Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Nearly half of all Democrats want Kamala to run again in 2028

Proving the party attracts a significant number of masochists.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 415December 12, 2024 1:16 AM

It’s just name recognition at this point. Nothing more.

by Anonymousreply 1November 21, 2024 3:58 AM

I would love it but she will be too old. We need a Millenial.

by Anonymousreply 2November 21, 2024 3:59 AM

[quote]Nearly half of all Democrats want Kamala to run again in 2028

So does JD Vance.

by Anonymousreply 3November 21, 2024 4:01 AM

Give Al Gore another shot.

by Anonymousreply 4November 21, 2024 4:02 AM

No thanks, sweetie—been there, done that.

by Anonymousreply 5November 21, 2024 4:05 AM

Hopefully we'll have primaries. I mean, will there even be another election cycle?

by Anonymousreply 6November 21, 2024 4:07 AM

She ran a fairly good campaign, but the next candidate needs to be a brilliant communicator, and that is Harris' biggest weakness.

by Anonymousreply 7November 21, 2024 4:08 AM

^ No

by Anonymousreply 8November 21, 2024 4:08 AM

No one will be running again in 2028.

by Anonymousreply 9November 21, 2024 4:15 AM

I love Kamala; she's qualified, but--NO!

I want the Dems to win, and we cannot nominate a woman, black or gay. The country does not have the appetite.

Sorry, we need a strong, electable, white male, possibly Southern.

by Anonymousreply 10November 21, 2024 4:19 AM

Tim Walz

by Anonymousreply 11November 21, 2024 4:28 AM

Walz will go the way of Tim Kaine.

by Anonymousreply 12November 21, 2024 4:31 AM

Losing twice would be so humiliating. Been there done that.

by Anonymousreply 13November 21, 2024 4:32 AM

Not that dud Tim Walz. I had a sense the election was over when Vance owned Walz in the debate.

by Anonymousreply 14November 21, 2024 4:32 AM

R10 Bet Wes Moore could win.

by Anonymousreply 15November 21, 2024 4:32 AM

Stupid idea

by Anonymousreply 16November 21, 2024 4:33 AM

Nope.

Pete Buttigieg.

by Anonymousreply 17November 21, 2024 4:37 AM

I don't think anyone cared about the debate

by Anonymousreply 18November 21, 2024 4:37 AM

I think women like Kamala and Hill got caught up in their heads when they ran for president. Because they were charming otherwise. Then they transformed into being “demure”. And JOY has never been apart of KH’s brand UNTIL she ran for president. Just fucking be real. Wear a skirt. Show off that body. It’s like they developed complexes after years of sexism.

by Anonymousreply 19November 21, 2024 4:40 AM

[quote] I would love it but she will be too old. We need a Millenial.

Oh, dear.

by Anonymousreply 20November 21, 2024 4:44 AM

It's going to be a straight white man. With Pete as VP.

by Anonymousreply 21November 21, 2024 4:53 AM

Pete cannot get elected in ANY state for ANY statewide office. And Kamala couldn't even win a single swing state. These two are losers. We need someone new.

by Anonymousreply 22November 21, 2024 4:59 AM

Someone who calls the other side “demagogues” and “hillbillies”. Regularly dumps leaked info that can be confirmed from multiple sources. Calls out court convictions of the opponent. Points out the conflicts of interest. Questions why their spouse isn’t on their side on the campaign trail. Leaves word salad in the dusts. Oh, what if, what if….

by Anonymousreply 23November 21, 2024 5:57 AM

Could DL fave/villain Owen Jones have the answer?

With Trump heading for the White House, the Democrats must learn these lessons – and fast

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 24November 21, 2024 6:24 AM

They're just a fucking bunch of dumb cunts.

by Anonymousreply 25November 21, 2024 6:26 AM

[bold] The Republicans will NEVER give up the White House again. I am not kidding. They will get another Supreme Court seat, maybe two. Trump is old. He isn't the problem. His successor will come from his cabinet. They will control the military. Within 2 years we will be living in a totalitarian state. The first "unrest" that comes up under Trump 2.0 is going to see tanks rolling thru not just a local police response. Wait and See. That will be the first wake up call and probably come sometime in 2025. [/bold]

by Anonymousreply 26November 21, 2024 6:26 AM

maybe some sort of pills would clear up your mental illness r26

by Anonymousreply 27November 21, 2024 6:28 AM

R24 Stop taking AMERICAN political advice from ugly British guys. He's like a midget.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 28November 21, 2024 6:32 AM

The primaries will pick a candidate and it won’t be Harris. She’s a poor communicator. Plus what will she be doing the next few years to stay relevant?

by Anonymousreply 29November 21, 2024 6:34 AM

Because Trump is already screwing up, any white man can beat him. This is especially true if his administration terrifies and is a shitshow.

Kamala came close and for all we know won. Many don’t believe she lost all 7 swing states unless they cheated.

by Anonymousreply 30November 21, 2024 6:38 AM

[quote]Bet Wes Moore could win.

R15. I wouldn't take the chance with Wes Moore. Sorry, no women, blacks or gays a presidential candidate in 2028. The bigots and discriminatory assholes in this country will not elect anyone in those groups.

The Dems need a moderate, while male. I liked Gavin Newsom, but now I don't want him as a presidential candidate. I am from California. Newsom is a good governor. I like him, but being from California, he could likely be viewed as too slick. So, No to Gavin at least for now.

by Anonymousreply 31November 21, 2024 6:42 AM

Possible Democratic candidates for 2028:

Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut or Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky.

by Anonymousreply 32November 21, 2024 6:44 AM

R24 = Here is your hero, posting from a bar. And HE wants to tell DEMOCRATS what to do? um, no thank you.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 33November 21, 2024 7:22 AM

What we need is a Dennis Kucinich type.

by Anonymousreply 34November 21, 2024 7:28 AM

We aren't leaving. We have tanks.------------->>GOP 2028

by Anonymousreply 35November 21, 2024 7:37 AM

No women. No blacks. No LGBTQ. No California.

by Anonymousreply 36November 21, 2024 7:48 AM

We did not lose because of Harris.

We lost because a large part of the country thinks the economy is bad (it isn’t), unemployment is high (it isn’t), crime is rising (it isn’t), and that Trump can solve these problems (he can’t). Democrats are not reaching the low information voters that Trump managed to capture. But the good news is that they don’t usually vote in midterms and that they probably won’t vote for someone not named Trump. Democrats do need a better messaging ecosystem, but that is a multi year project.

Harris made the swing states competitive with her ground game.

by Anonymousreply 37November 21, 2024 7:53 AM

R37 is a moron.

by Anonymousreply 38November 21, 2024 8:45 AM

Beshear screams Jimmy Carter loser.

by Anonymousreply 39November 21, 2024 8:46 AM

Said one on the losing end, R18.

by Anonymousreply 40November 21, 2024 9:33 AM

Oy vey, R30.

by Anonymousreply 41November 21, 2024 9:35 AM

Beshear doesn’t have any of the charisma that, yes, the 1976 Jimmy Carter had. The then-non loser Jimmy Carter who won against a sitting president.

by Anonymousreply 42November 21, 2024 9:38 AM

We really need to sort out why 7-11 million voters from 2020 did NOT vote in 2024, which is inexcusable considering the potential challenge to Democracy.

by Anonymousreply 43November 21, 2024 10:56 AM

best picks: 1. Maddow/Walz 2. Winfrey/King 3. Newsom/Winfrey 4. Buttagig/Maddow 5. Walz/Scarborough

by Anonymousreply 44November 21, 2024 11:10 AM

This always happens, the Dems all wanted Al Gore to try again at this time in late 2000…

by Anonymousreply 45November 21, 2024 11:20 AM

As there won't be a 2028 election, nothing to worry about here.

by Anonymousreply 46November 21, 2024 11:24 AM

I'm thinking if Biden had stayed in the race he would have won. People just didn't know this woman.

by Anonymousreply 47November 21, 2024 11:54 AM

Well since he only served one term, he can certainly run again in 2028.

by Anonymousreply 48November 21, 2024 12:03 PM

[quote]Democrats are not reaching the low information voters that Trump managed to capture.

Because Harris didn’t know how to communicate to them.

by Anonymousreply 49November 21, 2024 12:06 PM

[quote]We really need to sort out why 7-11 million voters from 2020 did NOT vote in 2024, which is inexcusable considering the potential challenge to Democracy.

I think most of these were Never-Trump Republicans who voted Biden in 2020, but didn’t like either candidate this time so didn’t vote.

by Anonymousreply 50November 21, 2024 12:13 PM

It wasn’t just Harris being unable to communicate with the low information voters. It was a problem across the board. Nearly the whole nation shifted to the right. Local, state, and federal levels were all impacted. It was going to happen whether it was Biden or Harris. I wouldn’t be surprised if an analysis down the line found that Harris tempered some of the rightward vectoring.

by Anonymousreply 51November 21, 2024 12:15 PM

4% want Ocasio-Cortez to run..... they really are out of touch. Kamala would be a much better option that that. Ocasio-Cortez would be toxic for a vast number of voters and turn off the ones in the centre most.

R24 Owen Jones is actually right about this for once - the Democrats need to drive home a message of support for the working poor hard and fast. Not often I agree with him but I do here. He's wrong about not going at least a little bit rightwards on a few popular policy areas though, like illegal immigration and crime, they were basically already there but failed to communicate that clearly. Again that would win votes in the centre like those R50 alludes to, people who may have liked one or two of Trumps policies but otherwise hated the man and everything he stands for

by Anonymousreply 52November 21, 2024 12:18 PM

[quote]No women. No blacks. No LGBTQ. No California.

