign Policy background was meh. She's no PhD or rocket scientist and not super-rich. Humble versus arrogant would've been a better approach. If she wasn't bright enough to read the room and formulate new policies to help American workers, why didn't she team up with someone who could? A smart move would've been to announce an all-star cabinet before the election with fresh ideas.
4. Appeal on Race. When others portrayed her as playing the 'race card', she ran off to do her "victory speech" at her Historically Black College / University. Rightly or wrongly, this portrayed her as encamped in racist ideals and devisive; reinforcing that she had a hidden agenda to promote Black politics. Of course, Harris supporters would allege this is 'racist', but guess what - now they have to live with a President who won't be sympathetic at all. Congratulations. You helped elect Trump into office by prioritizing Black politics over unifying the country regardless of race.
5. Appeal on VP pick. A high-energy, younger, white, male, Republican strong on border security would've been the ideal pick. Again, Harris and the Democratic Party picked who they thought was 'safe' with Harris, not edgy.
6. Root-cause-analysis. Both the Dems and MAGA have issues. The American public doesn't really want either. I see Trump's election as a protest vote against status-quo, not really that most want Trump. Also, don't discount the Foreign Influence factor. I believe the Russians are far more entrenched in US politics than anyone believes. Since Biden didn't do much about it (didn't shut down the Russian embassy and consulates, waited to the last minute to eject RT, didn't raise awareness by discussing it openly, etc.), inaction led to greater influence. Now Trump will likely suppress any semblence of free press reporting, allowing Russia or other countries to engage openly in influence operations.

Again, congratulations Democrats. You are helping to dismantle US democracy. But if you don't believe what's written above, that's fine. Keep hiding your head in the sand.

This is a very good summary, except for perhaps number 6. Many of us really did want Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me it was the fact that she couldn’t think of a single thing she’d do differently. I work on immigration programs in an administrative role (not law enforcement) but could still “see” with my own eyes how the Biden administration had totally wrecked programs meant for asylum and humanitarian parole, just to import more impoverished people. Why they were obsessed with this, I do not know, because it was not the Democrat party of the Obama years or the sort of thing Schumer would have supported 15 or 20 years ago.

I disagree with Trump on many domestic social things, but I am looking forward to the wall and the deportations.

The "wall" is a fanciful idea. Most of what's there now is more like a fence and the chances of there ever being a wall covering the whole US Mexican border are very slim. The wall will have to cover over 1900 miles. Currently in parts, it covers 650 miles. There's a long way to go.

That’s ok. They built a lot, can build more, and can repair a lot of what’s been there for years but has become dilapidated. Even the shorter razor wire stuff being put up by Texas slows people down and allows officers to get there and deter entry. Also when I think “wall” I also think of a combination of physical structures, plus - until more structure can be built - a lot of drone surveillance, and more men / horses / ATVs / dogs.

I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Africa when I was young, then did a lot of other work in the developing world on other continents, and came away understanding that we have to be firm on countries making themselves more stable and prosperous by embracing democracy and free-market capitalism. The young men of those countries need to stay where they are and fight (figuratively, and literally if needed) to overthrow the dictators that have remained as head of state for decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Trump and I watched her concession speech on that Wednesday. I think it was the best speech I’ve ever seen her give. She was relaxed, she looked….happy?……… She sounded confident and assured. If the Kamala Harris that gave THAT speech would’ve been the Kamala Harris on the campaign trail, I really think she might’ve pulled it off.

She hid her best self during the campaign, presumably following the advice of campaign managers and consultants. She should’ve just been herself instead.

Please. Spare us. There is no way you would vote for vice president Harris.

I didn’t imply anywhere in my post that I would’ve changed my vote to her. I’m a Trump supporter, period. I NEVER said she would’ve changed my mind. I was voting for Trump, for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with her. I didn’t vote against Kamala - I voted for Trump.

What I said was that I thought she might’ve swayed enough uncommitted/undecided voters if she’d been more like the Kamala giving the concession speech than the Kamala of the campaign.

Your lack of reading comprehension is the problem here.

Why do you keep calling vice president Harris 'Kamala' and not Trump 'Donald'? Also, the election is over why are you harping on the past?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Trump and I watched her concession speech on that Wednesday. I think it was the best speech I’ve ever seen her give. She was relaxed, she looked….happy?……… She sounded confident and assured. If the Kamala Harris that gave THAT speech would’ve been the Kamala Harris on the campaign trail, I really think she might’ve pulled it off.

She hid her best self during the campaign, presumably following the advice of campaign managers and consultants. She should’ve just been herself instead.

Please. Spare us. There is no way you would vote for vice president Harris.

I didn’t imply anywhere in my post that I would’ve changed my vote to her. I’m a Trump supporter, period. I NEVER said she would’ve changed my mind. I was voting for Trump, for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with her. I didn’t vote against Kamala - I voted for Trump.

What I said was that I thought she might’ve swayed enough uncommitted/undecided voters if she’d been more like the Kamala giving the concession speech than the Kamala of the campaign.

Your lack of reading comprehension is the problem here.

Why do you keep calling vice president Harris 'Kamala' and not Trump 'Donald'? Also, the election is over why are you harping on the past?

We’ve been over this several times on this board. People call politicians by their most identifiable names. Kamala is very unique. So is Trump. Harris less so. It’s why we can him Clinton not Bill.