What happens to Kamala’s momentum now the DNC is over?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:can someone explain to me how in a democracy the dems nominated a person without the actual people voting for her? It just seems odd from the party that screams democracy will be lost if trump wins but the basic idea of democracy is being altered.

Again….(again!) how the party nominates its candidate is not the same thing as whether or not a nation has free and fair elections in which voters can choose between candidates who have been put forward. We can vote for her! Or we can vote for the other guy! Or we can write in someone else entirely! Or we can not vote!

+1. How she got there on the ballot is irrelevant. She's on there now. So make your choice

It is 100% relevant. No one voted to get her on the ballot. You really think that’s OK?

Who cares? She's on the ballot. Deal with it

I cannot imagine the cacophony of millions of Dem heads exploding if the Republicans had pulled a move like this. But for you guys? Totes cool!

You could not be more wrong. Do it. Convince trump to withdraw and then replace him. The Dems will be fine with that. Totes cool.

Agree! Replace Trump with Haley!! Dump Trump!

Now this I could get behind 100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Kamala giving an interview today?

Tomorrow?

She said before the end of the month.

I know you are trying to make this a thing.

Just so you, I am not worried. She is a candidate that keeps her word and pays attention to details so she would not have made this commitment without planning to meet it.

I realize this is confusing to Trump supporters as he was always promising some sort of plan (e.g. healthcare, infrastructure) in two weeks and that two weeks never came.

Harris will keep her word and she will show up at the debate prepared and she will share more policy details.

The thing is, the vast majority of people calling for these details do not care, they support a candidate that provides no details, flips wherever and whenever is serves his interest.

You are not looking for solutions to the country’s issues, you are looking for sound bites that misconstrue the policies.

She has said what she intends to do and that she is pragmatic and will govern with common sense.

Everything else is MAGA flailing for a sound bite.

Exactly.

The fact that she has given you nothing but feels and you're running with this whole narrative of "she is pragmatic and will govern with common sense" means you either are her campaign worker or as simple as you make Trump voters out to be. What specific initiative has she delivered on while VP that supports your claim of how she will govern and keep her promises?

What specific initiative did Pence deliver while VP?

VP roles are largely behind the scenes, and for the most part, just being prepared to step in if the president is incapacitated.

No one was running around touting him as someone who delivers based on being VP either. That is the point. You have absolutely nothing to base your statements about her leadership on other than feels.

Yes they were. When Pence was nominated as VP, this board and beyond were screaming that Pence would bring the evangelical base around for Trump, and he did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:can someone explain to me how in a democracy the dems nominated a person without the actual people voting for her? It just seems odd from the party that screams democracy will be lost if trump wins but the basic idea of democracy is being altered.

Again….(again!) how the party nominates its candidate is not the same thing as whether or not a nation has free and fair elections in which voters can choose between candidates who have been put forward. We can vote for her! Or we can vote for the other guy! Or we can write in someone else entirely! Or we can not vote!

+1. How she got there on the ballot is irrelevant. She's on there now. So make your choice

It is 100% relevant. No one voted to get her on the ballot. You really think that’s OK?

Who cares? She's on the ballot. Deal with it

I cannot imagine the cacophony of millions of Dem heads exploding if the Republicans had pulled a move like this. But for you guys? Totes cool!

B.S. You must not recall the heads exploding over whether Obama was actually an American born citizen. I even think some lawsuits were filed.
For me it was irrelevant because he did get on the ballot, and when I went to vote, I had two choices -- just like we do now

Wasn’t he democratically elected to the ballot? Or did the Dems just say “here’s your candidate!”?

I think you need to familiarize yourself with the nomination process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:can someone explain to me how in a democracy the dems nominated a person without the actual people voting for her? It just seems odd from the party that screams democracy will be lost if trump wins but the basic idea of democracy is being altered.