No east coast, no Harvard, no New York................... in other words : no arrogance.

by Anonymousreply 53November 21, 2024 12:20 PM

We also need to get better at sound bites that resonate with voters. Regretfully, tRump is a master at this.

by Anonymousreply 54November 21, 2024 12:37 PM

Eating my popcorn.

by Anonymousreply 55November 21, 2024 12:43 PM

I'll run her next campaign.

by Anonymousreply 56November 21, 2024 12:53 PM

So what, who cares ?

by Anonymousreply 57November 21, 2024 12:54 PM

Kamala's been hiding out in my house in Miami since the election, as we've been best friends since childhood, and she already picked me to be her new campaign manager for 2028. She said keep that Sunny Hostin bitch far the hell away from me. She cost me the election with her 'October Surprise' on the show last month.

by Anonymousreply 58November 21, 2024 12:57 PM

I can only hope R44 was being whimsical. If not, why not add Tim Kaine to the mix?

by Anonymousreply 59November 21, 2024 1:18 PM

A Ben Affleck/Jennifer Aniston ticket would win Gen X.

by Anonymousreply 60November 21, 2024 1:53 PM

If trumpy can run 3 times & lose the pop. vote each race then why can't she run again OP?

She's much younger than fossil Hillary.

by Anonymousreply 61November 21, 2024 2:21 PM

Trump didn't lose the popular vote this time, R61. He just didn't exceed 50% of the vote. And he's now won twice.

by Anonymousreply 62November 21, 2024 2:23 PM

Are you fuckin nuts!

IT'S HILLARY'S TURN!

by Anonymousreply 63November 21, 2024 3:04 PM

They thought that shoplifting had been deccriminalized (it wasn'; anywhere), they thought that doctors are performing random sex hange opreations, that doctors are killing newborns. They thought a lot of stuff that no average 10 year old would think are true. Because they would say anything to justify their vote, but the real reason for it is simple: racism and sexism. Period.

by Anonymousreply 64November 21, 2024 3:45 PM

Only a white man is allowed to lose a major election and then cause a resurrection and then re-run for president and WIN. If Jesse Jackson pulled a stunt like that he and his entire rainbow coalition would have been the locked the fuck up and maybe charged with treason. There would have been about 2 dozen dead black bodies in Congress. Thats why I think its likely some type of conspiracy with Biden. I don’t care if I’m crazy. Why didn’t he force his AG to fucking put him on trial. That’s all you talked about and how evil it was.

by Anonymousreply 65November 21, 2024 5:00 PM

If only JB would get on Ozempic.

Pritzker/Buttigieg 2028 if not sooner.

by Anonymousreply 66November 21, 2024 5:05 PM

r65 can you just fucking OD already?

by Anonymousreply 67November 21, 2024 6:19 PM

R43 There is nothing to figure out. So either “stop the steal” happened then or vote tampering happened NOW. Imma need my cyber gays to find the answers.

by Anonymousreply 68November 21, 2024 6:48 PM

Or 10 million Democrats woke up on election day, decided that they were racist and went back to bed.

by Anonymousreply 69November 21, 2024 7:04 PM

R69 That’s statistically impossible. It’s simply impossible. The 2020 numbers do not make sense.

by Anonymousreply 70November 21, 2024 7:07 PM

Oh FFS. Let’s have a completely open Democratic primary process in 2027-28. And let’s decide THEN who the D nominee should be.

This all needs a 2 year break, minimum.

by Anonymousreply 71November 21, 2024 7:10 PM

R47- Joe Biden polled as one of the most unpopular Presidents ever. He would’ve lost.

by Anonymousreply 72November 21, 2024 7:20 PM

[quote] It’s just name recognition at this point.

Name recognition is very important. There is no individual in the Democratic field with broad appeal who has name recognition. It was because of this deficit that we were stuck with Biden as the nominee until the last 100 days. I was prepared to vote for Biden but I am much happier that I got to vote for Harris. She ran a strong campaign against odds that were insurmountable for anyone not named Obama. I am very bitter over the loss but not enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Harris is the presumptive candidate for 2028. Four years is just the right amount of time for her to get her house in order and prepare for her run. The next four years will be a horror show and the people that voted for Trump will suffer the most. Trump is term-limited and he does not care about the Republican party or making sure they can continue to control government when he's not there. By the time of the next election Harris will be a "white knight."

However, I am prepared to vote for any Democrat.

by Anonymousreply 73November 21, 2024 7:38 PM

R73 Great post and I like the way you think but we have to be pragmatic. It cannot be her. Only white males, preferably ugly, are allowed to fail upwards. It needs to be a millennial. Hell maybe a pop culture type figure who has been involved in politics for at least a decade. What sport stars are out there who know Washington and have worked in politics. They don’t have to have served in elected office. Trump facilitated that no longer being a requirement.

by Anonymousreply 74November 21, 2024 7:42 PM

R68, don't disagree at all.

by Anonymousreply 75November 21, 2024 7:50 PM

R74, Trump 2.0 will enable Democrats to rebuild its traditional coalition. Union-busting, higher unemployment, lower wages, diminished SSA and Medicare, higher cost of living will bring back the critical blocs of Democrat voters that fell for MAGA in 2024. However, we cannot abandon the backbone of the party -- a culturally and ethnically diverse coalition of progressive voters. We had better have a candidate that can capture the base, it will likely not be another white Christian male. We'll be ready for a female president in 2028 and a female of color will ignite the liberal/progressive Dem base.

by Anonymousreply 76November 21, 2024 7:58 PM

For those saying Biden should run again, my god, he'll be like the same as age Dorothy's grandmother when she colonized Venus.

by Anonymousreply 77November 21, 2024 8:00 PM

[quote] Only a white man is allowed to lose a major election and then cause a resurrection and then re-run for president and WIN. If Jesse Jackson pulled a stunt like that he and his entire rainbow coalition would have been the locked the fuck up and maybe charged with treason.

In fact, my friend, only Jesus Christ has pulled off a resurrection and I have it on good authority it was profoundly successful, and personally, I harbor doubts that he was a white man.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 78November 21, 2024 8:10 PM

R77 Anybody saying that Biden should run again is a MAGA mole or basement troll. It doesn’t even deserve a response.

by Anonymousreply 79November 21, 2024 8:28 PM

R78 That is one good looking Jesus yo. I’m buying that picture and putting it in my living room.

by Anonymousreply 80November 21, 2024 8:29 PM

R49 Or because she only had 3 months to reach around 300 million people in an enormous expanse of diverse concerns and levels of political engagement. Trump has been campaigning for president for a decade. I have no doubt that if Biden had dropped out before the debate or even just after it that Harris could have found a way to reach them all.

by Anonymousreply 81November 21, 2024 9:03 PM

Harris could have done it with a sufficient window -- 9 months or more. She had Drumpf and his team on the ropes for 100 days. They were as surprised and confounded as everyone else on election day.

by Anonymousreply 82November 21, 2024 9:14 PM

[quote]Only a white man is allowed to lose a major election and then cause a resurrection and then re-run for president and WIN.

So, the nominee must be a white man then. It's solved.

by Anonymousreply 83November 21, 2024 11:11 PM

She had tremendous support from people who would have voted for anyone against Trump. She won’t have that boost in 2028. Also, she would still be a second Biden term in the mind of voters.

by Anonymousreply 84November 21, 2024 11:46 PM

Bareshare appeals to me.

by Anonymousreply 85November 21, 2024 11:48 PM

[quote] They were as surprised and confounded as everyone else on election day.

Link, please. I believe her when she always said she was the underdog. It's quite a challenge to win the presidency directly from the vice presidency, especially when the president has such low approval ratings.

by Anonymousreply 86November 22, 2024 12:04 AM

"Run again 2028". Oh, that's amusing. Like there's going to be anything left in 2028.

by Anonymousreply 87November 22, 2024 12:05 AM

I don’t want her anymore

by Anonymousreply 88November 22, 2024 12:12 AM

The Democrats need to choose a loud, lily-white, makeup-encrusted, barely coherent sexual predator who is willing to fellate microphones while pretending to be a Christian and actually being the antithesis to everything Jesus preached.

America wants what it wants.

by Anonymousreply 89November 22, 2024 12:17 AM

I heard the DNC is putting Jimmy Carter forward again on a ticket with Nancy Pelosi. Well, why not?

by Anonymousreply 90November 22, 2024 12:57 AM

Some Dems need to realize that Josh Shapiro, Pete Buttigieg,Gavin Nesom, and AOC are types of people who have very little chances of being elected POTUS.

by Anonymousreply 91November 22, 2024 1:25 AM

It's way too soon to write the presidential obituaries of the likes of Shapiro, et al. Circa 2016, I never thought that Joe Biden would be elected president.

by Anonymousreply 92November 22, 2024 1:31 AM

Anti-semitism and Christian Nationalism are reasons why Shapiro and other Jewish Dems like Jon Ossoff and Elissa Slotkin would never be elected POTUS.

AOC seems to have ditched some of her far left beliefs. But, it's possible that her relationships with Rashida Tlaib and other progressives have soured due to AOC campaigning for Harris/Walz. If she attempts a presidential run, people will spill tea on her.

by Anonymousreply 93November 22, 2024 1:35 AM

[bold] Spoiler Alert! [/bold] We aren't leaving. Ever. Why would we? Also we have tanks. -------GOP 2028.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 94November 22, 2024 1:43 AM

r72, that is sad because her really delivered for Americans.

by Anonymousreply 95November 22, 2024 1:59 AM

that is sad because he really delivered for Americans.

sorry, fixed it.

by Anonymousreply 96November 22, 2024 2:02 AM

OP, what a stupid-ass idea. She isn't going to win. It sucks but we will need another white man to step up and take lead. Only then will we have a chance at attracting conservative Democrats and moderate Repugs. Which we NEED to get the ball over the goalpost.

Please stop this craziness. At some point the lives of people affected by Repugs, who are currently in control of the country, has to be more important than making a damn statement.

We cannot afford to loose. If we get another chance to vote, and we may not, then we need to vote in someone who will win over the majority.

