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?

Why do you call him “Trump” instead of “President Trump”?

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?

AYFKM?

This ENTIRE thread is about the past election and you’re asking me why I’m “harping in the past?”

Seriously???

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day she only lost by
Less than 400,000 votes (different in the blue wall states.)
The news media is making it seems like she lost like Carter, mccain, Romney or even Trump lost in 2020.
People just didn’t turn out but not a lot has to change.

At the end of the day she lost.

Good candidates don’t win elections.

Dukakis in the tank. Gore with his earth tones. Kerry windsurfing. Harris with her “nothing comes to mind”. All of these moments encapsulating why none of those out of touch people deserved to be President.

The person who doesn’t deserve to be President is the one who had a tantrum over losing the last time.

The libs stole the election and he has the right to be mad about it.

We keep asking for proof and yet you provide none.

Anonymous wrote:She lost because of inflation and immigration. It's that simple. She was fine, but people want change. They.will get it but may not be happy with their choice in 4 years. This is how politics goes.

Actually, It was probably a three-way between pronouns, DEI, and immigration.

I honestly think inflation had little to do with it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t.

Too many idiots listened to RWNJ propaganda.

But the Democrats are fully pushing this narrative that she was a terrible candidate.

A CNN commentator called her a “true double threat” because she could not effectively answer questions thinking on her feet nor did she prepare for expected questions.

She had a great debate, but then “nothing comes to mind” ended her campaign.

But are there any clips of her fumbling a question? I've never seen any, unless you count her answer to the "What would you have done differently?" question on The View, which I think was a very understable response.

She was asked that question repeatedly and didn’t have even a canned response.

Her CNN town hall was just terrible.

How was it terrible? I saw it and thought it was fine.
I think the fact that Trump wouldn't even show up looked far worse.

That’s great. But your opinion wasn’t shared by the American electorate.

How do you know it wasn't?

DP

Obviously because she lost.

But I thought she was a good candidate and I didn't vote for her.
It's quite possible to think someone is a good candidate, but not support their policies.

Anonymous wrote:Let's flip this. Why honestly should I have voted for her? Truthfully? and not because I didn't like the other candidate.

Because she wasn't Trump. That should have been reason enough.

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day she only lost by
Less than 400,000 votes (different in the blue wall states.)
The news media is making it seems like she lost like Carter, mccain, Romney or even Trump lost in 2020.
People just didn’t turn out but not a lot has to change.

But the Republicans also took the House and Senate. That's a definite message the Democrates need to decipher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t.

Too many idiots listened to RWNJ propaganda.

But the Democrats are fully pushing this narrative that she was a terrible candidate.

Dp. Not everyone, pp

To the op, why do you care? Honestly, shouldn't you be out celebrating you Dear Leader's victory? You said yourself there is no one that could get your vote but Trump. I bet even Ronald Reagan would have lost.....

No one on the Democratic ticket that would have gotten my vote.
I would have gladly voted for pretty much anyone else the Republicans put up over Trump.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t.

Too many idiots listened to RWNJ propaganda.

But the Democrats are fully pushing this narrative that she was a terrible candidate.

A CNN commentator called her a “true double threat” because she could not effectively answer questions thinking on her feet nor did she prepare for expected questions.

She had a great debate, but then “nothing comes to mind” ended her campaign.

But are there any clips of her fumbling a question? I've never seen any, unless you count her answer to the "What would you have done differently?" question on The View, which I think was a very understable response.

She was asked that question repeatedly and didn’t have even a canned response.

Her CNN town hall was just terrible.

How was it terrible? I saw it and thought it was fine.
I think the fact that Trump wouldn't even show up looked far worse.

That’s great. But your opinion wasn’t shared by the American electorate.

How do you know it wasn't?

She lost the popular vote to Trump. Clearly many people did not get the impression she was qualified for the job.

She was qualified for the job. She and Hillary don’t have the charisma that the men have that have been winning. There’s just more hate than common sense in this country right now.

