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

[Anonymous]

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?

still didnt get voted for. thats not how democracy works.

[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?

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.

Just imagine how bad the other guy must be, that she's beating him in the general.

She is neck and neck with a felon. That isn't the flex you seem to think it is. Her popularity is clearly manufactured. And finally, popular vote doesn't win the presidency.

[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?

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.

Just imagine how bad the other guy must be, that she's beating him in the general.

She is neck and neck with a felon. That isn't the flex you seem to think it is. Her popularity is clearly manufactured. And finally, popular vote doesn't win the presidency.

haha thats funny, to be neck and neck with a felon? says a lot about the candidate on the other side...please I understand the banter but it doesnt work only one way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Harris was actually being smart and strategic she should be out there doing interviews and appearing on various podcasts like Trump has been doing. By doing so she would reach a wider range of audience especially the younger demographic. Trump recently did interviews with Dr. Phil, Theo
Von and Shawn Ryan. Instead the only interview she will be doing as of now is one pre taped edited interview with CNN. This makes her look weak and not confident in herself or whatever her proposed policies may be for the country.

Her handlers fear what she may say and do in a live, unscripted solo interview.
Not worth the risk. And, that in itself speaks volumes.

5 pages this morning with MAGA throwing out any 💩 trying to make it stick to Harris. And, that in itself speaks volumes.

DP - People can think it's a weak move and not be MAGA. This is Harris' time to instill us with confidence in her ability to lead.

[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?

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.

Just imagine how bad the other guy must be, that she's beating him in the general.

She is neck and neck with a felon. That isn't the flex you seem to think it is. Her popularity is clearly manufactured. And finally, popular vote doesn't win the presidency.

She is doing really really well. Just look at the VP choice decision between the two campaigns.

Her decision was wise. Walz is an asset to her campaign and to the country. Trump's decision is dragging him down and dragging the country down. Does this country really need more attacks on women? Vance is awful.

[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?

Who cares? She'll be the first black female president and she's not Trump. Isn't that really all that matters?

No, actually that isn't enough. She said flat out in a taped interview said that she would do nothing for Black Americans. This was in a question asked by a reporter with the Root in regard to reparations. There are clips of this if you search. At least she's not even promising anything to <b>you</b> this time.

That single word speaks volumes.

What point are you trying to make? She has taken up issues for specific groups before and I expect her to do that if she becomes president as well. PP said it should be enough that she is black. Why would that be enough to vote for her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes I do. Do you? More importantly, do you know how Congress works.

[Anonymous]

Does this mean this real estate owner will get a $390 million refund (39%) from the IRS for the $1 billion loss in value?

[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?

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.

Just imagine how bad the other guy must be, that she's beating him in the general.

She is neck and neck with a felon. That isn't the flex you seem to think it is. Her popularity is clearly manufactured. And finally, popular vote doesn't win the presidency.

She is doing really really well. Just look at the VP choice decision between the two campaigns.

Her decision was wise. Walz is an asset to her campaign and to the country. Trump's decision is dragging him down and dragging the country down. Does this country really need more attacks on women? Vance is awful.

You are giving emotion based responses. Every poll is close. The numbers are what matters.

I strongly suspect once she begins live interviews and putting out policy specifics there's going to be a shift.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes I do. Do you? More importantly, do you know how Congress works.

Of course, any law passed by Congress can be ruled unconstitutional by The Supreme Court. Unless you're talking about Congress passing a Constitutional amendment, which is very difficult and unlikely. Your turn.

[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?

still didnt get voted for. thats not how democracy works.

You are so dense. What part of the democratic party nomination process was violated? Nothing.

I don't know what the rules are for the GOP process but you should look at them and see if anything can still be done to try to salvage the current disaster that is the trump Vance campaign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Rad again. What Pence brought to the ticket was the evangelical vote. And you lie or are being very disingenuous when you say a Senator and former attorney general of the largest state in the union has no accomplishments. Shucks, Pence was a failing governor and was not going to get re-elected when Trump tapped him to legitimize Trump with the religious right. You know with all that grabbing them by the puzzy, adultery, idolatry and what not. Or maybe you’re just one of those people who think men can be just barely, but women have to be beyond super human. GTFOH with your misogyny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes I do. Do you? More importantly, do you know how Congress works.

Of course, any law passed by Congress can be ruled unconstitutional by The Supreme Court. Unless you're talking about Congress passing a Constitutional amendment, which is very difficult and unlikely. Your turn.

Previous decisions made by the court can be revisited and changed as every single American woman is well aware. Change the court and you get a different decision.

[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: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.

So why do we even have a primary if the party is going to decide regardless of my vote?

You know what? You don’t even have to go to a library to educate yourself anymore.

Read! Think!!

If you know the answer, why can’t you educate me? I’m trying to learn something here.

Please go back to class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Haha . Well that's all well and good, but those people all went to Yale and Berkeley. C'mon, UC Hastings isn't exactly Ivy league now is it?

You’re really clueless and just plain dumb ASF. The Bar Exam doesn’t care if you earned your law degree from Harvard or VCU. All the questions and answers are the same. The obsession on DCUM is frightening.