I just cannot understand why Dems only care about looking cool and progressive instead of keeping many from suffering under fascism. Why is it always about the optics with them and never about doing what is necessary and saving our country from fascism?

by Anonymousreply 97November 22, 2024 2:09 AM

Horrible idea.

And I bet she’ll precisely attempt to do it again then, as a result.

by Anonymousreply 98November 22, 2024 2:56 AM

[quote]Some Dems need to realize that Josh Shapiro, Pete Buttigieg,Gavin Nesom, and AOC are types of people who have very little chances of being elected POTUS.

I believe the Jew-hating wing of the Democratic party can be defeated and so Shapiro can earn the nomination. If he's nominated, he will win in the general.

by Anonymousreply 99November 22, 2024 4:59 AM

Shapiro won't win a general election.

by Anonymousreply 100November 22, 2024 5:31 AM

R99 It isn't just the Jew-hatings Dems. The majority of Repugs hate Jews too. He cannot win

by Anonymousreply 101November 22, 2024 11:20 AM

[quote]We cannot afford to loose.

Oh, Dear.

[quote]Bareshare appeals to me.

Oh, Fucking Dear.

by Anonymousreply 102November 22, 2024 11:27 AM

The Dems need to become stronger, tougher, more butch , less fem , less sensitive , less triggered , less pussies as they are now viewed by the majority of Americans.

Many Dems showed their views on this already when they stayed home or voted for trump.

Bill Clinton was correct but the Harris campaign did not listen or did not act.

by Anonymousreply 103November 22, 2024 12:04 PM

[quote]The Dems need to become stronger, tougher, more butch , less fem , less sensitive , less triggered , less pussies as they are now viewed by the majority of Americans.

“Tough on crime” would be a good place to start. People are done with the Sanctuary Cities, and Defund the Police. Bill Clinton passed that crime bill and easily got reelected.

by Anonymousreply 104November 22, 2024 12:06 PM

[quote]The Dems need to become stronger, tougher, more butch , less fem , less sensitive , less triggered , less pussies as they are now viewed by the majority of Americans.

In other words, stop kowtowing to woke politics, brought to us by eastern liberal arts females.

by Anonymousreply 105November 22, 2024 12:27 PM

It's gonna be quite the challenge to be "less fem" in a party so dominated by women.

by Anonymousreply 106November 22, 2024 2:06 PM

Pritzker could use Ozempic

by Anonymousreply 107November 22, 2024 2:23 PM

Or get Penny to run. But they'd have to keep her away from interviews.

by Anonymousreply 108November 22, 2024 2:24 PM

Here we go again, talking about the midterms, this isn't a competition, it's people's fucking lives, let them suffer, there will be collateral damage, it is necessary, people need to feel pain, they really do, let their little shitty children suffer too. They need to pay.

by Anonymousreply 109November 22, 2024 3:48 PM

[quote] It's gonna be quite the challenge to be "less fem" in a party so dominated by women.

The Dems should utilize tough butch straight woman Elissa Slotkin instead of pretty dumb girl AOC. Slotkin was in the CIA and is a likely a sociopath who was recruited for that reason.

Slotkin needs to get on Ozempic and get a slight makeover, but still retain her butch straight woman persona.

by Anonymousreply 110November 22, 2024 3:50 PM

[quote] let them suffer, there will be collateral damage, it is necessary, people need to feel pain, they really do, let their little shitty children suffer too.

Just curious, do you 1) acknowledge that you are an extremely evil person, or 2) do you falsely claim that you are not?

by Anonymousreply 111November 22, 2024 3:56 PM

[quote] Also, she would still be a second Biden term in the mind of voters.

By 2028, a second Biden term will seem like paradise to the poor, working-class and middle-class MAGAts whose lives are about to be upended by their orange savior and his carnival of chaos.

by Anonymousreply 112November 22, 2024 4:09 PM

[quote] OP, what a stupid-ass idea. She isn't going to win. It sucks but we will need another white man to step up and take lead.

That is too short-sighted. It's how we ended up with an older mediocre white man (Joe Biden - God bless him!) who was not viable for a second term. He was no one's choice. There was no enthusiasm for him in 2020, he was just a vote against Trump. Dems need to put forth a charismatic, galvanizing leader like Obama.

by Anonymousreply 113November 22, 2024 4:15 PM

Just another sign that she didn't lose this election. Where is the 'apathy' for her the MSM keeps telling us about?

by Anonymousreply 114November 22, 2024 4:15 PM

[quote]Slotkin needs to get on Ozempic and get a slight makeover, but still retain her butch straight woman persona.

Stay out of my lane, bitch.

by Anonymousreply 115November 22, 2024 4:16 PM

[quote] Just another sign that she didn't lose this election. Where is the 'apathy' for her the MSM keeps telling us about?

Oy veh.

by Anonymousreply 116November 22, 2024 4:25 PM

Winning is literally everything. All of us Dems with ashes in our mouths should know this. No women, no blacks, no gays. I loathe Trump, but he is super masculine. America wants a macho leader. And no gays, for the love of god. Not even as Veep. Are you people fucking crazy?

by Anonymousreply 117November 22, 2024 4:35 PM

The fact that so many would lazily choose the candidate who just lost does show some apathy about the whole thing.

by Anonymousreply 118November 22, 2024 4:36 PM

About 1/2 million who voted for. Biden stayed home in NYC and didn’t vote for Harris. FYI.

by Anonymousreply 119November 22, 2024 4:44 PM

[quote]I loathe Trump, but he is super masculine.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 120November 22, 2024 4:44 PM

Wes Moore over Buttigieg. America would probably except a buff, attractive black man over a gay man.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 121November 22, 2024 4:51 PM

Great ideas. Really super. Keep it up and good luck.

by Anonymousreply 122November 22, 2024 4:55 PM

It's only been a couple of weeks and the dust is still settling, so it's far too early to discuss 2028 or even the midterms in 2026. We need to gain a data-backed understanding of how and why she lost, but it isn't hard to see and I believe the data will back up the assertion that she lost because angry white Christian men (and the women under their spell) are still angry over the pandemic and the economic upheaval wrought by multi-month shutdowns and interruptions in their lives ultimately underlined by inflation.

The issue is that the Trump campaign was able to focus that anger like a laser on Democrats. I mean, it was the Democrats who pushed for science-based action to the pandemic, and science tells us exactly how the pandemic would play out. The opportunity to stop the spread of an infectious disease ended when it was allowed to gain a foothold in the population because Trump's leadership was woefully inadequate, purposefully so when you understand that they did the opposite of what public health officials told them right from the beginning. Obama left Trump a well-reasoned, field-tested playbook because they saw that a pandemic was inevitable (although I think they really thought it was decades away); Trump was so dismissive and racist that his guiding philosophy was to just do the opposite of whatever Obama would do, and since Obama followed science, they did the opposite of what the science told them.

Regardless, when the opportunity to raise prices with no risk of having to take responsibility for doing so presented itself to big business, of course they were going to take it. One of Kamala's failures of communication was that she didn't draw a direct line between the inflation rate and the incredible increase in corporate profits, not to mention the ample evidence provided by corporate leaders admitting to the deed. The reason inflation was 9% was because corporations took greater profits. Either the Democrats needed to take control of the problem when it happened by instituting some pandemic price controls, or prepare the message to hold those responsible accountable. They did neither.

So we had a nation of angry white Christian men ready to blame anyone and everyone not white and male for their declining economic situation. The Republicans had done a good job of turning one of the best presidents we've ever had into one of the worst in the minds of these angry white Christian men; as we've all said over and over, the economy is booming, unemployment is at historic lows, manufacturing is coming back, wages are up, and people are too busy bitching about inflation while putting their $500 Halloween skeleton decorations in their front yards to notice that the economy has never been better. It's easy to think the world has gone to Hell when you're paying 50% more for groceries. Republicans held Biden accountable for inflation, painting him as old and out of touch because he didn't do something about a problem that they created

And then, because his loss was all but guaranteed, and the stakes were so incredibly high, party leaders convinced Biden to drop out. But it was too late. And his VP would inherit all of the issues that plagued Biden, excepting for the age issue. But his age was only part of the reason he was disqualified. The Republicans were shocked when he dropped out; Shady JD even termed it "a sucker punch". So, they turned to tried-and-true racism and misogyny, and it worked. Again. Despite being whip smart, capable, experienced, and ready to govern on day one, angry white Christian men (and crucially, their sycophants) chose the unqualified, criminal, corrupt and ridiculously unintelligent and unhinged mobster. The message was loud and clear: their worst is still better than our best.

What this tells us is pretty simple: the next Democratic nominee must be white, male, and Christian. Given what Trump and the broligarchy are going to do to the nation and the worldwide economy, not much else is going to matter because at our core, we are deeply racist and misogynistic.

by Anonymousreply 123November 22, 2024 5:27 PM

“ What this tells us is pretty simple: the next Democratic nominee must be white, male, and Christian. Given what Trump and the broligarchy are going to do to the nation and the worldwide economy, not much else is going to matter because at our core, we are deeply racist and misogynistic”

After Kamala lost, I spent the next day going a little OCD on which Dems have won a first term and which Dems failed. It turns out there’s a set of conditions.

If you want the Presidency and you’re a non-incumbent Democrat, you need to run when the GOP incumbent and/or the GOP as a party have been in power and the voters are feeling restless and discontent.

That is the pattern that connects Jimmy Carter ‘76, Bill Clinton ‘92, Barack Obama ‘08 and Joe Biden ‘20.

Can a Democratic woman win? We don’t actually know yet, because the two who tried did not compete under the favorable conditions. No white Christian male Dem has won without them, why should we have expected a woman to do it?

