It seems like many in Democratic establishment are disagreeing with this sentiment and even suggesting that she run again in 2028. https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/16/kamala-harris-2028-election-president-governor
This practically guarantees JD Vance will win the election in 2028.

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: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.

Amazing how blind some democrats are. Hillary was awful. She would have never been there if she wasn’t married to bill. Harris was awful. No original thoughts. Wanted to expand immigration. Never had children. Was half Indian which is the most racist culture in the US. Just politically all wrong

The fact that she doesn't have children should not be a factor. Women don't need to be mothers to succeed

I think many people take the view that people who don’t have children don’t have a vested interest in the future. They have no descendants. It ends with them.

+1. I wouldn't vote for a candidate who doesn't have kids, male or female.

Now that's a pretty silly outlook. I'd happily vote for a Condoleezza Rice.

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:

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.

Amazing how blind some democrats are. Hillary was awful. She would have never been there if she wasn’t married to bill. Harris was awful. No original thoughts. Wanted to expand immigration. Never had children. Was half Indian which is the most racist culture in the US. Just politically all wrong

The fact that she doesn't have children should not be a factor. Women don't need to be mothers to succeed

I think many people take the view that people who don’t have children don’t have a vested interest in the future. They have no descendants. It ends with them.

+1. I wouldn't vote for a candidate who doesn't have kids, male or female.

I don't think this is fair. I would certainly vote for a candidate with deep roots and love for America who didn't have kids. Both of Harris' parents were non-citizens (not even immigrants really, more like visiting scholars) and she spent half her childhood in Canada. She didn't strike me as the type who wants the best for America specifically. Another cosmopolitan "Global Citizen".

Cool babe. So now we have an unelected foreign born billionaire calling the shots. Good call. 👍

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: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.

Amazing how blind some democrats are. Hillary was awful. She would have never been there if she wasn’t married to bill. Harris was awful. No original thoughts. Wanted to expand immigration. Never had children. Was half Indian which is the most racist culture in the US. Just politically all wrong

The fact that she doesn't have children should not be a factor. Women don't need to be mothers to succeed

I think many people take the view that people who don’t have children don’t have a vested interest in the future. They have no descendants. It ends with them.

+1. I wouldn't vote for a candidate who doesn't have kids, male or female.

So if they were terrible parents that's better than people without any kids? What if they can't have any? That seems really small minded

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: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.

Amazing how blind some democrats are. Hillary was awful. She would have never been there if she wasn’t married to bill. Harris was awful. No original thoughts. Wanted to expand immigration. Never had children. Was half Indian which is the most racist culture in the US. Just politically all wrong

The fact that she doesn't have children should not be a factor. Women don't need to be mothers to succeed

I think many people take the view that people who don’t have children don’t have a vested interest in the future. They have no descendants. It ends with them.

+1. I wouldn't vote for a candidate who doesn't have kids, male or female.

I don't think this is fair. I would certainly vote for a candidate with deep roots and love for America who didn't have kids. Both of Harris' parents were non-citizens (not even immigrants really, more like visiting scholars) and she spent half her childhood in Canada. She didn't strike me as the type who wants the best for America specifically. Another cosmopolitan "Global Citizen".

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: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.

Amazing how blind some democrats are. Hillary was awful. She would have never been there if she wasn’t married to bill. Harris was awful. No original thoughts. Wanted to expand immigration. Never had children. Was half Indian which is the most racist culture in the US. Just politically all wrong

The fact that she doesn't have children should not be a factor. Women don't need to be mothers to succeed

I think many people take the view that people who don’t have children don’t have a vested interest in the future. They have no descendants. It ends with them.

+1. I wouldn't vote for a candidate who doesn't have kids, male or female.

Harris did make a point during the campaign to inform us all that she’s a parent Abe that’s the only thing she second guesses.

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: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.

Amazing how blind some democrats are. Hillary was awful. She would have never been there if she wasn’t married to bill. Harris was awful. No original thoughts. Wanted to expand immigration. Never had children. Was half Indian which is the most racist culture in the US. Just politically all wrong

The fact that she doesn't have children should not be a factor. Women don't need to be mothers to succeed

I think many people take the view that people who don’t have children don’t have a vested interest in the future. They have no descendants. It ends with them.

+1. I wouldn't vote for a candidate who doesn't have kids, male or female.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Amazing how blind some democrats are. Hillary was awful. She would have never been there if she wasn’t married to bill. Harris was awful. No original thoughts. Wanted to expand immigration. Never had children. Was half Indian which is the most racist culture in the US. Just politically all wrong

The fact that she doesn't have children should not be a factor. Women don't need to be mothers to succeed

I'd argue that it's somewhat relevant if a cornerstone of your campaign is abortion rights.

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.

Troll post

It says a lot that you can't figure it out op.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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 [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

"tHaT's dIfFeReNt!!"[/quote]

We both vote for our policies but if Putin was running as a Democrat I would vote Republican to save our country. That's the difference. How many Republicans came out against him? Even his generals and former vp. That is unheard of.

But you sold us down the river...congrats[/quote]

Trump supporters do not see Trump as Putin, Hitler, Stalin, the KKk, etc. Your argument is Illogical because it assumes that people voted for Trump simply because he is Republican, and in spite of him being "Putin."

Trump voters see him as a renegade politician, but one who is intent on restoring the US to our previous condition: robot economy, respect for workers, patriotic love of country, strong families and communities, etc. We didn't vote against Kamala. We voted *for* Trump and his MAGA agenda. [/quote]

You aren't going to get any of that.

She was given Secretary of State because 'keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer.'

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The day the DNC can find a WOC like Kemi Badenoch, she will win the election. No more rewards for SAHMs whose husband cheated on them or as a sop to the BLM or any "interest" group.

Who is the SAHM whose husband cheated on her who run for president?

Hillary Rodham Clinton. After law school she worked a few years until Bill became governor of Arkansas and she was given a law firm job as a political favor. She was a SAHM in DC and only became a political force after Bill was finally caught.

Wow, you really had to work hard at that didn’t you? You had to overlook more than 15 years as a practicing attorney. So her SAHM years are when she was First Lady?

No, that's why the post says: "After law schools she worked a few years until Bill became governor of Arkansas and she was given a law firm job as a political favor."
Yes, her SAHM years were the eight years when she was First Lady.
She used the Lewinsky "incident," as a way to blackmail the DNC into giving her a shoo-in New York Senate seat by making a Congresswoman step aside after working effectively for the people of New York for decades. She was then given the Secretary of State job for the same reason. Do you really think that someone who worked for a children's legal defense fund would have earned those jobs if she were married to anyone else. ?

She did a bad job of faking being a moderate.
She said 'My values have not changed.'
and said she wouldn't do anything different from Biden.

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.

Or, you know - they are Democrats and most Americans wanted Republicans. It’s not about charisma or sexism. Had she been a Republican, espousing Republican views, perhaps she would have won.
DP

No, she wouldn't have won. She would have been savaged by the media the way Sarah Palin was.