Harris contemplating California governorship

[LoveDrugPNW 430]

10 hours ago, edengowon said:

I honestly don't think her presidential chances are as doomed as people think they are. In fact, I think serving as governor would set her up perfectly for a potential run in 2032/2036. Had she run against literally any other Republican this year I think that she would've won, it's just too hard to combat Trump's established populist rhetoric with a campaign cooked up in four months.

To me, she's more Nixon than Dukakis. He didn't run a bad campaign in 1960, Kennedy just ran a better one, which is why Nixon got a later shot at the presidency and won it in 1968.

I really hope she does not run for president again. People did not support her in 2020 and again in 2024… two failed campaigns is enough. Besides, in 2032 she’ll be 68 and 72 in 2036. I can’t see many younger citizens continuing to vote for an older candidate. If democrats can’t cough up better candidates before 2028, I suspect we’ll continue to see declines in voter turnout.

[Ladle Ghoulash 55,379]

7 minutes ago, King of the Fall said:

So? Everyone was trying to convince me she was a good candidate when she was not. We are talking about one of the most unpopular vice presidents in history if you are going by polling numbers. I never said Joe Biden would have done any better now did I?

Kamala was just the latest example of the establishment democrat party screwing us over by failing to pick a candidate with any degree of popular support. How ****ing dumb do you have to be to think it's a good idea to run with someone tied to the hip with Biden?

“One of the most unpopular vice presidents in history” who, by all relevant measures, barely lost the election. If she’s genuinely as horrible as you described, shouldn’t it have been a blowout? 

[4th Time Around 5,069]

46 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

“One of the most unpopular vice presidents in history” who, by all relevant measures, barely lost the election. If she’s genuinely as horrible as you described, shouldn’t it have been a blowout? 

It was a blowout by the standards of a modern election. When is the last time you can remember republicans winning the popular vote, making big gains among demographics that seemed unreachable beforehand, taking control of senate, house and executive as well as winning every swing state? Final results matter much more than number of votes in terms of judging if an election was close or not. The democrat party will need to reform itself and adobt progressive populism for the future rather than establishment candidates backed by corporate wealth. Republicans have somehow managed to fool people into believing they are a populist party although anyone with half a brain knows that is nonsense.

[Ladle Ghoulash 55,379]

13 minutes ago, King of the Fall said:

It was a blowout by the standards of a modern election. When is the last time you can remember republicans winning the popular vote, making big gains among demographics that seemed unreachable beforehand, taking control of senate, house and executive as well as winning every swing state? Final results matter much more than number of votes in terms of judging if an election was close or not. The democrat party will need to reform itself and adobt progressive populism for the future rather than establishment candidates backed by corporate wealth. Republicans have somehow managed to fool people into believing they are a populist party although anyone with half a brain knows that is nonsense.

In no world was it a blowout by modern standards. 1.5% popular vote victory is the smallest margin of any candidate this century that also won the Electoral College; the EC margin was also only 6 votes higher than Biden’s 2020 victory. Sounds like you’re grading Republicans on a major curve here, given that Dems did everything you described as being a blowout in 2020 (won the House, Senate, and executive, as well as securing a significantly larger popular vote share). I don’t disagree with the assertion that Dems need to do a better job of delivering for the average American whatsoever, I just disagree with the contention that this was a blowout. I actually think the fact that the election was, by all conventional metrics, fairly close, the Dems are far less likely to learn any major lessons from this (although I hope I’m wrong about that). 

[Monstermilo 5,480]

her loss proves that americas sexist 

and that we must get more progressive candidates to the ticket, none of this centrist bullshit cuz it aint working anymore 

the right is becoming more conservative so why should we compromise....

[Bronco 28,249]

10 hours ago, Foxyy said:

Harris is far from a stereotypical establishment Washington Democrat.

She's a West Coast Democrat from San Francisco who represented California in the US Senate having emerged from the San Francisco Democratic party of Pelosi, Feinstein & Newsome. She was AG of California during the time that it became the political boogeyman of American politics. 

She's the stereotype of everything the Democrats are hated for by the working classes of the Sun Belt, Rust Belt & Midwest as a whole.

[LateToCult 42,254]

7 hours ago, King of the Fall said:

So? Everyone was trying to convince me she was a good candidate when she was not. We are talking about one of the most unpopular vice presidents in history if you are going by polling numbers. I never said Joe Biden would have done any better now did I?