This likely sets us up well for 2028.

by Anonymousreply 124November 22, 2024 5:56 PM

Low-information voters just picked the loudest one who told them the most lies. Now their ignorance will come back to haunt them.

by Anonymousreply 125November 22, 2024 6:05 PM

"About 1/2 million who voted for. Biden stayed home in NYC and didn’t vote for Harris. FYI."

Where did all the votes go?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 126November 22, 2024 6:12 PM

R74 it should be a millennial. Fuck Gen X.

by Anonymousreply 127November 22, 2024 6:24 PM

[quote]The opportunity to stop the spread of an infectious disease ended when it was allowed to gain a foothold in the population

^ This is such bullshit. The virus gained a foothold in every nation on earth and it ain't because of Trump.

[quote]Despite being whip smart, capable, experienced, and ready to govern on day one, angry white Christian men (and crucially, their sycophants) chose the unqualified, criminal, corrupt and ridiculously unintelligent and unhinged mobster.

55% of Latino men voted for Trump.

by Anonymousreply 128November 22, 2024 6:36 PM

Will it be the most important election of our lifetime?

by Anonymousreply 129November 22, 2024 6:39 PM

[quote]What this tells us is pretty simple: the next Democratic nominee must be white, male, and Christian.

Why do you completely ignore the fact the Barack Hussein Obama won the Presidency twice.

by Anonymousreply 130November 22, 2024 7:11 PM

[quote]The virus gained a foothold in every nation on earth and it ain't because of Trump.

The virus was not detected early because Trump pulled our doctors and scientists out of China, saying it was a boondoggle and waste of money. Yes, I know that Trump has already tried to refute this by putting the blame of Redfield, but who told Redfield to end our program of working with the Chinese? Why did Trump do that? It was only a few million-dollar effort to put Americans in China to observe, work with and develop relationships with Chinese doctors and scientists. But he mocked it and made light of it, telling stupid Americans that we were paying scientists a lot of money to play with bats in caves... which made no sense to average flyoverstans who have still not figured out that the reason we "play with bats in caves" was to test them for highly infectious diseases about to enter the human ecosystem rather like a canary in a coal mine. But it was too late. Nevertheless, they completely forgave Trump's malfeasance and chalked the pandemic up to China, bad timing or other such nonsense.

Before you tell me I'm wrong, answer this one question: Do you have smoke detectors in your house? Why? They won't stop a fire. They won't do anything other than emit a loud, ear-piercing siren. They're expensive, require routine maintenance and replacement, are annoying as hell when the low battery alert goes off at 3:00 am, and are a right royal pain in the ass. But when a fire starts in the middle of the night...

If our people had been in China in 2019, we would have been made aware that the virus had escaped the Wuhan lab and quarantined it there. But Trump destroyed and threw away our early warning system. And then when stories of a strange airborne infectious disease started cropping up, instead of stopping travel from China to the US (and the rest of the world), he used it to issue a travel stop order targeted at brown people. And then it spread across our nation like wildfire, and all the Trump administration did was try to leverage it against blue states. Their plan failed when [italic]science[/italic] inevitably asserted control and the virus spread like... a virus always spreads. Scientifically. Predictably. Destructively. Everywhere. Indiscriminately.

So don't tell me the most powerful man on Earth in the most powerful nation on Earth had no responsibility for an entirely preventable pandemic. And replace the battery in your smoke detector because if the insurance company's investigation finds you disconnected it rather than buy batteries, they won't cover your losses and you are shit out of luck.

by Anonymousreply 131November 22, 2024 8:22 PM

She was suitable enough but I'm not really a fan of anyone who loses an election running a second time, for any office.

Let's get fresh blood in the DNC and get some new strong faces and names in there.

by Anonymousreply 132November 22, 2024 8:24 PM

[quote]Let's get fresh blood in the DNC

As the notorious Roseanne Barr once quipped: "Let's get fresh blood in the White House--every 28 days"

by Anonymousreply 133November 22, 2024 8:50 PM

R126 about half of the missing NYC voters left the city. But Harris still had around 250K not bother to vote for her. Trump picked up 95K voters many from Queens. There is no one in sight but a strong Republican like Bloomberg could easily be elected Mayor in 2025. Low income areas where migrants are dumped are VERY unhappy about it.

by Anonymousreply 134November 22, 2024 9:01 PM

R131 Bullshit.

It was announced in December of 2019 that Predict would end in March 2020. And it was given an extension.

Furthermore, Covid was spreading through Europe by November 2019. And there are scientists who believe it had entered Europe by the Summer of 2019

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 135November 22, 2024 9:55 PM

[quote] Will it be the most important election of our lifetime?

Yes, and must be described as existential with several exclamation points. Likewise, with all the elections after that.

by Anonymousreply 136November 22, 2024 10:02 PM

No way. She's an idiot. She doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground. The have 4 years to bring forward an candidate that can answer hard questions and have a vision. That's not her.

by Anonymousreply 137November 22, 2024 10:14 PM

I love my Momala for life. She should have won. Fucking non college educated dopes. Fuck em all I care. I don’t care.

by Anonymousreply 138November 22, 2024 10:30 PM

[quote] Low-information voters just picked the loudest one who told them the most lies. Now their ignorance will come back to haunt them.

It's already starting to haunt them. For the past couple of weeks, YouTube and TikTok content creators have been making "Fuck Around and Find Out" videos in reference to Trump voters who are either regretting their votes or finding out that Trump's proposed policies are going to negatively effect them. A bunch of dumb fuck Trump supporters didn't understand how tarrifs work and are losing Christmas bonuses because companies/factories they work for are buying/stocking up on materials ahead of time before Trump takes office. Some people will probably lose their jobs. There are Trumpster morons who don't/didn't understand that Obamacare and ACA are the same thing. They are idiots posting on social media that "they hope Trump cuts Obamacare, but not ACA because they need health insurance.

by Anonymousreply 139November 22, 2024 10:32 PM

[quote] A bunch of dumb fuck Trump supporters didn't understand how tarrifs work and are losing Christmas bonuses because companies/factories they work for are buying/stocking up on materials ahead of time before Trump takes office.

Is that this:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 140November 22, 2024 10:43 PM

For all the claims of buyers regret, Trump's approval rating - as it was during the campaign - is still much greater than it was in his first administration. In the last week, he was at 54%.

by Anonymousreply 141November 22, 2024 10:48 PM

R140 Yup, it's that. I'm leaning that the claim is true. I think once December rolls around we are going to be hearing/getting similar stories.

by Anonymousreply 142November 22, 2024 10:50 PM

R142, such a viral claim and the company still has not been found and identified? Would you say that your hope in its validity may have affected your leaning to the claim being true?

by Anonymousreply 143November 22, 2024 11:03 PM

I "lean" toward the claim being true because I know southwestern PA, and have no doubts that most of those people don't have the sense God gave a flea, so them not understanding tariffs or, really, anything other than wiping their own asses isn't a surprise.

by Anonymousreply 144November 22, 2024 11:38 PM

r130, that is what provoked the KKK/Fox response against Democrats. White racists, and those who do not believe themselves to be racist but who are devout Fox viewers, will only vote for White Men. Joe got the crossover in 2020. America has to be sufficiently minority for a black woman to be elected. All of Trump's corruption was not enough to overcome that.

Pritzker/Buttigieg 2028

by Anonymousreply 145November 23, 2024 12:29 AM

[quote] No way. She's an idiot. She doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground. The have 4 years to bring forward an candidate that can answer hard questions and have a vision. That's not her.

We’ve had two Bushes, Reagan, and Trump. Harris would never win the presidential idiot sweepstakes no matter how many times you say it.

by Anonymousreply 146November 23, 2024 12:48 AM

Anyone who says that Kamala Harris, noted prosecutor and courtroom closer, suffered from word salad, is a person who only saw her on Fox and edited.

by Anonymousreply 147November 23, 2024 12:50 AM

Idiot is too strong. Anyone who couldn’t answer the question how she’d be different than Biden is just very dumb.

by Anonymousreply 148November 23, 2024 2:01 AM

[quote] Pritzker/Buttigieg 2028

Pritzker is Jewish. America is still too anti-Semitic to elect a Jewish person POTUS.

by Anonymousreply 149November 23, 2024 2:07 AM

Ah, now we know why Turd did the Bronx rally. So he could later say he changed hearts and minds that day.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 150November 23, 2024 2:20 AM

[quote]Anyone who says that Kamala Harris, noted prosecutor and courtroom closer, suffered from word salad, is a person who only saw her on Fox and edited.

No. We saw Chuckle Head Harris speak in own words.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 151November 23, 2024 2:20 AM

R151=brainless moron. Nobody could watch a Trump speech and imagine him in control of nuclear weapons. His rambling incompetence and severe mental illness were on full display every day for hours a day.

by Anonymousreply 152November 23, 2024 3:07 AM

[quote] What this tells us is pretty simple: the next Democratic nominee must be white, male, and Christian.

Sounds like a losing plan.

White Christian males would never vote for a Democrat, and Democrats are probably done with voting for white Christian males.

by Anonymousreply 153November 23, 2024 4:44 AM

Democrats will only vote for black, Muslim women? Good luck with that.

by Anonymousreply 154November 23, 2024 4:54 AM

R135, go back and read my post. Posting that cases were thought to have been found in September 2019 in Italy completely comports with what I've written. Trump pulled the doctors out of China well before 2019; it was one of the first things he instructed the CDC chief to do (Redfield?) and they started in 2017. I think the number pulled out of China by the time the Pandemic struck was something like 47, leaving only 14 US CDC personnel in China, none in Wuhan where the Institute of Virology was located. There were doctors there earlier... the ones Trump mocked for chasing bats in caves.

by Anonymousreply 155November 23, 2024 5:12 AM

This thread has become tiresome

by Anonymousreply 156November 23, 2024 5:14 AM

[quote]Anyone who says that Kamala Harris, noted prosecutor and courtroom closer, suffered from word salad, is a person who only saw her on Fox and edited.