Again….(again!) how the party nominates its candidate is not the same thing as whether or not a nation has free and fair elections in which voters can choose between candidates who have been put forward. We can vote for her! Or we can vote for the other guy! Or we can write in someone else entirely! Or we can not vote!

+1. How she got there on the ballot is irrelevant. She's on there now. So make your choice

It is 100% relevant. No one voted to get her on the ballot. You really think that’s OK?

Who cares? She's on the ballot. Deal with it

I cannot imagine the cacophony of millions of Dem heads exploding if the Republicans had pulled a move like this. But for you guys? Totes cool!

You could not be more wrong. Do it. Convince trump to withdraw and then replace him. The Dems will be fine with that. Totes cool.

Yes, I’d be fine with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:can someone explain to me how in a democracy the dems nominated a person without the actual people voting for her? It just seems odd from the party that screams democracy will be lost if trump wins but the basic idea of democracy is being altered.

Again….(again!) how the party nominates its candidate is not the same thing as whether or not a nation has free and fair elections in which voters can choose between candidates who have been put forward. We can vote for her! Or we can vote for the other guy! Or we can write in someone else entirely! Or we can not vote!

+1. How she got there on the ballot is irrelevant. She's on there now. So make your choice

It is 100% relevant. No one voted to get her on the ballot. You really think that’s OK?

She has enormous support. Are you paying attention at all?

Hahaha. She has enormous support because she’s the only option against Trump. If people loved her that much why did she tank in the primaries?

And her favorability ranged from 16%-30% during her time as VP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:can someone explain to me how in a democracy the dems nominated a person without the actual people voting for her? It just seems odd from the party that screams democracy will be lost if trump wins but the basic idea of democracy is being altered.

Again….(again!) how the party nominates its candidate is not the same thing as whether or not a nation has free and fair elections in which voters can choose between candidates who have been put forward. We can vote for her! Or we can vote for the other guy! Or we can write in someone else entirely! Or we can not vote!

+1. How she got there on the ballot is irrelevant. She's on there now. So make your choice

It is 100% relevant. No one voted to get her on the ballot. You really think that’s OK?

Who cares? She's on the ballot. Deal with it

I cannot imagine the cacophony of millions of Dem heads exploding if the Republicans had pulled a move like this. But for you guys? Totes cool!

B.S. You must not recall the heads exploding over whether Obama was actually an American born citizen. I even think some lawsuits were filed.
For me it was irrelevant because he did get on the ballot, and when I went to vote, I had two choices -- just like we do now

Wasn’t he democratically elected to the ballot? Or did the Dems just say “here’s your candidate!”?

I think you need to familiarize yourself with the nomination process.

Enlighten me please

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And women keep registering to vote.

https://www.nj.com/politics/2024/08/massive-175-increase-in-voter-registration-among-this-group-you-just-dont-see-this.html

Keep calling her an idiot….women have experienced this in work environment forever.

Belittled, man ‘splained, gaslighting, idea grabbing - women know this all well. We have learned that complaining doesn’t work - working harder and smarter works. Showing who you are and not being defined by colleagues - wins in the work place.

So keep call her names and whispering she’s not up for it. When she has an entire career of wining local, state, and national elections. What track record do you have on the GOP ticket?

Let’s take our future and our daughters’ future into our own hands (looking at you girl dads). And as Gov Whitmer says women get “stuff” done.

GOTV!
Let’s get this done!

Fair enough. Bit I still keep wondering why white women didn't go for Hilary in 2016. So why is Kamala going to do better with this all-important demographic?

In a word, Dobbs.

?? Neither Harris nor Trump is going to be able to change Dobbs. So that makes no sense

The Dobbs decision told us that nothing is settled law. This SC is willing to overrule long standing legal precedent. Justice Thomas is on the record as wanting to overturn even more important decisions. In his concurring opinion on Dobbs, he wrote that the Justices “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell”. If Griswold falls, the right to contraception without interference from the government goes away.

