bug
Senior Member
Posts: 2,316
Likes: 1,934
|
Post by bug on Nov 6, 2024 17:38:32 GMT 10
If the Dems had run a primary and selected a more electable candidate, Trump may well not have won this. Watch how fast the media switches to pretending that Harris never existed and focusses on attacking Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Stealth on Nov 6, 2024 19:23:29 GMT 10
I have to agree. I said to the other half earlier in the day that I didn't think she had a chance from the get-go. Her own party picked someone that was vaguely unpopular in the first place, but mostly because she simply didn't seem to have any real individual charisma. I think even Walz would have had a better chance even though he was largely an unknown for a lot of folks, purely because he was a white male. I know that it sounds petulant but white men are always going to do better than black women. It's just a fact. Whether I think it's fair or not is irrelevant. If I were running a major party and the only chance I had was picking someone that the crowd would instinctively be inclined to accept more easily, I'd pick a white male every time. Pragmatism has to come first when you're making decisions relating to huge groups of people. And we're used to seeing middle-aged and older white men representing western countries. It is what it is. If you have time to make a long term play a'la Obama, then you'll get somewhere. But four months?
I don't think even Michelle Obama who enjoys almost universally positive standing through almost every community could have done it.
With everyone rejecting the over-correction of DEI (I think DEI absolutely has it's place, but to empower equity. Not equality, I don't actually believe true equality is realistic or reasonable) has led to an enormous reversal. People who previously would have been thrilled to see a black, professional woman be a viable choice looked at Harris with suspicion because there was no evidence in the lead up that she was there because she was the right candidate. I think even die hard Dems seemed to believe that she wasn't there purely on her own merits. That's really unfair imo, and her own party put her in that position. But of course it meant that she had no hope.
But ultimately I think this has poisoned the water for her as a candidate in the future. She should have been a shoe-in with the Dems and even their own rusted-on supporters found it a stretch too far to put their trust in her. Reasonably so, I reckon. Regardless, I don't think she's going to have a second run at things. At least I wouldn't put her at the front again if I were in the team. She's not a good forward starter. I guess they picked the best option they had at the time but wow if it wasn't a bad option to begin with lol.
|
|
spatial
Senior Member
Posts: 2,396
Likes: 1,560
|
Post by spatial on Nov 6, 2024 20:56:40 GMT 10
I have to agree. I said to the other half earlier in the day that I didn't think she had a chance from the get-go. Her own party picked someone that was vaguely unpopular in the first place, but mostly because she simply didn't seem to have any real individual charisma. I think even Walz would have had a better chance even though he was largely an unknown for a lot of folks, purely because he was a white male. I know that it sounds petulant but white men are always going to do better than black women. It's just a fact. Whether I think it's fair or not is irrelevant. If I were running a major party and the only chance I had was picking someone that the crowd would instinctively be inclined to accept more easily, I'd pick a white male every time. Pragmatism has to come first when you're making decisions relating to huge groups of people. And we're used to seeing middle-aged and older white men representing western countries. It is what it is. If you have time to make a long term play a'la Obama, then you'll get somewhere. But four months? I don't think even Michelle Obama who enjoys almost universally positive standing through almost every community could have done it..................... You are way overthinking it.,... If Harris had won she would of been the only President in the US to of never given a press interview. She is completely inept no policies, only strategy to attack Trump and call him a "Hitler". Never wone any vote of any type, in the 2020 primaries she was forced to withdraw after first round. Only got her position as vice president based on ethnicity and gender card, an air head figure head. The democrats way outspent the republicans got all the celebrities, to assist but failed on woke and USA is going strong ante woke. The election was won on economy and border security two areas where Harris is very week. She is now apparently drunk throwing temper tantrums refusing to address her supporters or give a concession speech, no leadership no spine. x.com/EricAbbenante/status/1854056504044744735?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1854056504044744735%7Ctwgr%5Edc1de216ac704ddbfc7e66b2be2b147c62d5effd%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fwatch-live-election-night-results-rollake Tapper shocked by map that shows that Kamala Harris did not out perform Joe Biden in a single county: Jake Tapper: "Holy smokes! Literally nothing? Literally not one county?" Trump was the biggest winner tonight. Joe Biden 2nd biggest winner.
