https://nypost.com/2025/01/03/us-ne...-harris-appears-to-flub-pledge-of-allegiance/ Homegirl is still drunk from New Year’s Eve parties or simply don’t know or don’t care about our pledge of allegiance which I memorized by heart in grade school?
She got more electoral votes thant dotard Trump did in 2020 Kamala won ~~ 20 states, in 1972 McGovern won just one Kamala, arguably, has been the best female candidate (for POTUS) ever
What I don't understand is why Harris supporters continously bring up Trump. He beat her. There's no denying that..I don't think Trump was a good candidate either but he's better than Harris Our country isn't in good shape in terms of Trimp and Harris being the two candidates but I'm just happy Harris isn't the president . I stand by the fact she was the worst candidate ever.
She lost because of the economy. That's it. Inflation did not come down fast enough, and the dems did not have a solid economic vision. Trump's snake oil on the economy worked. Real simple.
That's a valid point but she's also completely unlikable. She's also a terrible speaker. I know she's book smart but every time she speaks she seems clueless. It was a combination of all of those things imo..Had the dems run even a decent candidate Trump would have lost. If they run Newom it will be even worse
She was a piss poor candidate. The Dems knew they couldn’t lie about Biden anymore, so they panicked and put their eggs in the black woman candidate strategy. They thought Dem’s would feel racist or guilty not voting for her. She was thrust on us, she was not chosen by the people. Saying that, If Michelle had been that black woman, the dems would’ve won. We all know how the left fawns over the Obama’s.
That's your interpretation of her - but she overwhelmingly won the debates. Which did not matter. There is a lot of study on elections and who wins. And the things you mention such as likability and being a good speaker doesn't really have that much impact - most candidates are at the least competent speakers. Harris was as well. Maybe not as Magnetic as trump, but that doesn't matter much. Biden beat Trump without being a great speaker. There are two things that basically decide an election - perceptions of the economy - and the length of time a party has controlled the presidency. That's it. Nearly every election can be predicted in history based on those two factors. Incumbency helps after one term, but hurts after two unless the president was very popular. Incumbents when they lose, nearly always lose because of the economy. 1960 Kennedy beat Nixon - why - because GOP had the presidency for 8 years already. Kennedy barely won the popular vote. 1972 Nixon won after the Dems held the presidency for 8 year 1976 Carter won after GOP held the presidency for 8 years 1980 Reagan won because of the economy 1988 Bush won bucking the trend - mainly because of how popular Reagan was and how bad of a candidate Dukakis was (probably the worst ever Dem) who famously told people he was going to raise their taxes. 1992 Clinton won because of the economy 2000 Bush barely wins after 8 years of Dems - and a very popular one at that thus making it so close. 2008 Obama wins after 8 years of Bush...and oh the economy 2016 Trump beats out Clinton - 8 years of Dems 2020 Biden beats Trump....coronavirus wreaks the economy 2024 Trump beats Harris - economy (high prices) One exception to that rule in 1988. And it was because people were afraid of the impact of Dukakis on their taxes - an economic issue.
Kamala knew that her positions on issues were weak, that none of the R voters would support her positions, and that many of the D voters wouldn't support her positions. So she tried to hide them as much as possible and appeal to the hearts of D voters. This worked for many voters, in part because many people hate Trump; in part also because many people will support Kamala simply because of her gender and ethnicity (she was, after all, a DEI appointment by definition). Fortunately, however, most voters (regardless of D or R) saw through her bull$hit campaign - a campaign that was solely focused on attacking the opponent in every way possible and getting votes based on anything else other than the issues. If Kamala was a white male, and if Trump wasn't so greatly hated, the election would have been a landslide in the R favor.
I didn't get the impression that the Harris campaign focused all that much on her race. It seemed to come up much more by people attacking her (as you are doing right now) than by people supporting her. I think the primary reason she replaced Biden is because she's the vice president. If a white man was the VP, I doubt very much Democratic party officials would have elevated Harris over him just to have a black woman be the candidate. But believe what you like.
Ok whatever. I think the left is big on identity politics and that’s why Kamala was made vice president. In the end she couldn't hide that she was in over her head. I think there are enough conservatives that would’ve voted for a good democratic leader with a sound, concise vision. One that could also articulate that vision in a way that made the American people realize that Trump is really just a cartoon character. I think Trump is relatively easy to beat because he is so polarizing. Biden beat him and he was almost a zombie. I give her that she didn’t have a lot of time to get her ducks in a row, and she was ok in the debate, but she seemed woefully unprepared and even a little unhinged everywhere else. I’m honestly not sure Kamala wanted the gig. Just a thought.