She’s fine when she’s the one asking the questions and cross-examining. But when she’s giving the responses, it was indeed often word salad.

by Anonymousreply 157November 23, 2024 6:01 AM

R157. She had no trouble answering questions during the debate.

Is concepts of a plan not word salad because it’s uttered by a man?

by Anonymousreply 158November 23, 2024 9:29 AM

[quote]She had no trouble answering questions during the debate.

And yet she had enormous trouble during interviews with simple predictable questions.

But one question she did answer directly and succinctly was when asked what she would have done differently from Biden: “There is not a thing that comes to mind.”

LOL.

by Anonymousreply 159November 23, 2024 4:05 PM

It’s best to keep a sense of proportion. She did struggle sometimes with answering questions. That was one of the weaker points in an otherwise strong campaign. She did not struggle enormously.

And if you think she ever sounded remotely as befuddled, inarticulate, stupid, and confused as Reagan, Trump, or the two Bushes? Your partisan, sexist, uninformed, or insane.

by Anonymousreply 160November 23, 2024 4:22 PM

She didn't exactly answer the first question she got at the debate, R158.

by Anonymousreply 161November 23, 2024 4:23 PM

she's a failure...it's over. deal with it. we need someone else. not her

by Anonymousreply 162November 23, 2024 4:24 PM

No need to worry, R162. It won't be her.

by Anonymousreply 163November 23, 2024 4:39 PM

Oh, please, she's not a failure. She lost an election that we'll be studying for decades. And as the votes are finally being fully counted and certified, she didn't even lose by that much. If you look at the deciding factors — the swing states — it came down to fewer than 250,000 votes spread across 7 states and the popular vote margin was under 1.5%. Don't get me wrong: she lost an election that Democrats should have and could have won had Biden done what he promised in 2020, to be a transitional president, and not thrown his hat in the ring 2 years ago. Now, note I said "Democrats", not "Kamala" because the underlying reason she lost was that she's female and Black.

by Anonymousreply 164November 23, 2024 4:43 PM

I agree it would be insane to nominate her again, but her loss was the first time I was saddened that the losing democratic candidate wouldn’t be my president. In all other cases, I was only saddened that the Republican opponent had won. Hopefully, she will find some other role in public life. I wonder if a democratic president would appoint her to the Supreme Court.

by Anonymousreply 165November 23, 2024 4:44 PM

[quote]Now, note I said "Democrats", not "Kamala" because the underlying reason she lost was that she's female and Black.

That had nothing to do with it. It's a lame excuse.

Americans vote for women all over the country.

13 women are serving as Governors in blue as well as red states. And there are currently 424 mayors that are women. And of all races.

by Anonymousreply 166November 23, 2024 4:54 PM

R166. But they don’t seem to vote for them for president. There is a big difference. And the substantial presence of women in public office is quite a recent phenomenon.

by Anonymousreply 167November 23, 2024 4:58 PM

WHhy, yes, of course, R166. The fact that we've run and lost with two women is just hyperbole.

You might as well have pointed out that other countries across the planet have elected female presidents/prime ministers. True, but not relevant.

by Anonymousreply 168November 23, 2024 5:00 PM

R168. And republicans haven’t even managed to nominate one in the fifty or so years since women began to enter political life. A bit bizarre that we’ve not managed to elect any female president of either party in a country of such stunning open-mindedness

by Anonymousreply 169November 23, 2024 5:07 PM

[quote]But they don’t seem to vote for them for president.

Certainly not Hillary or Kamala. That's for sure.

by Anonymousreply 170November 23, 2024 5:11 PM

[quote] 13 women are serving as Governors in blue as well as red states. And there are currently 424 mayors that are women. And of all races.

The ladies have 26 percent of the governor positions. And almost a third of the mayor positons! And many are even colored! Can they stop bitching now and making excuses???!

by Anonymousreply 171November 23, 2024 5:19 PM

[quote]And republicans haven’t even managed to nominate one in the fifty or so years since women began to enter political life.

Both parties can only select from the relatively small number of candidates who throw their hat in the ring. Do you think Republicans should have selected Michele Bachmann when they had the chance, instead of Mitt Romney?

It doesn't matter at all who any party has on the bench. It only matters who is willing to run.

by Anonymousreply 172November 23, 2024 5:21 PM

R172. Makes sense. So, it’s mostly a lack of initiative on the part of the. ladies. Thanks for the prompt response!

by Anonymousreply 173November 23, 2024 5:25 PM

[quote]I agree it would be insane to nominate her again, but her loss was the first time I was saddened that the losing democratic candidate wouldn’t be my president.

Just curious, were you also saddened in 2019 when Democrats had a choice of multiple candidates and Harris dropped out having only single digit support? She could have used some of the current love back then.

by Anonymousreply 174November 23, 2024 5:30 PM

What is a woman anyway?

by Anonymousreply 175November 23, 2024 5:30 PM

Pete didn't win anything either R124, but he really grew up in the succeeding four years.

by Anonymousreply 176November 23, 2024 5:32 PM

R174. Just curious whether you were saddened by the embarrassing total failures of Biden In multiple campaigns. Or Trump’s previous joke campaign.

Simply curious—since I have a highly logical , non-cliched sense of curiosity.

by Anonymousreply 177November 23, 2024 5:39 PM

[quote] She’s fine when she’s the one asking the questions and cross-examining. But when she’s giving the responses, it was indeed often word salad.

In her defense...she does not need one but...she was obviously VERY constrained in what she could say about the current administration, she was essentially running for Biden's second term. She could not be openly critical of key decisions made by Biden, even those where she didn't agree. While everyone knows the VP does not make policy or run the administration, Drumpf's campaign made her Biden-by-attribution and they were aided enormously by the mainstream, so-called legitimate media.

by Anonymousreply 178November 23, 2024 6:02 PM

[quote]2019 when Democrats had a choice of multiple candidates and Harris dropped out having only single digit support? She could have used some of the current love back then.

She polled poorly among Blacks when she ran the first time. That should have been a warning.

by Anonymousreply 179November 23, 2024 6:07 PM

[quote]Pete didn't win anything either [R124], but he really grew up in the succeeding four years.

He still couldn’t win anything.

by Anonymousreply 180November 23, 2024 6:08 PM

If Pete continues living in Michigan. I doubt he would be able to win a gubernatorial race or a US senate or congressional seat.

by Anonymousreply 181November 23, 2024 6:10 PM

[quote]she was obviously VERY constrained in what she could say about the current administration, she was essentially running for Biden's second term. She could not be openly critical of key decisions made by Biden, even those where she didn't agree.

There was no rule that she had to be Biden’s second term. It was her choice to pursue that strategy. She would have done better if she’d been honest and critical of some of Biden’s policy failures.

by Anonymousreply 182November 23, 2024 6:10 PM

Way too early for this. Polls now are meaningless.

by Anonymousreply 183November 23, 2024 6:17 PM

[quote] There was no rule that she had to be Biden’s second term. It was her choice to pursue that strategy. She would have done better if she’d been honest and critical of some of Biden’s policy failures.

Well, yes, if she had been in a primary opposing him. However, she was his anointed successor, she had 100 days, so she couldn't be honest or critical.

by Anonymousreply 184November 23, 2024 6:18 PM

I guess it was too hard to say Biden did an excellent job but in this area….inflation..we could have done better.

by Anonymousreply 185November 23, 2024 6:20 PM

[quote]she was obviously VERY constrained in what she could say about the current administration, she was essentially running for Biden's second term.

Exactly.

She didn't lose because she was a black woman.

She lost because of a failed strategy i.e. running for Biden's second term.

by Anonymousreply 186November 23, 2024 6:20 PM

Yes, R186. That's why Trump made such a big deal out of her "turning black." And why they went after young men, Black men and Hispanic men, clearly not a male v. female thing. Not at all. And funny how she repeatedly said she wasn't Joe Biden and she wasn't running for his second term but her first. And how she defended her agenda as separate, new, and leadership for a new generation. Clearly an admission that she was running for Joe's second term. As a Black woman.

by Anonymousreply 187November 23, 2024 6:42 PM

^ On "The View" when she was asked whether there was anything she would have done differently than Biden over the past four years:

“There is not a thing that comes to mind"

by Anonymousreply 188November 23, 2024 6:51 PM

R187 Ya gotta love the Democrat's winning strategy: "The US is racist and misogynist....so let's run a black woman for President!"

by Anonymousreply 189November 23, 2024 6:55 PM

Her messaging was muddled: "America is ready to turn the page!" "I wouldn't change anything!"

by Anonymousreply 190November 23, 2024 7:48 PM

This is about way more than Kamala Harris. Democrats need to realize that trump is a brand. People have familiarized themselves with the brand.

Nancy Pelosi is right. You cannot have the Dem candidate declare their candidacy mere months before the election and expect a miracle. It now takes YEARS to energize the voter base. We need to know who's going to be the chosen one by 2026.

And Democrats also have to address is the issue of voter apathy. We will never win if people simply don't want to vote. Republicans already control much of the voting process in the United States, so we have to depend on people showing up to actually vote.

by Anonymousreply 191November 23, 2024 10:58 PM

This is just outright idiocy

by Anonymousreply 192November 24, 2024 5:51 AM

The real problem is that Americans liked trump more than Harris and that might be because there are more registered GOP than Dems,

Who takes credit for that shift so that the Dems are now the minority party, the Dems or the gop you can decide for yourself .

by Anonymousreply 193November 24, 2024 10:17 AM

Nancy Pelosi is a crypt keeper. She is not right. Trump is not a brand. NOBODY likes hiim.

by Anonymousreply 194November 24, 2024 2:39 PM

Absurd. This will never happen.

by Anonymousreply 195November 24, 2024 2:45 PM

r191, which is why if Biden were reelected, he would have made building her brand paramount.

