What's new
By:

Kamala Harris for Pres

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
Douchebag K said:
you tried to run a corpse against him, and then replace the corpse with an empty vessel who has no principles or has flipped on any that she has had and cannot articulate any of her policies with any clarity. Pretty damning indictment of the modern Democratic party machine that it can't run any half decent articulate candidate who would surely annihilate such an unpalatable gross figure as Trump
Click to expand...
The Democrats could have the best candidate in the history of the world and they still wouldn't annihilate trump silly.
Trump has an R next to his name


Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
fishonjazz said:
The Democrats could have the best candidate in the history of the world and they still wouldn't annihilate trump silly.
Trump has an R next to his name


Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I'm confused about the double standard people have when talking about Kamala Harris, like she has to be "good" in order for us to pick her. They keep shouting at us about the ways she isn't great, but the whole time Trump is the other candidate.
 
fishonjazz said:
The Democrats could have the best candidate in the history of the world and they still wouldn't annihilate trump silly.
Trump has an R next to his name


Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

i disagree If someone of the ilk of Obama was running against Trump i don't see how they wouldn't comfortably win.
 
Douchebag K said:
i disagree If someone of the ilk of Obama was running against Trump i don't see how they wouldn't comfortably win.
Click to expand...
The only way it would be better is he is male. Many R voters won't be caught dead voting for a black person. Add in female with it and frankly the Democrats fielded about the worst candidate they could find besides dementia Joe. So in that regard, Obama would be better, but the heavily racist bulk of the R voters would ensure his victory wouldn't be that close.

Honestly if the Democrat ticket were reversed and Walz was the P and Harris the VP they'd win much more comfortably. Many R swing voters would be a more more comfortable voting for a white male. I look at my parents as an example. They get how devastating a trump presidency would be for the country, but they are trying to talk themselves out of voting for Harris. They are in Utah, so Trump will win anyway, they say. Or I don't like either of them, maybe I just won't vote. When I ask what they don't like about Trump they have a litany of relevant things to say. When I ask them what they dislike about Harris it's a bunch of hemming a hawing, because when they think about it, her gender and race still bother them. They just don't want to face that. But they are almost 90. For them racism was just ingrained, although I've always considered them to be pretty fair and balanced, especially as compared to many in their generation. But that generational attitude is damn tough to break through. I'll get them to vote, my mom is kind of excited to vote for the first female president. But you can tell it still irks them a little bit. Tough pill to swallow when they spent 30+ years of their lives in segregation and the constant racist culture of the era, especially given it was their formative years. There are plenty like them, only swinging harder to the racist side of the spectrum. At church gatherings I've heard off-hand comments about how a woman can't make tough decisions because of their soft sensibilities, and she's black to boot! As if that's basically enough to disqualify, although it's always given with some excuse, because the people saying it realize they don't have a good reason to feel that way. But it's the indoctrination for much of the country, especially older white individuals. Hence why the Mormons have a really hard time breaking free of that, since the church itself indoctrinated its members against people of color for the better part of a century, and it's still jarring for many in Utah to see black people more regularly now than even just 15 or 20 years ago, let alone actually vote for one. It's sad and pitiful, but it's true.
 
Last edited:
LogGrad98 said:
The only way it would be better is he is male. Many R voters won't be caught dead voting for a black person. Add in female with it and frankly the Democrats fielded about the worst candidate they could find besides dementia Joe. So in that regard, Obama would be better, but the heavily racist bulk of the R voters would ensure his victory wouldn't be that close.

