Reasons Harris Lost (Page 5/9)
Patrick NOV 06, 05:34 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:

Patrick, I feel no need to do any research for you. Already stated that I have no "first person knowledge", only that they are bringing their politics with them. Do your own research if you're that interested.



So you're now admitting that you had no idea what you were talking about when you made the following statement. That's exactly what I thought.


quote
Originally posted by blackrams Here:

But, look at how Colorado and several other states have changed since the Great Migration of Californians to other states began. It sure looks like they are bringing their politics with them.
blackrams NOV 06, 05:43 PM

quote
Originally posted by Patrick:

So you're now admitting that you had no idea what you were talking about when you made the following statement. That's exactly what I thought.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blackrams Here:

But, look at how Colorado and several other states have changed since the Great Migration of Californians to other states began. It sure looks like they are bringing their politics with them.


[/QUOTE]

Patrick, view it however you wish, I really don't care. But, I will give you a hint, look at the states mentioned about 20 years ago (politically speaking) and then compare that to now. If you can't figure that out, you're own your own. Special needs or not, you are not my responsibility to explain the world.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-06-2024).]

Patrick NOV 06, 06:00 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:

Patrick, view it however you wish, I really don't care. But, I will give you a hint, look at the states mentioned about 20 years ago (politically speaking) and then compare that to now. If you can't figure that out, you're own your own. Special needs or not, you are not my responsibility to explain the world.



Another totally vapid response that makes no sense whatsoever. When asked a simple question regarding a statement of yours, you are seemingly incapable of providing an intelligent answer.

blackrams NOV 06, 06:02 PM

quote
Originally posted by Patrick:

Another totally vapid response that makes no sense whatsoever. When asked a simple question regarding a statement of yours, you are seemingly incapable of providing an intelligent answer.





Don't let the small stuff get your goat.

Rams
Patrick NOV 06, 06:04 PM

quote
Originally posted by Patrick:

Another totally vapid response that makes no sense whatsoever.


maryjane NOV 06, 06:37 PM

quote
Originally posted by theBDub:

I've been considering this since last night, when it was pretty clear what the result was going to be. My take so far is that Harris lost for two primary reasons:

1) Voters were apathetic to Harris due to not getting to know her through a typical primary season. She then decided to use the short amount of time she had to not rock the boat - she wanted to keep her Democratic coalition while gaining moderates and middling Republicans by not being specific on policy. I think apathy came with a lack of a clearly defined alternative to Trump. If she had either gone through a typical primary or had she been more specific in answering questions in her few very public media interviews, I think she could have avoided the bleeding of her base and likely won.

2) Democrats have been using "men" as a catch-all enemy for the past few election cycles (possibly decades though my memory is a bit fuzzy on how long it has been happening). They've pushed men away and blamed them for just about everything under the sun. As men were disenfranchised from the Democratic Party, they were re-enfranchised to the Right through alternative social channels and podcasts (Democrats even make fun of these, calling them "dude bro pods"). While Republicans energized new voters in new channels, Democrats used those same channels to... continue pushing men away. I think this is a huge contributor, though I don't really see many people talking about it.



They had 4 years to know her, just on the federal level as a VP. Remember tho, she ran for president herself beginning in 2019 tho she had been considered a 'rising star' for the left since 2016 until she ran out of $$ in late 2019 or very early 2020.

Until the left finally admits to having and deals with lack of a platform that mid America wants to support they will have a difficult time and all the oddball excuses in the world aren't going to fix things. Here, is a start:


quote
Donald Trump has once again won the presidency—and has done so convincingly.

In the coming days and weeks, commentators will spill considerable ink trying to make sense of this result. Mainstream media figures must grapple with the fact that a seemingly disgraced, twice-impeached, convicted felon—one frequently derided as a fascist and a racist—was reelected president. Moreover, he made major inroads with minority communities, vastly improved his totals in various states, and is currently projected to win the popular vote. Make no mistake: This is a significant win for someone deemed not merely unelectable but wholly evil by every elite media institution in existence.

Pundits trying to understand how Trump could have possibly achieved this unthinkable comeback will focus on his message, his issues, and his campaign strategies. They will investigate the aspects of Trump that make him so appealing to throngs of Americans. But they might overlook the single most important contributing factor in Trump's victory: not an affirmative vote for the candidate, but rather a negative endorsement of his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris.