Kamala was just the latest example of the establishment democrat party screwing us over by failing to pick a candidate with any degree of popular support. How ****ing dumb do you have to be to think it's a good idea to run with someone tied to the hip with Biden?

What do you mean “so?” There was no third option. It was either Joe or Kamala. You seem to be under the impression that the Dems conducting a “mini” primary would’ve been a winning move. It wouldn’t have been. It would’ve been chaos and whatever candidate was chosen would’ve still lost. Three months and starting funding from scratch? It was gonna be closer to a Biden level loss. 

[AnglerfishbraBENUS 5,734]

6 hours ago, Monstermilo said:

her loss proves that americas sexist 

 

i disagree with this lol

[Guest]

I liked Harris very much but I don't think she should run again in 2028. Dems need to learn from this loss, they lost the Congress and the WH and Trump even won the popular vote. If this isn't a BIG defeat, I don't know what is in some eyes of you. Even if you look at the budget they had. If she chooses to run again in the next presidential campaign it just further proves how they are not opening their eyes. It was a big 'FU' to the establishment party system and Trump proved once again he is the current face of the working class people. If Dems don't manage to establish real reforms to their party and become believable in fighting for the ordinary people again, they won't beat Trump or any other Republican because until then the way people receive news and information has been influenced by Musk and his allies just like they gerrymander the districts. Dems need REAL change and it begins by searching for a credible candidate. I'm sorry to tell you but Kamala Harris won't live up to these challenges, it would be to ask Hillary Clinton to run again. People just don't respond to it, if Trump won so big this time. 

[Natalia Kills 438]

10 hours ago, Monstermilo said:

her loss proves that americas sexist 

and that we must get more progressive candidates to the ticket, none of this centrist bullshit cuz it aint working anymore 

the right is becoming more conservative so why should we compromise....

It is sexist but I don't think that's entirely the case here.

The problem is that women selected so far have been legacy/successor candidates rather than fresh wildcard picks, or even as opposition to the incumbent.

This counteracts the momentum and perception of women being changemakers.

Both Clinton and Harris were both heavily involved in Obama and Biden's legacies. They were far too bogged down by these legacies. Biden would not have won again, for example. And Hillary's downfall was her timing with populism. She likely would have won before populism took off. 

A very progressive candidate is less likely to win the election, unless it could loosen up the social progressive side. Sure, it could rack up more votes, but only in democrat states.

The key to winning is really just about making people in the swing states have a "feel-good" factor around a party. That's determined by making the sure the electorate as a whole in these states have these priorities met:

Disposable income/economy > rights > social wellbeing/healthcare/education > foreign policy > environment/longer term issues

Obviously this isn't the order for each person, but most people don't want to lend time/effort to causes until they've got money in their bank and enjoy a good lifestyle. 

[Monstermilo 5,480]

3 hours ago, AnglerfishbraBENUS said:

i disagree with this lol

so hillary and kamala losing and the US never having a female president isnt proof enough that americas super sexist ????? how does that make sense

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Monstermilo said:

her loss proves that americas sexist 

and that we must get more progressive candidates to the ticket, none of this centrist bullshit cuz it aint working anymore 

the right is becoming more conservative so why should we compromise....

Yes, but there are so many other reasons that she lost despite that, especially when you consider when Hillary ran, she won the popular vote.

[AnglerfishbraBENUS 5,734]

58 minutes ago, Monstermilo said:

so hillary and kamala losing and the US never having a female president isnt proof enough that americas super sexist ????? how does that make sense

so they should have won just because they are women?

[Monstermilo 5,480]

2 hours ago, AnglerfishbraBENUS said:

so they should have won just because they are women?

no girl hillary shouldve won because she was 10x more qualified and worked in the govt for decades 

and kamala shouldve won because she proposed way better policies and is not a felon like trump - AND she has worked in all 3 branches of govt.  

dont go there honey

[AnglerfishbraBENUS 5,734]

3 hours ago, Monstermilo said:

no girl hillary shouldve won because she was 10x more qualified and worked in the govt for decades 

and kamala shouldve won because she proposed way better policies and is not a felon like trump - AND she has worked in all 3 branches of govt.  

dont go there honey

i’m just saying lol the people disagreed hard especially for Harris.