Honestly if the Democrat ticket were reversed and Walz was the P and Harris the VP they'd win much more comfortably. Many R swing voters would be a more more comfortable voting for a white male. I look at my parents as an example. They get how devastating a trump presidency would be for the country, but they are trying to talk themselves out of voting for Harris. They are in Utah, so Trump will win anyway, they say. Or I don't like either of them, maybe I just won't vote. When I ask what they don't like about Trump they have a litany of relevant things to say. When I ask them what they dislike about Harris it's a bunch of hemming a hawing, because when they think about it, her gender and race still bother them. They just don't want to face that. But they are almost 90. For them racism was just ingrained, although I've always considered them to be pretty fair and balanced, especially as compared to many in their generation. But that generational attitude is damn tough to break through. I'll get them to vote, my mom is kind of excited to vote for the first female president. But you can tell it still irks them a little bit. Tough pill to swallow when they spent 30+ years of their lives in segregation and the constant racist culture of the era, especially given it was their formative years. There are plenty like them, only swinging harder to the racist side of the spectrum. At church gatherings I've heard off-hand comments about how a woman can't make tough decisions because of their soft sensibilities, and she's black to boot! As if that's basically enough to disqualify, although it's always given with some excuse, because the people saying it realize they don't have a good reason to feel that way. But it's the indoctrination for much of the country, especially older white individuals. Hence why the Mormons have a really hard time breaking free of that, since the church itself indoctrinated its members against people of color for the better part of a century, and it's still jarring for many in Utah to see black people more regularly now than even just 15 or 20 years ago, let alone actually vote for one. It's sad and pitiful, but it's true.
Click to expand...
My father was born in 1935. He talked at one point about a time when he was growing up in Detroit, when there was "racial unrest." (I believe it would have been during the race riots in 1943, that fits both historically and because he would have been at a good age for it to make an impression on him.) He was at the swimming pool when a group of young black men came in and started beating up basically every white person they saw. As they started coming towards him and some other children, a black women got in between them and shouted "You are NOT going to hurt these babies!" And he realized that it wasn't skin color, it was just people. His brothers, who were 5 and 10 years younger, never had that epiphany, and were both at least semi-racist their entire lives.

He ended up taking part in several civil rights marches in the 1960's and 70's, and was actually arrested and sent to jail with Dick Gregory, who taught him how to raise a ruckus in the holding cell without getting in trouble.
 
LogGrad98 said:
The only way it would be better is he is male. Many R voters won't be caught dead voting for a black person. Add in female with it and frankly the Democrats fielded about the worst candidate they could find besides dementia Joe. So in that regard, Obama would be better, but the heavily racist bulk of the R voters would ensure his victory wouldn't be that close.

Honestly if the Democrat ticket were reversed and Walz was the P and Harris the VP they'd win much more comfortably. Many R swing voters would be a more more comfortable voting for a white male. I look at my parents as an example. They get how devastating a trump presidency would be for the country, but they are trying to talk themselves out of voting for Harris. They are in Utah, so Trump will win anyway, they say. Or I don't like either of them, maybe I just won't vote. When I ask what they don't like about Trump they have a litany of relevant things to say. When I ask them what they dislike about Harris it's a bunch of hemming a hawing, because when they think about it, her gender and race still bother them. They just don't want to face that. But they are almost 90. For them racism was just ingrained, although I've always considered them to be pretty fair and balanced, especially as compared to many in their generation. But that generational attitude is damn tough to break through. I'll get them to vote, my mom is kind of excited to vote for the first female president. But you can tell it still irks them a little bit. Tough pill to swallow when they spent 30+ years of their lives in segregation and the constant racist culture of the era, especially given it was their formative years. There are plenty like them, only swinging harder to the racist side of the spectrum. At church gatherings I've heard off-hand comments about how a woman can't make tough decisions because of their soft sensibilities, and she's black to boot! As if that's basically enough to disqualify, although it's always given with some excuse, because the people saying it realize they don't have a good reason to feel that way. But it's the indoctrination for much of the country, especially older white individuals. Hence why the Mormons have a really hard time breaking free of that, since the church itself indoctrinated its members against people of color for the better part of a century, and it's still jarring for many in Utah to see black people more regularly now than even just 15 or 20 years ago, let alone actually vote for one. It's sad and pitiful, but it's true.
Click to expand...
It “feels like” she’s losing momentum at the moment. Even should she clearly appear to be the “winner” in the debate, I’m not sure it would make any real difference. Nate Silver has Trump winning the electoral vote easily at the moment, with some complaining he’s using biased info, whatever that means. But, for sure she is going to be really problematic for many men….


