Reasons Harris Lost (Page 1/9)
blackrams NOV 06, 04:35 AM
Most folks and all the Media/Networks believed the election would be an extremely close call for which ever candidate actually won. As I sit watching the returns, it's pretty obvious DJT will be the 47th President of the US. Why?

Personally, I believe a vast number of votes are not so much votes for DJT as they were against Harris.

Harris was unable to shake off the connection to President Biden and that is because the Biden/Harris Administration was such a failure in every facet that was important.
From the economy, immigration, foreign policy, attempting to force Americans into EVs was not appreciated by the majority and more. My vote wasn't nearly as much a vote for DJT as it was a vote against Harris. She tried to lie her way into the White House about things she would do that went directly against everything she had done the last four years. The American voter simply didn't buy the fertilizer she was selling. In other words, most Americans simply didn't trust her.

Just my opinion but, that's what I believe.

Edited: Forgot to mention this. When Biden and Harris won, I believe that a lot of Conservative voters stayed home and didn't vote. There was a Pandemic going on then. They weren't enthused by either candidate but, based on the Biden/Harris Administration's performance over the last four years, those same voters came out in mass. Did DJT win or did Harris lose. While I have no idea who on the Dem side might have done better, I am very sure Harris lost. Things that didn't hurt her, her gender, her ethnicity but her past policies absolutely knocked her out of contention.

I'm expecting to hear and read claims of racism and sexism reasons from the losing side but, I can only say that Harris lost due to the policies she supported and the lies she tried to make us believe she was a moderate.

------------------
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).]

Cliff Pennock NOV 06, 05:45 AM
Honestly, I can't believe we’re at a point where someone who’s famous for bending the truth, self-obsessed to a spectacular degree, and very likely to drag us all into WWIII can actually be elected president.

But, well… it’s not like there was a third option.
blackrams NOV 06, 06:01 AM

quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock:

Honestly, I can't believe we’re at a point where someone who’s famous for bending the truth, self-obsessed to a spectacular degree, and very likely to drag us all into WWIII can actually be elected president.

But, well… it’s not like there was a third option.



Well, that's one perspective. As I have stated many times, I'm not a fan of DJT personally but, I do believe his policies were by far better for the USA and anything the Biden/Harris Administration offered or did. But, Harris could not escape her support of the WOKE/Progressive mission. What she offered up and promised during her campaign went almost opposite of what she supported her whole political career. I truly believe she lost more than DJT won.

It's impossible to predict the future but, I don't agree with your WWIII prediction. Peace through Strength has always worked and I see no reason it won't continue to work. Though, I do understand how some European nations will have concerns. IMHO, a strong unified NATO is the best way to continue peace.

------------------
Rams
Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. .
You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.

Cliff Pennock NOV 06, 06:30 AM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:

Though, I do understand how some European nations will have concerns. IMHO, a strong unified NATO is the best way to continue peace.




Yes. A strong unified NATO is the best way to continue peace. However, with Trump back in the Oval Office, his past criticisms and skeptical stance on NATO could indicate a quiet but deliberate unraveling of the United States' role in the alliance. Throughout his previous term, Trump consistently criticized NATO allies for not meeting their financial obligations and suggested that the U.S. might not defend countries that don't "pay their fair share". Given his track record and stated views, he may attempt to broker bilateral agreements with Russia, asserting that direct deals with Putin are in America’s best interest, possibly even hinting at a more limited U.S. commitment to defending Europe.

Putin, long seeking to weaken NATO’s influence, would interpret Trump’s actions as a sign of weakness which validates his own approach. Historically, Putin has used calculated provocations, ranging from cyber-attacks to misinformation campaigns, as tools to gauge the West's response. Trump’s reluctance to openly criticize Putin or impose harsher penalties for Russian aggression has reinforced Putin's belief that these tactics work. With the U.S. stepping back, Putin might feel bold enough to test NATO further, starting with incursions into Baltic airspace or increased military presence near Eastern European borders.

Should Trump refrain from strong diplomatic or military responses to these provocations, it could signal to Russia that the U.S. no longer sees NATO's Article 5 commitment - that an attack on one member is an attack on all - as an automatic red line. Such a perception would dramatically shift the balance of power, leaving Eastern European NATO members especially vulnerable.

This lack of response could embolden Putin to launch a direct attack or annexation attempt on a NATO member, possibly in Eastern Europe, aiming to create chaos and test the alliance’s unity and reaction. Should Trump hesitate to respond, or worse, downplay the incursion as an "internal European matter", NATO’s collective defense could crumble, and Europe would face an unprecedented crisis. This kind of escalated conflict might inevitably drag the world into a large-scale conflict, with alliances fracturing and countries forced to choose sides, potentially igniting WW3.
blackrams NOV 06, 08:08 AM
A bunch of ifs, maybes and might happen in that posting. I guess we’ll have to wait and see. But this I am convinced of, under a Harris Administration the US would be a much weaker nation.

Rams
olejoedad NOV 06, 08:51 AM

quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock:

Honestly, I can't believe we’re at a point where someone who’s famous for bending the truth, self-obsessed to a spectacular degree, and very likely to drag us all into WWIII can actually be elected president.

But, well… it’s not like there was a third option.



Respectfully Cliff, that candidate lost.
Trump won.
olejoedad NOV 06, 08:56 AM

quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock:


Yes. A strong unified NATO is the best way to continue peace. However, with Trump back in the Oval Office, his past criticisms and skeptical stance on NATO could indicate a quiet but deliberate unraveling of the United States' role in the alliance. Throughout his previous term, Trump consistently criticized NATO allies for not meeting their financial obligations and suggested that the U.S. might not defend countries that don't "pay their fair share". Given his track record and stated views, he may attempt to broker bilateral agreements with Russia, asserting that direct deals with Putin are in America’s best interest, possibly even hinting at a more limited U.S. commitment to defending Europe.

