Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a serious question? WTAF.

I mean how bad does a candidate have to be until everyone recognizes their innate loser qualities? I say this with sincerity.

She lost to Trump a convicted disgusting felon with $1B in donations from all walks of life. She's a female diversity candidate who could not rally females and diversity voters. Some people truly do not know when to stop, sigh.

There are lots of reasons for this other than Kamala being a bad candidate, but I doubt Democrats will give a woman the nomination again for a very long time.

Why would you say that? Democratic men have lost before and we never said that we won't run a man again

America will never elect a woman as POTUS. The position is too tied up in concepts of military power, masculinity, and toughness. We'll never elect a gay man either. Just the way it is.

It's not that a woman can't win - it's that there hasn't been a right women who's run. Seriously. There's been 2. Be honest. HRC was not universally liked. I'm a Dem female diversity to boot and I hated both her and Kamala.

I want to see a woman who isn't afraid of being different than a man - who is proud she's a woman. But someone who isn't the catty typical petty unrelaxed can't shoot the shit when you gotta let go kinda woman that appeals to the mere mortal - man or woman. I want to vote for a woman who I think can actually handle themselves in foreign policy and is tough but also is still interesting because women are complex creatures who shouldn't hide that.

I wish there was a Jacinda Ardern ex New Zealand PM. Someone like her is who I would vote for. Get shit done with some grace with strength that's not contrived but sincere. Bill and Obama had both those qualities - they were charismatic and could play poker and charm all your money from you and you'd still love them because you could relate to them.

Neither of our 2 women candidates could relate to most people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a serious question? WTAF.

I mean how bad does a candidate have to be until everyone recognizes their innate loser qualities? I say this with sincerity.

She lost to Trump a convicted disgusting felon with $1B in donations from all walks of life. She's a female diversity candidate who could not rally females and diversity voters. Some people truly do not know when to stop, sigh.

There are lots of reasons for this other than Kamala being a bad candidate, but I doubt Democrats will give a woman the nomination again for a very long time.

Why would you say that? Democratic men have lost before and we never said that we won't run a man again

America will never elect a woman as POTUS. The position is too tied up in concepts of military power, masculinity, and toughness. We'll never elect a gay man either. Just the way it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Have not read the whole thread but I was disappointed she did not explain economic and illegal migration issues better.

What could she say? They intentionally opened the border and let millions of illegal immigrants flow in for years. Then they started flying people directly into the country. What explanation could she possibly offer? Immigration was one of the top three voter issues. She deserved to lose and democrats will and should continue to lose because of their current positions on immigration.

On economics, it's the same. Nothing she says would have combatted the reality of grocery prices. And if she had an economic plan why wouldn't she have implemented before the election?

THIS ^^. My number one issue in this election was illegal immigration. Had the Democrats run someone who made that their number one issue too, maybe I would have voted for them. Harris was just a retread of Biden - no thank you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Have not read the whole thread but I was disappointed she did not explain economic and illegal migration issues better.

What could she say? They intentionally opened the border and let millions of illegal immigrants flow in for years. Then they started flying people directly into the country. What explanation could she possibly offer? Immigration was one of the top three voter issues. She deserved to lose and democrats will and should continue to lose because of their current positions on immigration.

On economics, it's the same. Nothing she says would have combatted the reality of grocery prices. And if she had an economic plan why wouldn't she have implemented before the election?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a serious question? WTAF.

I mean how bad does a candidate have to be until everyone recognizes their innate loser qualities? I say this with sincerity.

She lost to Trump a convicted disgusting felon with $1B in donations from all walks of life. She's a female diversity candidate who could not rally females and diversity voters. Some people truly do not know when to stop, sigh.

There are lots of reasons for this other than Kamala being a bad candidate, but I doubt Democrats will give a woman the nomination again for a very long time.

Why would you say that? Democratic men have lost before and we never said that we won't run a man again

America will never elect a woman as POTUS. The position is too tied up in concepts of military power, masculinity, and toughness. We'll never elect a gay man either. Just the way it is.

We'll elect a woman soon enough. But the first woman president will be a Republican. Nikki Haley would have easily defeated Biden or Harris. The problem for Democrats isn't gender. It's their disdain for most Americans. It's their policies - from crime to immigration. It's their capture by the billionaire class, which hates real primaries. It's the local progressive loons closing schools and defunding police. There are lots of reasons aren't winning now, but gender isn't one of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a serious question? WTAF.

I mean how bad does a candidate have to be until everyone recognizes their innate loser qualities? I say this with sincerity.

She lost to Trump a convicted disgusting felon with $1B in donations from all walks of life. She's a female diversity candidate who could not rally females and diversity voters. Some people truly do not know when to stop, sigh.