Trump has already appointed 3 justices to the SC, and might have the opportunity to appoint 3 more during his term. Scalia and Thomas could retire, and Sotomayor’s health is not great. The conservative court could have impact on not only our lives, but that of our children and their children.

Scalia is dead. I think you meant Alito, but that creep will die in office. I agree with everything you said. And although Thomas conveniently left out Loving v Virginia, that was also a right to privacy along the same vein as the other cases. So a Roberts court is willing to revisit contraception rights, interracial marriage and same sex marriage to leave it up to the states. We as a nation should be moving forward and not regressing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She was CA AG and got the huge mortgage settlement. Other states were caving to big banks and going to accept a smaller settlement - she didn’t blink.

As goes California so does the rest of the nation. Homeowners screwed by banks all over the nation benefited from AG Harris work.

And she was CA AG when Beau Biden was DE AG - where all those f:::ing banks are incorporated. You don’t think AG Biden didn’t tell VP Biden about AG Harris’ negotiating skills and will of steel. He sure the f did. That’s how she ended up as VP Harris.

Debate….bring it.

Really? The only President from California in recent memory was Ronald Reagan, and Kamala ain't no Reagan on any level

Thank God for that. Reagan was a disaster with his trickle down economics, drug trafficking and IRAN contra dealings. And don’t get me started on his just say no and amnesty for all immigration.

He was an incredibly popular two -term president who will go down as one of the truly greatest president of the 20th Century. And just to be fair, I also think Bill Clinton was a political giant too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:can someone explain to me how in a democracy the dems nominated a person without the actual people voting for her? It just seems odd from the party that screams democracy will be lost if trump wins but the basic idea of democracy is being altered.

Again….(again!) how the party nominates its candidate is not the same thing as whether or not a nation has free and fair elections in which voters can choose between candidates who have been put forward. We can vote for her! Or we can vote for the other guy! Or we can write in someone else entirely! Or we can not vote!

+1. How she got there on the ballot is irrelevant. She's on there now. So make your choice

It is 100% relevant. No one voted to get her on the ballot. You really think that’s OK?

Who cares? She's on the ballot. Deal with it

I cannot imagine the cacophony of millions of Dem heads exploding if the Republicans had pulled a move like this. But for you guys? Totes cool!

B.S. You must not recall the heads exploding over whether Obama was actually an American born citizen. I even think some lawsuits were filed.
For me it was irrelevant because he did get on the ballot, and when I went to vote, I had two choices -- just like we do now

Wasn’t he democratically elected to the ballot? Or did the Dems just say “here’s your candidate!”?

I think you need to familiarize yourself with the nomination process.

Enlighten me please

I am no delegate wizard but if you want to look at how to successfully turn around a challenging situation, watch the democrats. They have gone from flailing to domination in a very short time. It's exciting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And women keep registering to vote.

https://www.nj.com/politics/2024/08/massive-175-increase-in-voter-registration-among-this-group-you-just-dont-see-this.html

Keep calling her an idiot….women have experienced this in work environment forever.

Belittled, man ‘splained, gaslighting, idea grabbing - women know this all well. We have learned that complaining doesn’t work - working harder and smarter works. Showing who you are and not being defined by colleagues - wins in the work place.

So keep call her names and whispering she’s not up for it. When she has an entire career of wining local, state, and national elections. What track record do you have on the GOP ticket?

Let’s take our future and our daughters’ future into our own hands (looking at you girl dads). And as Gov Whitmer says women get “stuff” done.

GOTV!
Let’s get this done!

Fair enough. Bit I still keep wondering why white women didn't go for Hilary in 2016. So why is Kamala going to do better with this all-important demographic?

In a word, Dobbs.

?? Neither Harris nor Trump is going to be able to change Dobbs. So that makes no sense

Wrong
If either get a controlling Congress, they can codify abortion rights, or lack thereof into law.