Simply put, Harris was a disastrous candidate. Admittedly, she had a tough job, given that she replaced the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee—President Joe Biden—in the eleventh hour. But keep in mind that Biden was historically unpopular. He bottomed out at a 38 percent approval rating, which made him the least popular president in 70 years. Some of that disapproval was due to his advanced age and obvious cognitive decline, and in that respect, Harris was an automatic improvement.

But the fundamental mistake of the Harris campaign—the one that assured Trump's reelection no matter how improbable it seemed to elite tastemakers—was assuming that a simple candidate swap would be sufficient. This was egregiously wrong. Biden was not merely unpopular because he was too old to serve as president. He was unpopular because the American voters dislike his policies. On the issues that mattered most to voters­—the economy, inflation, and immigration—majorities of voters solidly preferred Trump over Biden, well before the June debate performance that doomed the incumbent president's candidacy. Voters remembered the Trump economy fondly and blamed Biden's policies for ever-worsening inflation.

Once Harris was installed as the candidate, she had the opportunity to engage in a reset. While she always faced the inherent difficulty of distancing herself from an administration in which she served, she had every opportunity to throw Biden under the bus and part ways with his policies. She could have criticized his economic setbacks, his foreign policy—which was especially unpopular in the must-win state of Michigan—and his border program.

Yet one month ago, when she appeared on The View, the hosts asked Harris if there was anything she would have done differently from Biden. Her answer? "There's not a thing that comes to mind."



Not a gender problem. It's a POLICY problem.
https://reason.com/2024/11/...arris-election-2024/

https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/c80lpjnk93do

Also.............Hollywood's celebrities in politics. Beyonce..Taylor Swift.... Bruce Springsteen...Clooney?? Roberts?
Uh.no. Your heyday is past.


blackrams NOV 06, 07:22 PM
An article I happen to agree with:

Donald Trump Won Because Kamala Harris Is Joe Biden but Worse

https://reason.com/2024/11/...arris-election-2024/

Don, sorry about that, I just realize you posted the same thing but first. But, I'm still of the impression Harris did better than Biden would have done against DJT.

So, I guess this means Obama was right, if it can be messed up, Ole Joe can do it. Picking his VP to replace him was another Biden error.
------------------
Rams
Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. .
You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-06-2024).]

Patrick NOV 06, 07:47 PM
I was shocked when Biden announced he was going to run for another term. After that debate fiasco, he stepped (or was forced) down... but it was probably too late to properly select a new Democratic candidate for POTUS. In retrospect, it was a total disaster for the Democratic party. Here's a short article which reflects how I feel about Biden and Harris.

Joe Biden Is Old Enough to Know Better. Donald Trump’s Win Is on Him


quote

President Joe Biden is not too old to know what he has done.

No matter how dimmed he may be by age, he has to know that he should have just stepped down after one good term.

The Democrats then could have then selected somebody the usual way, with primaries.

Maybe Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania’s governor, would have been a candidate.

Maybe it would have been Gretchen Whitmer, Michigan’s governor. The result could have actually been the first woman president.

Whoever it was, he or she would have been the party’s choice.

And the duly chosen candidate would have been in a better position than Vice President Kamala Harris was to call Donald Trump a threat to democracy.

The candidate also would have been obliged to defend whatever Biden had and had not done, particularly in terms of the southern border.

One thing Trump was right about was that Harris had become the Democratic candidate without a single vote.

Too much else of what Trump said was dangerously false.

But he is going to the White House nonetheless.

He will again be our commander-in-chief, and he now regains the mantle having spoken of using the military to secure the southern border, quell domestic protests, and fight crime in our cities.

Thanks to Biden, we will now have a commander-in-chief who talks about sending troops against what he calls the enemy within. And Biden is 81.

That does not absolve him.


[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 11-07-2024).]

maryjane NOV 06, 08:20 PM

quote
He will again be our commander-in-chief, and he now regains the mantle having spoken of using the military to secure the southern border, quell domestic protests, and fight crime in our cities.



He would not even be close to the 1st president to talk of those things....and wouldn't be the 1st to actually do so either.
olejoedad NOV 07, 08:06 AM
Whitmer is the governor of the state that I live in.

She is not capable of being an effective governor, let alone POTUS.