I think that Harris is our best bet for rebranding. All she had to do is run on her record and Trump's, the killer of 600k American's, record.

Fox never let anyone get close to Trump's record, but we are confronting it daily now in is appointments. He's running on his record NOW.

by Anonymousreply 196November 24, 2024 5:30 PM

Kamala Harris is the presumptive Democratic nominee for 2028. I am happy to support her candidacy, in 2 years she will be much improved and more effective when unencumbered by the last four years. However, if someone more charismatic and glittering emerges in the next two years, we'll support that candidate and Harris will have to step aside.

by Anonymousreply 197November 24, 2024 5:52 PM

It's not going to be Harris, Whitmer, Shapiro, Newsom, Beshear, or any of the names are constantly mentioned. The nominee will end up being someone that no one is talking about now.

by Anonymousreply 198November 24, 2024 5:56 PM

When’s the last time a dark horse candidate won the Dem nomination, R198? Everybody in recent memory was someone already on our radar.

by Anonymousreply 199November 24, 2024 6:18 PM

Obama.

by Anonymousreply 200November 24, 2024 6:22 PM

Bill Clinton was not the favorite in the years leading up to the ‘92 election. Jimmy Carter was even more of a dark horse.

by Anonymousreply 201November 24, 2024 6:36 PM

[quote]All she had to do is run on her record and Trump's, the killer of 600k American's, record.

Oh please.

by Anonymousreply 202November 24, 2024 6:38 PM

She needed to say "Look, we all know Biden sucks. That's why I replaced him."

by Anonymousreply 203November 25, 2024 12:23 AM

If you do not believe that Trump's failed and fucked Pandemic Response policies didn't KILL AMERICANS, then please go fuck yourself, r202.

by Anonymousreply 204November 25, 2024 1:10 AM

What she need to do is become governor of California so we can just leave this garbage can ass country. Only Washington and Oregon are welcomed to join us.

by Anonymousreply 205November 25, 2024 1:16 AM

[quote]If you do not believe that Trump's failed and fucked Pandemic Response policies didn't KILL AMERICANS, then please go fuck yourself,

Per percentage of the population, Covid deaths in the US were on par with the UK and Italy. And taken as a whole (per population) US deaths were not much more than the European Union.

by Anonymousreply 206November 25, 2024 1:25 AM

I wonder if the name "Kamala" hurt her. Curious what a name like Elizabeth or Susan or Mary or Joanie or Nancy would have done for her?

by Anonymousreply 207November 25, 2024 1:44 AM

R207 A different name probably wouldn't have helped her.

by Anonymousreply 208November 25, 2024 1:48 AM

Joanie for President!

by Anonymousreply 209November 25, 2024 1:48 AM

I want whoever has the greatest chance of winning to run. As much as I like Kamala, I don't think she's it.

by Anonymousreply 210November 25, 2024 1:49 AM

Obama won twice, and Hillary won the popular vote. So stop with this antiquated "straight white male" nonsense. How old are some of you, 100?

Kamala did extremely well for someone who had a couple of months to campaign. Had she had longer, she would have won hands down. Blame Biden for fucking that up.

[quote]which is why if Biden were reelected, he would have made building her brand paramount.

He sabotaged her his first term, but he would have done an about face and made Kamala his priority for the second? Yeah, right.

And Biden would have lost in a landslide had he run again. Many democrats were not voting for him. But they voted for Harris.

by Anonymousreply 211November 25, 2024 1:54 AM

[quote]Joanie for President!

I LOVE HER!!!

by Anonymousreply 212November 25, 2024 1:59 AM

R207 Doubtful

by Anonymousreply 213November 25, 2024 2:17 AM

[quote] Kamala did extremely well for someone who had a couple of months to campaign. Had she had longer, she would have won hands down.

She definitely was running against history. Had she won, she would have been the first Democratic vice president to immediately succeed his or her president since 1836. And I bet Andrew Jackson's "approval ratings" were greater than Joe Biden's.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 214November 25, 2024 2:20 AM

Now that she doesn't a billion dollars on name recognition, she needs to run for the next 4 years.

She needs to kick ass over the midterms.

If Trump can run in his shitty brand for 8 years, Kamala can prosecute his ass in public for the next 4.

by Anonymousreply 215November 25, 2024 2:20 AM

We’ll see how she does in the Dem primaries. She’ll have to have new ideas to get voters to support her. She won’t have billions of dollars in the bank and be running against Trump.

by Anonymousreply 216November 25, 2024 2:28 AM

There will be no more appetite for Kamala redux than there was for popular vote winner Hillary. This is not the 1950s.

by Anonymousreply 217November 25, 2024 2:29 AM

^ Oops.

by Anonymousreply 218November 25, 2024 2:31 AM

I don’t think that I have it in me to vote again for a president. Done with politics.

by Anonymousreply 219November 25, 2024 2:40 AM

We can arrange for that, R219.

by Anonymousreply 220November 25, 2024 2:54 AM

On CNN: Former President Bill Clinton blaming the culture wars for Vice President Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton’s presidential race loss, predicting the first woman president will likely be a Republican.

by Anonymousreply 221November 25, 2024 2:57 AM

And your point is? Clinton was wrong about liberalism and he's wrong about this.

by Anonymousreply 222November 25, 2024 9:55 AM

And you know Clinton is wrong about this, which has not happened yet , exactly how?

by Anonymousreply 223November 25, 2024 11:12 AM

The NYT has another excellent article about what’s happened to the Democratic base. The groups that switched to Trump were voters 18 to 29 and non white voters without college degrees. It points to the 2022 midterms as the turning point. That’s when Congressional losses in NY gave Congress to the Republicans. I remember posting then that crime was a big issue and that unless Dems addressed it, they would lose elections. I got incredible pushback…it was worse back in the day, crime wasn’t so bad, NY would never vote for Republicans, who cares if everything at CVS was under lock and key.

Well you were wrong and I was right! And 2022 set the blueprint for 2024. so I want to congratulate myself for being amazing,

by Anonymousreply 224November 25, 2024 1:20 PM

[quote] Clinton was wrong about liberalism

You must be too young to remember how adrift the Democrats were pre-Clinton. Not only had they lost three straight presidential elections - five of the last six - but they had been drubbed in each of them. The same was expected in '92, leading many would-be presidential hopefuls to sit out that year.

by Anonymousreply 225November 25, 2024 1:57 PM

We’re pretty adrift now. It almost seems like they fucked up on purpose.

by Anonymousreply 226November 25, 2024 5:02 PM

[quote] She’ll have to have new ideas to get voters to support her.

Or spend two years tearing Trump apart before she compiles her NEW agenda. Democrats do not need to reinvent themselves.

The old-fashioned spending money on Americans for healthcare and social security and child care subsidies, is enough.

Plus, she can go further with real immigration reform when Trump implodes. Same with gun safety.

Plus prosecuting Trump.

by Anonymousreply 227November 25, 2024 5:08 PM

R227 and saving democracy. You should not forget saving democracy along with charging trump because all can see what a winning approach that has been so far.

And guns. I can’t think of a better way to under cut trumps support than to go after guns.

I bet you are a California liberal?

by Anonymousreply 228November 25, 2024 5:22 PM

There will be a proper primary to sort it out.

by Anonymousreply 229November 25, 2024 5:34 PM

I afraid to trust the Democrats again. As much as I despise the Republicans, I can only hold the Democrats in medium esteem.

by Anonymousreply 230November 25, 2024 5:39 PM

[quote] For all the claims of buyers regret, Trump's approval rating - as it was during the campaign - is still much greater than it was in his first administration. In the last week, he was at 54%.

Voters approve of Trump transition by a 59%-41% margin.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 231November 25, 2024 6:06 PM

I support taking anybody telling the Democrats how they lost 2024 and dunking them in a large vat of hydrochloric acid.

Americans are racist idiots. They were fed a torrent of absolute horseshit on the Dem candidate and they believed it.

by Anonymousreply 232November 25, 2024 6:15 PM

R231 how then do you account for the fact that someone on DL read some comments on the Internet from a few trump supporters that were not totally happy?

And as R232 points out the dems had the winning campaign but the American voters stole it from them with racism. Although that racism did not stop so many black and Hispanic voters from fleeing the party and supporting the trump.

I blame the gop and the american voters for trumps victory. It was certainly not the Dems fault. A perfect effort.

File this comment under lesson learned for 2028.

by Anonymousreply 233November 25, 2024 6:23 PM

R233, too many Democratic voters sat it out, especially in the swing states, to exempt them from fault.

by Anonymousreply 234November 25, 2024 6:50 PM

R234 guess I must brush up on my tongue in cheek posts.

Yes the Dems did not show up in enough numbers. Their actions spoke almost as loud as those many American voters that decided to vote for trump. America decided it was not going to be Harris .

Maybe Harris did not have a perfect effort?

And the way back to democratic victory can’t be as idiotic as just calling everyone who votes against the Dems a racist. That is beyond stupid and an approach that a party might take that wants to get a lot smaller.

by Anonymousreply 235November 25, 2024 6:59 PM

[quote] And the way back to democratic victory can’t be as idiotic as just calling everyone who votes against the Dems a racist.

Calling half the country Nazi supporters turned out not to be a winning move either.

by Anonymousreply 236November 25, 2024 7:03 PM

[quote] the vice president has been instructing advisers and allies to keep her options open — whether for a possible 2028 presidential run, or even to run for governor in her home state of California in two years. As Harris has repeated in phone calls, “I am staying in the fight.”