?? Do you understand how the Supreme Court works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Kamala giving an interview today?

Tomorrow?

She said before the end of the month.

I know you are trying to make this a thing.

Just so you, I am not worried. She is a candidate that keeps her word and pays attention to details so she would not have made this commitment without planning to meet it.

I realize this is confusing to Trump supporters as he was always promising some sort of plan (e.g. healthcare, infrastructure) in two weeks and that two weeks never came.

Harris will keep her word and she will show up at the debate prepared and she will share more policy details.

The thing is, the vast majority of people calling for these details do not care, they support a candidate that provides no details, flips wherever and whenever is serves his interest.

You are not looking for solutions to the country’s issues, you are looking for sound bites that misconstrue the policies.

She has said what she intends to do and that she is pragmatic and will govern with common sense.

Everything else is MAGA flailing for a sound bite.

Exactly.

The fact that she has given you nothing but feels and you're running with this whole narrative of "she is pragmatic and will govern with common sense" means you either are her campaign worker or as simple as you make Trump voters out to be. What specific initiative has she delivered on while VP that supports your claim of how she will govern and keep her promises?

What specific initiative did Pence deliver while VP?

VP roles are largely behind the scenes, and for the most part, just being prepared to step in if the president is incapacitated.

No one was running around touting him as someone who delivers based on being VP either. That is the point. You have absolutely nothing to base your statements about her leadership on other than feels.

Yes they were. When Pence was nominated as VP, this board and beyond were screaming that Pence would bring the evangelical base around for Trump, and he did.

Read carefully. No one said anything about his accomplishments as VP. Everything he brought to the ticket before taking office was based on his tenure as governor. Harris has no accomplishments to point to. Just feels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:can someone explain to me how in a democracy the dems nominated a person without the actual people voting for her? It just seems odd from the party that screams democracy will be lost if trump wins but the basic idea of democracy is being altered.

Again….(again!) how the party nominates its candidate is not the same thing as whether or not a nation has free and fair elections in which voters can choose between candidates who have been put forward. We can vote for her! Or we can vote for the other guy! Or we can write in someone else entirely! Or we can not vote!

+1. How she got there on the ballot is irrelevant. She's on there now. So make your choice

It is 100% relevant. No one voted to get her on the ballot. You really think that’s OK?

Who cares? She's on the ballot. Deal with it

I cannot imagine the cacophony of millions of Dem heads exploding if the Republicans had pulled a move like this. But for you guys? Totes cool!

B.S. You must not recall the heads exploding over whether Obama was actually an American born citizen. I even think some lawsuits were filed.
For me it was irrelevant because he did get on the ballot, and when I went to vote, I had two choices -- just like we do now

Wasn’t he democratically elected to the ballot? Or did the Dems just say “here’s your candidate!”?

I think you need to familiarize yourself with the nomination process.

Enlighten me please

I am no delegate wizard but if you want to look at how to successfully turn around a challenging situation, watch the democrats. They have gone from flailing to domination in a very short time. It's exciting.

The polls don't actually point to domination. I do agree that they have done a great job of making you feel that way

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Kamala giving an interview today?

Tomorrow?

She said before the end of the month.

I know you are trying to make this a thing.

Just so you, I am not worried. She is a candidate that keeps her word and pays attention to details so she would not have made this commitment without planning to meet it.

I realize this is confusing to Trump supporters as he was always promising some sort of plan (e.g. healthcare, infrastructure) in two weeks and that two weeks never came.

Harris will keep her word and she will show up at the debate prepared and she will share more policy details.

The thing is, the vast majority of people calling for these details do not care, they support a candidate that provides no details, flips wherever and whenever is serves his interest.

You are not looking for solutions to the country’s issues, you are looking for sound bites that misconstrue the policies.

She has said what she intends to do and that she is pragmatic and will govern with common sense.

Everything else is MAGA flailing for a sound bite.

Exactly.

