The country is 50 states, 30 of them voted one way....that's the majority. You keep getting hung up on raw popular vote despite the fact that it means literally nothing. I honestly can't simplify that any more. Trump had 45 years of executive experience when running for an executive position.....Harris has literally 0 executive experience. You do realize that makes her MUCH less qualified for an executive position right? This isn't complicated stuff.
Yes, but if I say 30 students in Jimmy's class voted Jimmy class president but the other 40 didn't and the other 30 didn't vote at all...I wouldn't then say "The bulk of the class voted for Jimmy." Also here was your argument... This is the map for Obama 2012 So in your mind the bulk of the country voted for Romney using that argument that you used earlier in the thread. This is not how the EC works. California is worth more than Alaska for a reason. California is 55 while Alaska is 3...Alaska is the bigger state... No it isn't, running a business isn't experience for a political office. So he has 0 experience, she has more experience than him. Trump is the first president to neither serve in the military OR hold a lower office for a reason.
The more appropriate analogy is that there are 30 classes in the school, 20 of those classes voted for Jimmy thus the bulk of the school voted for Jimmy. In my mind the bulk of the country voted against Obama thus the Republicans owned the Senate and House of Representatives moving forward. Enough voted for Obama that he retained the won the majority of electoral votes and remained president. If you don't understand that executive experience is experience for the executive office....I mean I can't help you. It's something so obvious that there is no other way I can explain it. Obama was actually the first president since the 60's to be elected president without any executive experience whatsoever, so really Trump is more qualified for the job than Obama was. Now, who knows how he'll do, that's not the argument I'm having here. We're just talking about qualifications and legislative experience isn't executive experience and the presidency isn't a legislative position.
But in this case some classes only have 1 or two people and you're like "Well even thought Class C has 3 people it's still bigger than Class F that has 55 people." That is literally your argument. Moving the goalpost now, first you show an map to prove your point and when you see it doesn't prove your point at all. "The republicans won the house and the senate." so lets try this again. ^2008 Map^ So Bobby, who won the bulk of the country? McCain...right? It's something so obvious then surely there would have been previous presidents with extensive business experience right? I hope Vince McMahon runs, I mean he's been running a business for a while. He's more qualified than Rubio, Cruz, Bush, all those years of experience.
Kamala Harris has been a rising start in CA and now nationally for quite a while... even getting consideration for USSC opening. republicans belittling or ignoring her qualifications is par for the course. In fact, seeing the immediate and typical reaction from people here just tells me she isan even better possibility.
Really does that mean that she was the key person in making decisions which last time i checked makes you a executive
I'm not belittling her as much as I, like most of America, have no idea who she is. That's why I asked what her appeal is.
Ah yes, any time anyone in any position makes decisions that counts as executive experience. Gotcha. So when the Subway guy decides to bring out fresh lettuce, that goes on his resume as executive experience. Brilliant.
Wow. Written her off as "bought and paid for" by the "elite" already, right, glynch? You are so ****ing predictable. How about giving the woman a chance? What's the matter? Don't like women running for office?
Deckard, you're insane. You're attacking your own and calling them misogynists for disagreeing with you. I find Glynch on the fringe left, but he's not a brainwashed puppet for the left.
For starters the was endorsed by Elizabeth Warren. Please stop trying to cast her as some sort of establishment elite pawn.
Conversely, focusing on keeping trans-women out of women's restrooms at the expense of tackling real problems also isn't a winning move. That's why Republican voters rejected the Ted Cruz's and other social conservatives in favor of Trump.
It was Hilary's turn, and unfortunately we all paid dearly because of that. But with young talent like Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, more likeable mainstays like Sanders and Warren, and wildcards like Sherrod Brown, Julian Castro, and Al Franken; Hopefully the Dems can get it together and come up with a long-term strategy to keep the base energized. Progressive policies, agility, and diversity. It really is that simple. The GOP doubled down this time around, and it paid off for them. But this loss, as painful as it is, HAS to be a lesson learned. Momentum will not be enough, and if the Left puts out a stale candidate, their turnout will suffer. Obama changed everything. He was the perfect candidate, at the perfect time. It’s not likely that they’ll be able to regularly duplicate this type of scenario every four to eight years, but they absolutely cannot contrast it with candidates like Hilary. The momentum from your homerun candidate will not be enough to ensure that a future seeing eye single candidate will get elected. Double down on your base that is 40 and below, never let them forget about the candidate that the GOP and its base put in the White House during the 2016 election. Stay fresh, agile, and most of all… Stay progressive. If the Dems don’t put out anymore Hilaries, then we won’t be stuck with anymore Trumps.
I actually agree with Michael Moore's sentiment over the past few days that "why don't the democrats just elect someone that is beloved"... and its so true. The majority of Americans share progressive ideals, and its a clear fact. You're telling me with over half the population of the United States, Hillary Clinton was the best we had? (and I actually grew to really appreciate & respect Hillary actually. I thought she was wrongly portrayed & crucified but that's a different point). If Kamala Harris can represent the majority of Americans & reflect our beliefs than great. I don't know enough about her, and haven't heard her positions enough right now to judge how she matches up. However I will say that we should have a treasure trove of folks on the Democratic primary stage & the DNC should be very careful this time to commit too early to a candidate & prop them up early like they did with Hillary even though they had good intentions (to show a united party early). I will say though that given that its Donald Trump we are talking about going against, I think as of now I'd still think that an attack dog mentality in a candidate to be able to play rough & take a beating from a bully verbally will be important. Someone that won't get rattled or scared easily. Elizabeth Warren & Bernie seem like likely more obvious candidates at this point... and don't forget about Michelle Obama who can have the nomination if she wants it.... which is the big question. However that candidate whoever it is needs to be inspiring much like Barack Obama was. They have to be more nuanced than an attack dog. Have to bring people out to vote & make voting for them something cool the millennials get behind. They need to restore the position that USA can be a lighthouse to guide the rest of the world again, and take the country forward instead of back towards the Bush era republican white house (which is what I predict a Trump presidency looks like).