Hillary was very knowledgeable but also terrible at campaigning. Very angry. Harris didn't have the knowledge, but her campaining was better.

Harris was an absolutely terrible campaigner. Her campaign stops were ridiculous. She was always late, leaving people waiting for long periods of time and then basically only had about 5-10 minutes of material and then she was done. She also and bizarrely only seemed capable of doing one event per day. When she wasn’t doing events, the campaign would manufacture these bizarre situations to try to humanize her that only made her look even more out of touch. Like stopping in a Wawa for a bag of Doritos and just looking totally lost and not interacting at all with any of the customers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t.

Too many idiots listened to RWNJ propaganda.

But the Democrats are fully pushing this narrative that she was a terrible candidate.

A CNN commentator called her a “true double threat” because she could not effectively answer questions thinking on her feet nor did she prepare for expected questions.

She had a great debate, but then “nothing comes to mind” ended her campaign.

But are there any clips of her fumbling a question? I've never seen any, unless you count her answer to the "What would you have done differently?" question on The View, which I think was a very understable response.

She was asked that question repeatedly and didn’t have even a canned response.

Her CNN town hall was just terrible.

How was it terrible? I saw it and thought it was fine.
I think the fact that Trump wouldn't even show up looked far worse.

That’s great. But your opinion wasn’t shared by the American electorate.

How do you know it wasn't?

Well, Trump is going to be president...

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.

Mainly because she is: 1) a woman, and 2) black.

Adding to that, she was both too progressice and too moderate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because she is a POC women and Americans won’t vote for that - no matter how much more qualified they are than the alternated facts DEI candidate that was elected

I love Winsome Sears and want to see her move up in national politics, but I didn’t vote for a sort of blackish / indianish woman because I hate POCs? Got it. Keep doubling down on that mentality PLEASE.

It will be interesting to see next year if Democrats will be racist and sexist and vote against Winsome Sears.

She was a bad candidate because she picked Walz rather than oppose Jew hatred.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t.

Too many idiots listened to RWNJ propaganda.

But the Democrats are fully pushing this narrative that she was a terrible candidate.

A CNN commentator called her a “true double threat” because she could not effectively answer questions thinking on her feet nor did she prepare for expected questions.

She had a great debate, but then “nothing comes to mind” ended her campaign.

But are there any clips of her fumbling a question? I've never seen any, unless you count her answer to the "What would you have done differently?" question on The View, which I think was a very understable response.

She was asked that question repeatedly and didn’t have even a canned response.

Her CNN town hall was just terrible.

How was it terrible? I saw it and thought it was fine.
I think the fact that Trump wouldn't even show up looked far worse.

That’s great. But your opinion wasn’t shared by the American electorate.

How do you know it wasn't?

She lost the popular vote to Trump. Clearly many people did not get the impression she was qualified for the job.

She was qualified for the job. She and Hillary don’t have the charisma that the men have that have been winning. There’s just more hate than common sense in this country right now.

Hillary was very knowledgeable but also terrible at campaigning. Very angry. Harris didn't have the knowledge, but her campaining was better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t.

Too many idiots listened to RWNJ propaganda.

But the Democrats are fully pushing this narrative that she was a terrible candidate.

A CNN commentator called her a “true double threat” because she could not effectively answer questions thinking on her feet nor did she prepare for expected questions.

She had a great debate, but then “nothing comes to mind” ended her campaign.

But are there any clips of her fumbling a question? I've never seen any, unless you count her answer to the "What would you have done differently?" question on The View, which I think was a very understable response.

She was asked that question repeatedly and didn’t have even a canned response.

Her CNN town hall was just terrible.

How was it terrible? I saw it and thought it was fine.
I think the fact that Trump wouldn't even show up looked far worse.

That’s great. But your opinion wasn’t shared by the American electorate.

How do you know it wasn't?

She lost the popular vote to Trump. Clearly many people did not get the impression she was qualified for the job.

She was qualified for the job. She and Hillary don’t have the charisma that the men have that have been winning. There’s just more hate than common sense in this country right now.