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 237November 25, 2024 8:18 PM

She was humiliated in this election. What makes anyone believe that she will be successful in 2028? Her presidential run is dead! Just give it up already.

by Anonymousreply 238November 25, 2024 9:15 PM

She should run for Governor and bow out of Presidential politics. She could be a future AG in someone else’s Administration.

by Anonymousreply 239November 25, 2024 9:40 PM

Get somebody new and young to be the nominee. Clinton and Obama were both in their 40s when they won big.

by Anonymousreply 240November 25, 2024 9:42 PM

This is because people were fired up for her and it’s basically absurd that Trump got elected over her. I mean, come on, I don’t need to elaborate I don’t think why that’s a ridiculous outcome.

As time goes on, we will move on. It might be Newsom or even Pete.

by Anonymousreply 241November 25, 2024 9:46 PM

[quote] She should run for Governor and bow out of Presidential politics.

I would hope - & expect - that she would pull herself out of the '28 presidential race if she were to become a candidate for governor. To run for president after elected governor would require her to start running mere months after being inaugurated as governor.

by Anonymousreply 242November 25, 2024 9:56 PM

She’s tainted now from having lost to Trump. The Trump stench never washes off.

by Anonymousreply 243November 25, 2024 10:33 PM

No we don’t trust us … you couldn’t beat a convicted treasonous 77 year old - you lost, move on write a book, host a podcast whatever!

by Anonymousreply 244November 25, 2024 10:36 PM

Kamala is keeping quiet and hasn't mentioned anything which is smart. She's a class act.

Hillary was the same way. Never wallowed in self pity. She got up and kept moving. She was nothing but a picture of grace and she didn't even really lose.

by Anonymousreply 245November 25, 2024 10:45 PM

[quote]along with charging trump because all can see what a winning approach that has been so far.

He has to be bankrupt and thrown in jail, first. If Trump weren't so rich, he would be rotting in jail as we speak. As we can see, Trump gets to play catch me now because his cash has allowed time to delay.

Who knows, he might be one of those exdictators who take it on the lam and die in exile.

by Anonymousreply 246November 25, 2024 11:06 PM

Mark Cuban/Andy Beshair

Mark Cuban/Gavin Newsom

I mean that's the only recognizable billionaire we have on our side

by Anonymousreply 247November 25, 2024 11:31 PM

Pritzker

by Anonymousreply 248November 26, 2024 12:03 AM

Trump is never going to end up in prison. The best we can hope for is that he suffers a debilitating stroke and is left wheelchair bound and spends the last years of his life in agony.

by Anonymousreply 249November 26, 2024 12:26 AM

Well I want Mayor Pete to sit on my face and wiggle, but that's not going to happen either.

by Anonymousreply 250November 26, 2024 12:29 AM

It’s all so sad and unfair. I’m sixty years old and I feel like I’m in high school and not understanding how I failed at math. Because I don’t understand what happened.

by Anonymousreply 251November 26, 2024 12:57 AM

[quote]Hillary was the same way. Never wallowed in self pity. She got up and kept moving. She was nothing but a picture of grace and she didn't even really lose.

She didn't waste any time detailing who she blamed for her loss.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 252November 26, 2024 2:03 AM

R250 = Chasten

by Anonymousreply 253November 26, 2024 2:11 AM

I doubt she has any interest in running for POTUS again.

by Anonymousreply 254November 26, 2024 2:25 AM

[quote] There will be no more appetite for Kamala redux than there was for popular vote winner Hillary. This is not the 1950s.

I know you know that Kamala Harris received 8 million more votes than HRC. Harris' loss was not because she was disliked or made missteps (like HRC). The nation is in turmoil and she was tainted by Biden.

by Anonymousreply 255November 26, 2024 2:45 AM

That is before Trump mounted his 4 year candidacy.

Trump has changed the rules,

by Anonymousreply 256November 26, 2024 3:00 AM

R254, it’s been said that formaldehyde is the only cure for presidential fever.

by Anonymousreply 257November 26, 2024 3:21 AM

R255, Kamala’s presence in the ‘28 race wouldn’t scare off any potential opponent. Reminiscent of ‘72, when Humphrey tried unsuccessfully to reclaim his ‘68 nomination. At least Humphrey, with his long record in public life, could lay claim to a particular constituency. Kamala cannot. Her most basic claim to higher office is her affiliation with an unpopular president.

by Anonymousreply 258November 26, 2024 3:59 AM

There are just too many low information people in the country who just viewed her as a San Francisco elite snob. You were never gonna convince them she was anything but. And they have done such a masterful job of demonizing California that they are political national poison.

by Anonymousreply 259November 26, 2024 6:06 AM

No they don’t…

by Anonymousreply 260November 26, 2024 6:24 AM

R101 Wrong. The Republican’s do not have the Jew hate that festers in the Democratic Party. Jews are players in their end game. The second coming.

by Anonymousreply 261November 26, 2024 7:05 AM

No, Mr. Superfluous apostrophe at R261, Jew hate ("the Jews will not replace us") definitely is a feature, not a bug, in today's Trump party. To them, Israel is a mere incidental player in the coming Apocalypse. The faction of the far left that chanted "Genocide Joe" are not Democrats. They did not vote for Harris. And when, at an outdoor April Trump rally in Pennsylvania, these anti-Semitic chants could be heard, Trump stopped himself to not once but twice turn to those around him to say, "They're not wrong." The actual leader of the party subscribing to "Jew hate."

by Anonymousreply 262November 26, 2024 12:53 PM

Wealthy white people seldom get what they deserve. But they are white, and most white Americans are completely comfortable with maintaining that status quo. It’s what they’re used to, even if it goes against their best interests.

Hope is dead.

by Anonymousreply 263November 26, 2024 1:44 PM

R263, the educated - if not "wealthy" - whites turned out for Harris. They responded to the Liz Cheney overtures. They weren't the problem. Harris lost because traditional Democratic groups, e.g., non-whites, either sat it out or voted for Trump.

by Anonymousreply 264November 26, 2024 1:54 PM

[quote] And when, at an outdoor April Trump rally in Pennsylvania, these anti-Semitic chants could be heard, Trump stopped himself to not once but twice turn to those around him to say, "They're not wrong."

The chant was “Genocide Joe”, which is a term the left has used to criticize Biden and which the Trump supporters were mimicking to also criticize Biden. That was specifically to what Trump commented, “They’re not wrong”. I doubt the pro-Israel crowd at the rally meant it the same way as the pro-Palestinian mobs have meant it.

by Anonymousreply 265November 26, 2024 5:15 PM

After the civil war splits the US into two territories Kamala will win the blue states just fine.

And the inbred crackers posting here can vote for their favorite straight white male in suburban Dumbfuckistan.

by Anonymousreply 266November 27, 2024 3:49 AM

Kamala/Tim Thanksgiving message to supporters:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 267November 27, 2024 5:27 AM

Gay men are tired of Far Left Democrats running the party and embracing T ideology.. I doubt Kamala learned that lesson. I doubt the DNC learned that lesson.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 268November 27, 2024 7:44 AM

R268

The gay men I saw make comments in that article were saying just the opposite. They are saying trans was NOT the reason the Dems lost.

by Anonymousreply 269November 27, 2024 9:43 AM

Sucha lie Mr. Singer R251. None of the Christian nationalists promoting Israeli elimination of the west bank is pro-Jewish.

by Anonymousreply 270November 27, 2024 1:16 PM

[quote]Gay [bold]Quislings[/bold] are tired of Far Left Democrats running the party and embracing T ideology..

Fixed your typo, hon.

You're welcome.

by Anonymousreply 271November 27, 2024 2:28 PM

[quote] There are just too many low information people in the country who just viewed her as a San Francisco elite snob. You were never gonna convince them she was anything but. And they have done such a masterful job of demonizing California that they are political national poison.

No. It was sexism and racism. The same reason South Carolina's conservative darling, Nimrata Haley, couldn't beat Trump in their primary. Don't ascribe any reasoned belief system to America's electorate. Two terms of a Black president drove them to insanity. White people are terrified that a person of color will turn the tables, and undermine the privilege and pronounced sense of entitlement they publicly deny but personally relish.

by Anonymousreply 272November 27, 2024 2:46 PM

Or maybe that it's just historically very difficult for a vice president to succeed his or her president, especially an unpopular one such as Biden.

by Anonymousreply 273November 27, 2024 2:50 PM

[quote] [R101] Wrong. The Republican’s do not have the Jew hate that festers in the Democratic Party. Jews are players in their end game. The second coming.

ISRAEL is a player. Not Jews. All of the imagery of Jesus as a blue-eyed blonde should tip you off that when they say that Jews killed Jesus they mean it. They do indeed hate Jews.

by Anonymousreply 274November 27, 2024 2:50 PM

On second thought, one more revision.

[quote]Gay [bold]Nazis[/bold] are tired of Far Left Democrats running the party and embracing T ideology..

by Anonymousreply 275November 27, 2024 2:51 PM

[quote] Gay Quislings are tired of Far Left Democrats running the party and embracing T ideology..

That’s an illogical statement. A gay “quisling” would not be tired of it. If anything, they would encourage it, to keep the wing and the issue damaging the party.

by Anonymousreply 276November 27, 2024 4:16 PM

I am confused , are the gays that supported the T the quislings , or the gays that are on DL attacking the T now the quislings?

And which group helped to lose the election quicker?

by Anonymousreply 277November 27, 2024 4:31 PM

R272, if you believe everything is about race, you should give up, Whites are the majority group and will continue to dominate even as the US becomes a minority majority country. Latinos seem to be aligning with whites. So your world view is defeatist,

I think economics trumps race personally.

by Anonymousreply 278November 27, 2024 4:31 PM

I think that the antisemitic college kids and all the trans people are what people think of when they think of the left. That was unbelievably damaging. The transsexuals in jail thing was devastating.

by Anonymousreply 279November 27, 2024 7:27 PM

r277, that may change dramatically when Trumpstarts undoing Naturalized American Citizenship.