+1. She’s obviously smarter, more articulate and more capable of governing than Trump has ever beebn, nor will ever be. Sounding confident is not the same as competence.
There are strategic reasons for including Walz in interviews that have nothing to do with lack of competence to govern with respect to Harris.

She failed the bar exam.

How ignorant are you PP. you cannot be an ADA, DA, or AG without passing the state bar exam. Jeeze. Go back to your Moscow basement.

I am not the pp, but she did flunk it the first time. To be fair though, California's is a tough bar exam. I think this only comes up when comparing her credentials to JD Vance who was on Yale's Law Review. I think she should be judged on her positions and comments made in public appearances (where she doesn't come off sounding real bright to be honest).

So she failed the first time. BFD. FDR, one of the top five US presidents, failed the NY bar first time out. Jerry Brown former California governor and Kathleen Sullivan, former Stanford Law school Dean failed the California bar the first time. And republican governor Pete Wilson failed that bar there or four times before passing. Hilary Clinton flunked the DC bar first time out.

[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:can someone explain to me how in a democracy the dems nominated a person without the actual people voting for her? It just seems odd from the party that screams democracy will be lost if trump wins but the basic idea of democracy is being altered.

Again….(again!) how the party nominates its candidate is not the same thing as whether or not a nation has free and fair elections in which voters can choose between candidates who have been put forward. We can vote for her! Or we can vote for the other guy! Or we can write in someone else entirely! Or we can not vote!

+1. How she got there on the ballot is irrelevant. She's on there now. So make your choice

It is 100% relevant. No one voted to get her on the ballot. You really think that’s OK?

Who cares? She's on the ballot. Deal with it

I cannot imagine the cacophony of millions of Dem heads exploding if the Republicans had pulled a move like this. But for you guys? Totes cool!

B.S. You must not recall the heads exploding over whether Obama was actually an American born citizen. I even think some lawsuits were filed.
For me it was irrelevant because he did get on the ballot, and when I went to vote, I had two choices -- just like we do now

Wasn’t he democratically elected to the ballot? Or did the Dems just say “here’s your candidate!”?

I think you need to familiarize yourself with the nomination process.

Enlighten me please

I am no delegate wizard but if you want to look at how to successfully turn around a challenging situation, watch the democrats. They have gone from flailing to domination in a very short time. It's exciting.

The polls don't actually point to domination. I do agree that they have done a great job of making you feel that way

I want to win because trump is a threat to my family. The Harris campaign seems to know how to do it.

If the GOP is struggling, do something. Not sure if you missed your chance to change up your candidate but if that is still an option, do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:can someone explain to me how in a democracy the dems nominated a person without the actual people voting for her? It just seems odd from the party that screams democracy will be lost if trump wins but the basic idea of democracy is being altered.

Again….(again!) how the party nominates its candidate is not the same thing as whether or not a nation has free and fair elections in which voters can choose between candidates who have been put forward. We can vote for her! Or we can vote for the other guy! Or we can write in someone else entirely! Or we can not vote!

+1. How she got there on the ballot is irrelevant. She's on there now. So make your choice

It is 100% relevant. No one voted to get her on the ballot. You really think that’s OK?

Who cares? She's on the ballot. Deal with it

I cannot imagine the cacophony of millions of Dem heads exploding if the Republicans had pulled a move like this. But for you guys? Totes cool!

B.S. You must not recall the heads exploding over whether Obama was actually an American born citizen. I even think some lawsuits were filed.
For me it was irrelevant because he did get on the ballot, and when I went to vote, I had two choices -- just like we do now

Wasn’t he democratically elected to the ballot? Or did the Dems just say “here’s your candidate!”?

I think you need to familiarize yourself with the nomination process.

Enlighten me please

The parties decide individually how they want to select their nominees.

Read up on U.S. history. Focus on presidential elections in the post WWII era.

The ignorance is disappointing.