There are lots of reasons for this other than Kamala being a bad candidate, but I doubt Democrats will give a woman the nomination again for a very long time.

Why would you say that? Democratic men have lost before and we never said that we won't run a man again

America will never elect a woman as POTUS. The position is too tied up in concepts of military power, masculinity, and toughness. We'll never elect a gay man either. Just the way it is.

We'll elect a woman soon enough. But the first woman president will be a Republican. Nikki Haley would have easily defeated Biden or Harris. The problem for Democrats isn't gender. It's their disdain for most Americans. It's their policies - from crime to immigration. It's their capture by the billionaire class, which hates real primaries. It's the local progressive loons closing schools and defunding police. There are lots of reasons aren't winning now, but gender isn't one of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a serious question? WTAF.

I mean how bad does a candidate have to be until everyone recognizes their innate loser qualities? I say this with sincerity.

She lost to Trump a convicted disgusting felon with $1B in donations from all walks of life. She's a female diversity candidate who could not rally females and diversity voters. Some people truly do not know when to stop, sigh.

There are lots of reasons for this other than Kamala being a bad candidate, but I doubt Democrats will give a woman the nomination again for a very long time.

Why would you say that? Democratic men have lost before and we never said that we won't run a man again

America will never elect a woman as POTUS. The position is too tied up in concepts of military power, masculinity, and toughness. We'll never elect a gay man either. Just the way it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has always come across as intelligent, articulate and very well-informed on the issues.[i]
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.

Really? What channel are you watching, CNBS? or NBSC? Do you remember that before she was anointed after the Clooney coup against Joe, she was considered the worst vice president in history? If you don’t recall, look it up in AI. She can put a sentence together without a teleprompter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a serious question? WTAF.

I mean how bad does a candidate have to be until everyone recognizes their innate loser qualities? I say this with sincerity.

She lost to Trump a convicted disgusting felon with $1B in donations from all walks of life. She's a female diversity candidate who could not rally females and diversity voters. Some people truly do not know when to stop, sigh.

There are lots of reasons for this other than Kamala being a bad candidate, but I doubt Democrats will give a woman the nomination again for a very long time.

Why would you say that? Democratic men have lost before and we never said that we won't run a man again

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t.

Too many idiots listened to RWNJ propaganda.

Yup! 54% of Americans have less than a sixth grade literacy rate. Our country is stupid.

I doubled checked your claim as I found it shocking but it checked out with National Literacy Institute's statistics for 2024-2025. (Although the average literacy rate in the US in 2024 is around 79%, meaning roughly 21% of adults are considered illiterate, 54% of adults having literacy levels below a 6th-grade level). This means one quarter are barely literate between 4th-6th grade levels)

Nearly 40% have college degrees so there appear to be great extremes - Either college educated or barely Literate.

I don’t think that it means Americans are stupid but that the societal odds are stacked against many people acquiring literacy skills.
Whose parents did not attend college

Funny. You think the college educated are literate. Proof?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t.

Too many idiots listened to RWNJ propaganda.

Yup! 54% of Americans have less than a sixth grade literacy rate. Our country is stupid.

I doubled checked your claim as I found it shocking but it checked out with National Literacy Institute's statistics for 2024-2025. (Although the average literacy rate in the US in 2024 is around 79%, meaning roughly 21% of adults are considered illiterate, 54% of adults having literacy levels below a 6th-grade level). This means one quarter are barely literate between 4th-6th grade levels)

Nearly 40% have college degrees so there appear to be great extremes - Either college educated or barely Literate.

I don’t think that it means Americans are stupid but that the societal odds are stacked against many people acquiring literacy skills.
Whose parents did not attend college

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t.

Too many idiots listened to RWNJ propaganda.

Yup! 54% of Americans have less than a sixth grade literacy rate. Our country is stupid.

I doubled checked your claim as I found it shocking but it checked out with National Literacy Institute's statistics for 2024-2025. (Although the average literacy rate in the US in 2024 is around 79%, meaning roughly 21% of adults are considered illiterate, 54% of adults having literacy levels below a 6th-grade level). This means one quarter are barely literate between 4th-6th grade levels)

Nearly 40% have college degrees so there appear to be great extremes - Either college educated or barely Literate.

I don’t think that it means Americans are stupid but that the societal odds are stacked against many people acquiring literacy skills.
Whose parents did not attend college

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jill Biden explains it:

It is amazing that the First Lady would openly mock the current VP and defeated Presidential candidate like that. It shows both what a nasty human being Jill Biden is, and how little respect Kamala Harris has earned.