Putin, long seeking to weaken NATO’s influence, would interpret Trump’s actions as a sign of weakness which validates his own approach. Historically, Putin has used calculated provocations, ranging from cyber-attacks to misinformation campaigns, as tools to gauge the West's response. Trump’s reluctance to openly criticize Putin or impose harsher penalties for Russian aggression has reinforced Putin's belief that these tactics work. With the U.S. stepping back, Putin might feel bold enough to test NATO further, starting with incursions into Baltic airspace or increased military presence near Eastern European borders.

Should Trump refrain from strong diplomatic or military responses to these provocations, it could signal to Russia that the U.S. no longer sees NATO's Article 5 commitment - that an attack on one member is an attack on all - as an automatic red line. Such a perception would dramatically shift the balance of power, leaving Eastern European NATO members especially vulnerable.

This lack of response could embolden Putin to launch a direct attack or annexation attempt on a NATO member, possibly in Eastern Europe, aiming to create chaos and test the alliance’s unity and reaction. Should Trump hesitate to respond, or worse, downplay the incursion as an "internal European matter", NATO’s collective defense could crumble, and Europe would face an unprecedented crisis. This kind of escalated conflict might inevitably drag the world into a large-scale conflict, with alliances fracturing and countries forced to choose sides, potentially igniting WW3.



Putin would have to make his move while Biden is still in office for any of that to happen.
cliffw NOV 06, 10:05 AM

quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock:
Throughout his previous term, Trump consistently criticized NATO allies for not meeting their financial obligations and suggested that the U.S. might not defend countries that don't "pay their fair share". Given his track record and stated views, he may attempt to broker bilateral agreements with Russia, asserting that direct deals with Putin are in America’s best interest, possibly even hinting at a more limited U.S. commitment to defending Europe.



The United States pays a vast majority of the UN's budget. The same with NATO because, all nations joining agreed to pay 2% of their GDP. How would you hold them to honor their promise ? Trump would never stop defending NATO members because America promised to defend all NATO members. Germany, a very profitable Nation will not pay theirs. Their invasions in WW II was the genesis of NATO.

Russia invaded the Ukrainian Crimea during the Obama administration, and went into Ukraine during Biden's administration. Both Democrat party administrations.


quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock:
Historically, Putin has used calculated provocations, ranging from cyber-attacks to misinformation campaigns, as tools to gauge the West's response.



As do many Nations. It is not just to gauge America's response. Democracy is communism and socialism's worst enemies in regards to the best government style to live in.


quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock:
Trump’s reluctance to openly criticize Putin or impose harsher penalties for Russian aggression has reinforced Putin's belief that these tactics work. With the U.S. stepping back, Putin might feel bold enough to test NATO further, starting with incursions into Baltic airspace or increased military presence near Eastern European borders.



Trump halted Russia's oil/gas pipeline to Europe. Biden allowed it. Biden cancelled our Keystone pipeline. Trump heavily sanctioned Russia's oil and gas industry. Biden removed them. Putin would employ those tactics whether they worked or not. Just as scammers only get a small amount of people targeted yet they are profitable.


quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock:
Should Trump refrain from strong diplomatic or military responses to these provocations, it could signal to Russia that the U.S. no longer sees NATO's Article 5 commitment - that an attack on one member is an attack on all - as an automatic red line. Such a perception would dramatically shift the balance of power, leaving Eastern European NATO members especially vulnerable.



Gee. Then those Nations will be spending more on their defenses. Why not just pay your promised % of GDP ?


quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock:
This lack of response could embolden Putin to launch a direct attack or annexation attempt on a NATO member, possibly in Eastern Europe, aiming to create chaos and test the alliance’s unity and reaction. Should Trump hesitate to respond, or worse, downplay the incursion as an "internal European matter", NATO’s collective defense could crumble, and Europe would face an unprecedented crisis. This kind of escalated conflict might inevitably drag the world into a large-scale conflict, with alliances fracturing and countries forced to choose sides, potentially igniting WW3.



Biden allowed Russia's incursion into Ukraine if it was limited.
Biden's 'minor incursion' comment roils diplomatic efforts to halt Russian invasion of Ukraine

That did not embolden Putin, along with Biden's withdrawal plans in Afghanistan ?
NewDustin NOV 06, 10:32 AM
The US has not been involved in the onset of a World War to this point, and it is not directly involved in any conflict that is angling that direction now. The world has Putin still invading foreign countries, insanity in the middle East, rogue nations like North Korea, Chinese expansionism...it's wild to think it will be the US that drags us in. At worst Trump represents a destabilization of the security infrastructure the US has historically provided, and a clear wakeup call for Europeans that they need to stop relying on the US as their protector/hegemon. All that "the world is gonna end" talk is Chicken Little nonsense.

As for why Harris lost, I think it misses the point to say she was too progressive/woke. I lived in CA where Kamala Harris pushed hard against non-violent drug crimes, backed the police in clear abuse cases, prosecuted victims, and defended abusive prison labor practices. Harris never addressed any of that, continuing the practice Biden started of taking the "woke" vote for granted, and she lost her base because of it. The Democrats are obsessed with Trump, and even after 8 years can't seem to wrap their heads around the point that smugly pointing out they aren't Trump and acting arrogant about his base is a losing strategy.

It's gonna be an interesting 4 years. At least we won't have to deal with shear amount of whining and childish "NUH UH"ing that happened after Trump lost.
Cliff Pennock NOV 06, 11:29 AM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:

Respectfully Cliff, that candidate lost.



I think you are missing my point.