This is the ultimate goal of these types. Rekindle a new feudal economy where the poor are forced to subsidize the lives of the rich because the rich make the laws. Wealthy people want to be like the oligarchs of Russia and be above the law.
"... And in that space between us, politicians and algorithms teach us to caricature each other and troll each other and fear each other." - Barack Obama
In 2020, HardenVolumeOne predicted a significant shift of younger Black males towards Trump (20-25%). This didn't materialize. Instead, Trump's share of the Black male vote decreased from 16% in 2016 to 12% in 2020, with overall Black support for Trump remaining under 10% (approximately 6-8%). Beyond polls, voter registration can indicate voting trends. Since Biden's withdrawal, there's been a notable surge in voter registration compared to 2020, particularly among young voters, women, and people of color. Young Hispanic women's registration is up 150%, while young Black women's has almost tripled. Overall, Democratic registration has grown by 50%, compared to just 7% for Republicans, creating a 20-point Democratic advantage. If this registration trend holds and translates into actual votes (young voters historically do not turnout), we could see a landslide victory.
Infrastructure bill, reducing cost on insulin, getting American investors to invest in Mexico and other central American nations, demolishing Wells Fargo corruption are the ones that come to mind. I think also running a great campaign in a very short amount of time, bucking conventional wisdom with her VP pick which has been a huge success is signs of a strong leader and person with leadership ability.
All of these “accomplishments” you bring up are fine, I guess. But I have no illusions that how she represented herself during the glorified pep rally we call a convention has much relevance to how she will actually govern. I do know what Trump is about, and he has no business being President. That’s enough reason to vote for the other ticket. There’s no shame in admitting that a vote for Harris is really just a vote against Trump.
I agree that not being Trump is all that is required. But most nominees know they are going to be the nominee up to a year out. They have all that time to put together a staff, vet the VP candidates, work with the party to plan the kind of convention they want etc. She effectively instituted a whole theme, tone, and general message that is easy for a-political folks to grasp and approve. Harris pulled all of that off in weeks and it was very successful. It shows management and getting things done. Having additional accomplishments and qualifications other than not being Trump is icing on the cake. There is no need to pretend that she's less than she has, even if those are the kinds of candidates we've grown used to.
We need Trump to win, not just because he's the better option, but also because we can have two legit candidates in '28. If Kamala wins, we may not get that until '32
If I understand you correctly, your judgment is based on his character flaws. I am interested in how you would judge the candidates purely based on their realistically expected policy decisions. My rationale is this: While I think Trump is a malignant narcissist, I don't think he is Hitler. While many of his statements are distasteful to me, electing him would not mean the end of democracy. In fact, his first term is proof of that to me, although I don't think he handled Jan. 6th as well as he should have. I also think his grievances about the election were not completely unsubstantiated in hindsight - again, although I think he was extremely ungraceful in how he handled things. I greatly prefer his side's expected policy decisions on the economy, on illegal immigration, on ensuring law and order and keeping the country safe, on foreign policy relations, specifically Israel, on putting a stop to divisive "DEI" and "critical race theory" indoctrination. I also think the left is far more authoritarian and far more against free speech. The counter-argument of some p*rn books being taken out of libraries for small kids holds little to no weight in my view. On balance, I can look past Trump's personal character deficiencies because I don't think they will outweigh the negatives of expected policy decisions from a Harris/Walz admin. I understand people who say "anyone but Trump" because their personal distaste of Trump's character trumps everything else - but I think it is short-sighted to think that way. Trump posting mean tweets and boasting and whatever other character flaws he has don't really impact your wallet or your personal security. Newsom is slicker and has nicer hair, but he is an example of how leftist policies made people's lives worse.
This seems kind of clueless or really a stretch. Of course she had people working for her and helping her. That kind of delegation and choosing the right people for that job is what an executive does. It's what she did and why she deserves some credit. That doesn't mean that the whole organization which helped her don't also deserve credit. Trump also has a staff, and advisors. They haven't been nearly as successful. That is because of the people who Trump hires or can hire. He is showing that his leadership and decision making are less.
She can barely manage her way to the bathroom. She is incompetent. There is a huge machine at work there. Hillary is extremely unlikable, but she isn't as stupid as Kamala. Kamala is a puppet on a string.
