Yeah I gathered that pretty quickly. No adult says "cuz" and his other abbreviations. Nothing he says adds up and he loses his cool any time somebody disagrees with him. My teenage daughter has more control of her emotions than him.
She was so awful. Talked to her voter base like they were in the 2nd grade. "AI stands for artificial intelligence" Thanks Kamala. We all watched the Matrix too.
Venture capital brah memorized some key terminology. Dude knows what "semiconductor" is. Jesus Christ he's only a couple steps removed from being able to design his own microprocessor homebrew style. Man we finally got smart people in the White House. @Space Ghost kidna showing how easy it is for venture capital tech bros to convince the general public of high intellect by memorizing simple terminology. A actual genius will tell you that Harris and Vance gave essentially the same level of detailed analysis of the state of AI. Nothing he said informs people. OMG we use semiconductors to make microprocessors and code algorithms?
Do you ever leave the internet? No way you can possibly hold down a job. Harris is a clown. Plain and simple. Nobody respects her and that's why she lost
link will work for everyone If Everyone Had Voted, Harris Still Would Have Lost New data, based on authoritative voter records, suggests that Donald Trump would have done even better in 2024 with higher turnout. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/26/...e_code=1.R08.21eE.41qSjL2KECwX&smid=url-share
This was reported shortly after the election. I believe it was Ezra Klein that discussed it and essentially said that Democratic leaders that believe they lost because of turnout are mistaken, because one of the areas that Trump gained support from was demographics that had lower voter turnout usually. I mean it is pretty simple - Trump ran as and won as a populist, and as someone that was not afraid to engage with the media, including nontraditional media. In comparison, Biden and even Harris seldom made public appearances and was very careful in how they engaged with the media and that backfired. Couple that with an administration that seemed to be more concerned with the LGBTQ+ community and the housing of Venezuelans that blue collar Americans - and it was a recipe for disaster.
Trump won as a populist but he didn't promise anyone free stuff. He didn't really run on expanding government programs and service. It's not like he said "Free college" "eliminate student loans" "free healthcare" "free childcare" etc etc. Which I find interesting. I think the Democrats lost because: 1. Inflation/Cost of living - I think this is was the biggest issue by a large margin. I think any encumbent who sees an explosion in CoL/inflation is cooked. 2. Democrats are the party of scolding - Liberal energy is "I am the purest" and if you hold even a single policy position to the right of me on any issue you're an evil, bigot, Nazi, racist and deserve to die. This lead to huge problems especially concerning things like government funded trans healthcare and trans sports. The country is overwhelmingly in one place on it and the Democrats cannot bring themselves to agree [for fear of being labeled as bigots by a fringe] and instead of just agreeing with the broad consensus just die on that hill and/or pathetically attempt to deflect the question. Which, you know, doesn't work. 3. Biden was a walking corpse and Kamala had no rizz at all. They had little-to-no authenticity or personality. They were risk averse. They spoke like robots, if they spoke at all.
He will be easy pickings for right wing commentators. Unless his policy proposals actually work... but... you know.. that's unlikely.
Democrats really don't know how to communicate how their policies help blue collar and rural Americans. They spend too much time talking about small sub groups of people. I'm all for trans rights but that represents like .001 percent of the population The last Democrat that could connect with non college educated white people was Clinton. What I don't get is women who vote for Trump. What is in it for them at all?
WaPo Editorial Board: Kamala Harris’s one good deed The former VP has managed to put on a book tour even less compelling than her presidential campaign. Editorial Board No one, perhaps not even Kamala Harris, knows for certain whether Kamala Harris really wants to be president. The promotional tour for her new book hasn’t cleared up that mystery, but it has reminded the country why most Americans did not want her in the White House. On Monday, Harris offered her first major interview since leaving office, to a predictably deferential MSNBC. Yet even on friendly turf, the former vice president seemed uncomfortable and inauthentic. Rachel Maddow pressed Harris on whether she supports New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. “He’s the Democratic nominee, and he should be supported,” Harris intoned, before adding, “I support the Democrat in the race, sure.” Not exactly a bold stance for someone once thought of as the leader of the Democratic Party. Why not outright endorse Mamdani — or at least make clear why she’s hesitant? Maddow also pressed Harris over her decision to effectively reject then-Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg as a running mate because he is gay. Harris responded by equivocating and rambling that “maybe” she had been overly cautious. “I’m being very candid about that, with a great deal of sadness about also the fact that it might have been a risk,” she said, apparently without irony. The book tour also took Harris back to the scene of one of her short campaign’s lowest points: a friendly sit-down on ABC’s “The View.” Asked to name something she would have done differently than President Joe Biden, she memorably said last year that “there is not a thing that comes to mind.” Back on the show Tuesday, she repeated that line as a joke and demonstrated an almost impressive lack of self-awareness: “I didn’t fully appreciate how much people wanted to know there was a difference between me and President Biden.” Is Harris a brilliant political mind who simply freezes up in front of cameras? Alas, taking the time to organize her thoughts in writing doesn’t help much. Indeed, virtually every page of her book, “107 Days,” offers a glaring reminder of why she failed to close the deal. Much of the book is score-settling that ought to be beneath an aspiring president — the sort of small-mindedness that Democrats rightly knock President Donald Trump for. She is annoyed at Joe and Jill Biden over the former president’s decision to run again, but she did not press him to withdraw, even privately, because it was “as if we’d all been hypnotized.” The critique also extends to staffers and potential running mates. Even her husband gets chastised for failing to arrange a suitable birthday celebration while he was out on the road trying to get her elected. A once and perhaps future presidential candidate should have a better grasp on what presidential leadership sounds like, even in a self-serving memoir. Instead, Harris creates the image of herself as an A student who tells interviewers her greatest weakness is that she’s just too much of a perfectionist. The best that can be said about Harris’s step back into the spotlight is that it’s happening now. Democrats have a real shot at victory in 2028, but they won’t have time to waste on someone like the former vice president. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...opinions&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