“New polls show Vice President Harris faces a major challenge in winning over male voters and is losing men by a bigger margin than she’s winning women in key states such as Pennsylvania, Nevada and North Carolina.

The gender gap between Democrats and Republicans isn’t new, but it’s becoming especially pronounced in the toss-up race for president.

Former President Trump’s problems with female voters are well known. New polls show that Harris has just as big of a problem with male voters in some states.

At the Democratic convention in Chicago last month, Harris and her political team largely downplayed her chance of making history by becoming the first woman elected president, and political experts say male voters in some parts of the country remain leery about putting a woman in the Oval Office.

A senior Senate Democratic aide said sexism and misogyny are still powerful forces in the country’s battleground states.

“Misogyny is a hell of a drug,” the source quipped, who said the same problem reared its head when Hillary Clinton was the Democratic nominee eight years ago.

“It was glossed over when people said everyone hated Hillary Clinton,” the Democrat added”.

Nate Silver has chances of Trump winning electoral vote at 64%. Sometimes I see Harris assume a pose, hands on her heart, looking at her audience as if they were her children, with a loving smile. And, call me sexiest, I don’t mind, I’ll vote for her no problem, lol, but when I see that look, I think, “no, a lot of men want to see toughness in a president, not a motherly look!”. In the excitement and hopefulness generated by the selection of a woman, I was not focused on misogyny. But I think it is going to make it really, really tough to elect Kamala Harris. Feeling the momentum shift, but it’s always been easy for me to be a pessimist anyway….

m.economictimes.com

U.S elections: Has Nate Silver skewed data in favour of Donald Trump, he faces backlash on social media

Some argue that Nate Silver's new election model favors less trustworthy surveys and benefits from his affiliation with a betting organization. The way his model projected Trump's chances has generated debate and encouragement from Trump's supporters.
m.economictimes.com m.economictimes.com
 
Last edited:
Douchebag K said:
i disagree If someone of the ilk of Obama was running against Trump i don't see how they wouldn't comfortably win.
Click to expand...
That's because apparently you dont understand that Americans vote for the party not the candidate.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
Douchebag K said:
it is possible to think both candidates are absolutely pitiful
Click to expand...
So true. But you only seem to bitch about the Democrats selecting Kamala as the candidate while I never see you bitch about the fact that the Republicans selected trump. (Over and over and over)

Which is really ironic considering that the Democrats didn't really have much of an option due to the timing of when Biden dropped out and the Republicans have had chance after chance after chance to get rid of trump but keep choosing him over and over and over again.

So the Republicans have plenty of options election after election after election and they continually choose the worst candidate in history. Crickets about that choice.

The Democrats don't really have a choice and they choose Kamala this one time. You voice your frustrations.

Pattern continues.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
newrepublic.com

Kamala Harris Can’t Keep Running Like This

She’s been coasting on good vibes, but the honeymoon is over. Now she needs to lay out how her governing agenda differs from Biden’s—and Tuesday’s debate is the perfect place to do it.
newrepublic.com newrepublic.com

“This was always going to be a very close election, even after Harris replaced Biden. But the tightening of the polls over the past week point to a failure in Harris’s campaign. She had nearly two months to show voters who she is and what she stands for. Instead, she has played it safe, hoping to maintain the positive vibes and momentum of the summer by deliberately not staking out positions on controversial policies. It’s now clear that that approach is no longer working. As the Times’s Nate Cohn wrote on Sunday, “More than anything, voters say they want to hear more about where she stands on the issues, something her campaign has seemed to struggle to lay out.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top