Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was Kamala. Kamala was the wrong pick. Michelle Obama could’ve won if she’d ran. Kamala lacks depth and personality.

This!! I’ve been screaming this since August. The problem was Kamala, she wasn’t ready and was too nervous and flip flopped too much. And Walz was just….there? That’s all I can say about him.

If we had a Michele Obama and Pete Buttigieg ticket, they would’ve easily won imo.

Yeah ok keep dreaming. That is what is wrong with you people. Pick someone with good policy not just because of skin color, gender, gay.

I think the winner of the election was picked based on skin color and gender.

Bless your heart. Obama beat the crap out Romney in counties in Michigan that Harris lost or barely won. Obama won Indiana! Try again.

And somehow you don't realize that Trump and everything that came afterward was a direct reaction to Obama. Obama winning doesn't mean it's possible for another black candidate to win, it meant the underbelly of this country woke up (pun intended) and will do anything to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Anonymous wrote:Was he the wrong vp pick?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was a lightweight. His folksy schtick on 60 Minutes wasn’t even cute. I don’t think he hurt her but he definitely didn’t help.

PA was always a must win state. Why they didn’t pick Josh Shapiro as VP was baffling.

They lost WI and MI, Shapiro would not have helped there. Walz was fine, a little out of his depth and didn't do so well under pressure, but he wasn't a hue problem. A weak candidate who could not articulate a clear policy platform was the primary problem, and the majority's perception that the country has moved too far left on immigration and other issues. Harris tried to thread the needle with too many constituencies, which made her seem weak and wishy washy. A strong, articulate moderate who made a point of putting Biden in the rearview, and who always kept the focus on the bread and butter issues American care about, could have won.

It’s rare to find such reasonable takes on here. Good job.

Agree. Both candidates were terrible.
Its sad. Terrible choice to make between two extremes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was a lightweight. His folksy schtick on 60 Minutes wasn’t even cute. I don’t think he hurt her but he definitely didn’t help.

PA was always a must win state. Why they didn’t pick Josh Shapiro as VP was baffling.

They lost WI and MI, Shapiro would not have helped there. Walz was fine, a little out of his depth and didn't do so well under pressure, but he wasn't a hue problem. A weak candidate who could not articulate a clear policy platform was the primary problem, and the majority's perception that the country has moved too far left on immigration and other issues. Harris tried to thread the needle with too many constituencies, which made her seem weak and wishy washy. A strong, articulate moderate who made a point of putting Biden in the rearview, and who always kept the focus on the bread and butter issues American care about, could have won.

It’s rare to find such reasonable takes on here. Good job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks are tired of the elites. Enough of Obamas, Clintons, Hollywood and Fake News. It’s over.

This is interesting to me because a born-rich Wharton grad and a Yalie just beat two people with no Ivy League credentials. Walz was a school teacher who attended State schools and served in the Guard. Harris went to USF for law school and worked her way up in the prosecutors office. Neither grew up wealthy. They aren't elite.

I actually think Americans LOVE elites and are suspicious of people who don't have elite backgrounds. They want an elite who is folksy and doesn't feel like he's (and he's got to be a he) condescending to them. GW Bush or Clinton. Obama managed to do this despite initially being too slick, through disciplining his public image and utilizing oratory skill. Trump did it by being gross and flooding the zone (literally he just says things over and over until people believe them). But you need to start with the Ivy League education and elite resume and then dumb it down. You can't do the reverse. People won't believe you (especially if you're a woman or not white).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was Kamala. Kamala was the wrong pick. Michelle Obama could’ve won if she’d ran. Kamala lacks depth and personality.

This!! I’ve been screaming this since August. The problem was Kamala, she wasn’t ready and was too nervous and flip flopped too much. And Walz was just….there? That’s all I can say about him.

If we had a Michele Obama and Pete Buttigieg ticket, they would’ve easily won imo.

Yeah ok keep dreaming. That is what is wrong with you people. Pick someone with good policy not just because of skin color, gender, gay.

I think the winner of the election was picked based on skin color and gender.

Bless your heart. Obama beat the crap out Romney in counties in Michigan that Harris lost or barely won. Obama won Indiana! Try again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was a lightweight. His folksy schtick on 60 Minutes wasn’t even cute. I don’t think he hurt her but he definitely didn’t help.

PA was always a must win state. Why they didn’t pick Josh Shapiro as VP was baffling.

They lost WI and MI, Shapiro would not have helped there. Walz was fine, a little out of his depth and didn't do so well under pressure, but he wasn't a hue problem. A weak candidate who could not articulate a clear policy platform was the primary problem, and the majority's perception that the country has moved too far left on immigration and other issues. Harris tried to thread the needle with too many constituencies, which made her seem weak and wishy washy. A strong, articulate moderate who made a point of putting Biden in the rearview, and who always kept the focus on the bread and butter issues American care about, could have won.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. This was a choice between good and evil. All other considerations were secondary.

I'm deeply ashamed of my country today.

This!!

Jesus Christ as the VP wouldn’t have helped. Evil won.

Democrats: evil won!

Also democrats: why won’t those evil people vote for us?

The antichrist is seductive.

Read your Bible

Jesus was concerned about His Father’s kingdom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously.

Shapiro would have campaigned better but the Dems miscalculated what would resonate or alienate by assuming more voters would hate the popular governor from a swing state because he’s Jewish.

Next time let’s pick dynamic candidates from swing states.

But would have securing only Pennsylvania be the difference between winning and losing? I don't think this would have moved the needle enough.

He would have hurt with Muslim voters in MI. There was no winning here, because the top of the ticket was weak. Period.

Michigan looks like it is going red anyway.

Anonymous wrote:Was he the wrong vp pick?