|
|
|
Post by Stealth on Nov 6, 2024 23:29:55 GMT 10
You are way overthinking it.,... Actually, not really. I believe they went with 'weird' too. Which wasn't incorrect 🤣. I agree with all of your points. Don't conflate my general disgust of the walking diarrheal stain that as Trump, with approval of Harris. She's as bad as every politician that ever was. I just happen to have a personal visceral disgust of Trump on top of my disdain for his 'political' style. Harris is... Cringey. And just as weird as she accuses Trump of being if I'm honest. When I think of Harris my brow furrows. When I think of Trump my lip curls. It's a subtle difference, but they're both negative responses.
|
|
spatial
Senior Member
Posts: 2,396
Likes: 1,560
|
Post by spatial on Nov 7, 2024 6:53:05 GMT 10
You are way overthinking it.,... Actually, not really. I believe they went with 'weird' too. Which wasn't incorrect 🤣. I agree with all of your points. Don't conflate my general disgust of the walking diarrheal stain that as Trump, with approval of Harris. She's as bad as every politician that ever was. I just happen to have a personal visceral disgust of Trump on top of my disdain for his 'political' style. Harris is... Cringey. And just as weird as she accuses Trump of being if I'm honest. When I think of Harris my brow furrows. When I think of Trump my lip curls. It's a subtle difference, but they're both negative responses. Too many people are suffering from Trump derangement syndrome, his last presidency went well no wars were started, dropped taxes etc.... His style is well known, ex TV celebrity and previous US President and he still took the popular vote. Years of being demonised by the main stream media has created a fake Trump persona. The American people have lost all respect for so called "Main stream media". Like in Australia with the "Voice to Parliament" every one who voted against it is a raciest! But the country came out in mass and rejected the narrative. Trump got 72 million votes as a populist and anti-establishment, it is a great vote for freedom, the resounding defeat was so strong that no one is contesting the election. US financial markets up 3% Bitcoin up almost 10% to all time record high on Trump win.
|
|
frostbite
VIP Member
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 7,119
Member is Online
|
Post by frostbite on Nov 7, 2024 11:21:37 GMT 10
Yeah but gold is down. Damn
|
|
norseman
VIP Member
Posts: 2,237
Likes: 1,888
|
Post by norseman on Nov 7, 2024 12:27:15 GMT 10
The Diddycratic Party lost!
|
|
bug
Senior Member
Posts: 2,316
Likes: 1,934
|
Post by bug on Nov 7, 2024 18:37:18 GMT 10
Heard an interesting discussion on why the Dems went with Harris. She was the only candidate that the Dems could legally do a straight transfer of the Biden election warchest to. Had they gone with anyone else, they would have had to fundraise, and they left it too late for that.
|
|
|
Post by Stealth on Nov 7, 2024 19:51:17 GMT 10
That makes a lot of sense. I had thought from the get-go that there there would HAVE to be better choices than her. And if there's no hope at all if you're not cashed up well there's no choice really, is there? You have to pick the person that you can transfer that cash to quickly because if that's your only chance you have to be able to move quickly. I honestly believe they knew there wasn't much hope. Regardless of which party you're talking about, I can't think of any political figure that could have swept in with only four months to campaign fully as an individual and come out on top. It's just not enough time.
On the other side of the coin, I don't think she could have won if she'd had a full year to campaign 🤣.
|
|
bug
Senior Member
Posts: 2,316
Likes: 1,934
|
Post by bug on Nov 7, 2024 20:22:07 GMT 10
Ironically, the Dems best bet may have been RFK before they went too far left for him. Even in the states that refused to take his name off the ballot, he still polled thousands of votes.
His political stances are almost entirely Dems stock. He is pro-abortion, big on the environment, has worked with the NAACP. The list goes on. That the Dems ended up so far left that he became a GOP stalwart speaks volumes.
|
|