He has stated he wants to, and you know that means a simple trip to the corrupt Leo/Crow Supreme Court and VOILA, Trump has a new power.

by Anonymousreply 280November 27, 2024 8:08 PM

Oops r278 ^^^

by Anonymousreply 281November 27, 2024 8:09 PM

Kamalas staff went on Pod Save America......Even THEY didn't know how to deal with the T Ideology.........

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 282November 27, 2024 11:58 PM

The hysterical tranny gestapo did more damage to this country’s social consciousness than liberals will ever admit to.

by Anonymousreply 283November 28, 2024 12:02 AM

NO they didn't R283. They haven't changed since 1971.

by Anonymousreply 284November 28, 2024 4:14 PM

The Democrats’ full-on embrace of all things Tranny with no-pushback allowed is what turned people against them.

by Anonymousreply 285November 28, 2024 4:29 PM

None of us may live to see a truly liberal progressive WH again. It may swing more right or the George Bush model may now be seen as a liberal govt.

by Anonymousreply 286November 28, 2024 4:35 PM

Blaming the Trannies is like blaming Willie Horton.

Wise up to the Advertising and Marketing of the sugarcoated bag of shit known as Donald Trump.

Trannies were just the wedge second class citizens of this election.

You notice that they never went after the solid Gays and Lesbians?

That is why they may go after the Sodomy Laws, but not gay marriage.

Odd how these White Nationalists split all citizens whom they want to make second class.

They really succeeded in turning Latinos against "Illegal Immigrants".

All marketing and advertising to kill minority votes.

by Anonymousreply 287November 28, 2024 6:34 PM

R287 = I don't want to fight you. But the T Ideology turned so many voters away, especially gay men. The GOP was successfully able to show off both Harris and her families ties to DM and the rest of the T Community. Then she picks Walz who was not only feminine but pranced around and made his state a T Refuge. [bold] If Kamala had won, EVERY restroom and every sport would have been open to men in dresses to insist they be called MAM---and we all know that's exactly what would have happened. Not to mention taxpayers picking up the tabs on hormone treatments. [/bold] She was trying to force us to go FAR left. No thank you.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 288November 29, 2024 1:57 AM

No wants to be reminded of losing. That’s why any Harris ‘28 campaign is DOA.

by Anonymousreply 289November 29, 2024 3:17 AM

Does anyone seriously think big donors are going to give her any more money?

by Anonymousreply 290November 29, 2024 3:27 AM

[quote] Bill Clinton was not the favorite in the years leading up to the ‘92 election. Jimmy Carter was even more of a dark horse.

I think there is a small chance we will see another Bill Clinton or Obama dark horse. I have wondered if Martin Heinrich could be a dark horse, but I doubt most Americans would ever vote for a guy from New Mexico as POTUS.

by Anonymousreply 291November 29, 2024 3:54 AM

Not this time, r278. Economics doesn't explain why Trump was the party nominee after his disastrous first term.and 2020 defeat. He leans hard into racism and white nationalism that's why Nimrata, Vivek and Tim Scott couldn't beat him. They have the same substantive economic platform minus the overt racism.

by Anonymousreply 292November 29, 2024 4:17 AM

[quote] No wants to be reminded of losing. That’s why any Harris ‘28 campaign is DOA.

Harris didn't lose, we did. It is a very different mood than in 2016. We have been betrayed by our neighbors.

by Anonymousreply 293November 29, 2024 4:20 AM

It’s a different mood than in ‘16, R293, because we thought Trump’s election that year was a fluke. Succeeding elections seemed to bear that up. This election, though, showed ‘16 was no fluke.

by Anonymousreply 294November 29, 2024 4:46 AM

[quote] Does anyone seriously think big donors are going to give her any more money?

Yes! I remember a long lunch in June with colleagues where we lamented Biden's anticipated loss in November. We discussed the absence of any reasonable alternatives and the likely inevitability of Harris as his replacement with no enthusiasm. We are Californians and were very familiar with her, and her shortcomings as a statesman.

Everything changed when Biden stepped aside and endorsed her. SHE changed. She became a Kamala Harris none of us had seen before. She ignited the base overnight. Big donors threw money at her because they knew she was qualified to be President. She decisively won their only debate -- she terrified him. We were thrilled and we donated time and money to her campaign. Still, it was clear it was uphill. She was unfairly tethered to a deeply unpopular President, who was deeply unpopular even before he was President. Harris had no time to prepare and run a successful campaign. Also, this whole 2024 election cycle was suffocated by Drumpf and his lies as well as his billionaire agents of chaos and disinformation, aided and abetted by media of all political stripes.

I do not rule out that a popular, viable Democratic candidate other than Harris will emerge for the 2028 election cycle. However, I am also excited by how she can overhaul and refine her image and platform in two years. She will be a killing machine without the albatross of Biden around her neck. I get that it's easier to be a pessimist and wallow in self-pity -- or to deride her for irrational reasons -- but Harris can run and win in 2028.

by Anonymousreply 295November 29, 2024 4:53 AM

[quote] We have been betrayed by our neighbors.

Actually the Far Left betrayed all of us. They tried to steal the entire DNC. [bold]They used the T Playbook----->>>Shove OUR views into everyones faces. [/bold]That didn't work out so great. I know a lot of gay men who either didn't vote for Kamala or who openly voted for Trump.

by Anonymousreply 296November 29, 2024 5:27 AM

Far left twats like AOC and her pals shouldn't be trusted.

by Anonymousreply 297November 29, 2024 5:29 AM

[quote] I know a lot of gay men who either didn't vote for Kamala or who openly voted for Trump.

That's no surprise. Some white gay men would be nazis if the nazis would have them (i.e Thiel, Milo, the Cockgobbler, etc.) At the same time, there were Black people who were victims of Dump lies and disinformation, and/or their own homophobia and xenophobia, who also voted against their interests. What was lost on these factions is they will ALWAYS be the main targets of bigotry. Trump's win may have been publicly abetted by an anti-Trans platform but the day after his victory his base was emboldened to show their anti-LGB and anti-Black sentiments as well.

Making the nation safe for the traditional victims of bigotry and demanding equal economic opportunity must always be the cornerstone of the Democratic platform. That is a powerful incentive for the great majority of those who are routinely discriminated against to align with Democrats.

by Anonymousreply 298November 29, 2024 10:37 AM

I’m disappointed in the Democratic leadership. Heads should be rolling right now. But they won’t be. Because they are not concerned with the needs of their constituents. It’s all about power and favors and cushy jobs and rimming corporate donors. Fuck all of them on both sides.

by Anonymousreply 299November 29, 2024 12:47 PM

What happened the day after his victory that was anti gay and anti black? There has been pushback to DEI for awhile. It wasn’t a surprise to black voters that MAGA is against it?

by Anonymousreply 300November 29, 2024 1:00 PM

Big NYT story today about how Harris lost so many Dem voters in big blue cities. Blacks in Atlanta and especially Latinos in NY, Los Vegas and Houston did not come through. Dems have to address this and not by the usual insults that they’re all racists and Nazis.

by Anonymousreply 301November 29, 2024 1:07 PM

..Las Vegas.. add Arabs in Detroit to that mix.

by Anonymousreply 302November 29, 2024 1:08 PM

[quote] Dems have to address this and not by the usual insults that they’re all racists and Nazis.

Or just let the inevitable Trump shitshow take center stage.

by Anonymousreply 303November 29, 2024 1:18 PM

R303 translated

We have no chance to bring them back with our Dem policies let’s wait for the GOP led country to crash and burn because that is our only chance now,

by Anonymousreply 304November 29, 2024 1:45 PM

And what range of proposals did Trump offer voters that would reduce the price of groceries, R304?

by Anonymousreply 305November 29, 2024 1:59 PM

Kamala needs to start her campaign on January 20, 2025, by prosecuting the tRump presidency - she's really good at that. Unlike other former Presidents that fade out of the limelight, tRump did none of that. I think I saw it noted up thread that he was running through the entire Biden presidency and that was entirely true. Why should Kamala be any different - and there would no longer be a connection to the Biden presidency either.

by Anonymousreply 306November 29, 2024 2:28 PM

Please, stop with the Kamala '28 talk. We're not going back.

by Anonymousreply 307November 29, 2024 2:43 PM

[quote] What happened the day after his victory that was anti gay and anti black? There has been pushback to DEI for awhile. It wasn’t a surprise to black voters that MAGA is against it?

I spent too much time on social media. The comment sections of EVERY post on X, IG and Youtube were littered with the most vile racist and homophobic vitriol I've read since this time in 2016. I don't recommend it.

by Anonymousreply 308November 29, 2024 3:16 PM

Those most up in arms about DEI hires don't seem to have any qualms about the lack of relevant qualifications of so many of Trump's post-election nominees. Quelle surprise.

by Anonymousreply 309November 29, 2024 3:24 PM

R406, Trump changed the parameters. Kamala can run for 5 years if Trump ran for 10.

Plus,it will take a high profile Candidate to rub Trump's shit in his face. I would like her to give the State if the Union rebuttal as well. Don't think of it as a campaign but accountability counter programming.

Never forget, we are running against Trump, Congressional Republicans, White Christian Nationalists AND Fox, Newsmax and OAN.

by Anonymousreply 310November 29, 2024 3:46 PM

^^^r306, oops

by Anonymousreply 311November 29, 2024 3:47 PM

No.

by Anonymousreply 312November 29, 2024 3:49 PM

[quote] Never forget, we are running against Trump, Congressional Republicans, White Christian Nationalists AND Fox, Newsmax and OAN.

And yet somehow, Kamala still lost. When you have a knife that won’t even cut through soft butter, it’s time to look at the knife.

by Anonymousreply 313November 29, 2024 4:06 PM

Fetterman, Pete B or Ritchie Torres should give the Dem rebuttal. Someone who won't say the usual predictable pablum.

by Anonymousreply 314November 29, 2024 4:07 PM

[quote] Or just let the inevitable Trump shitshow take center stage.

Indeed. A Trump term unencumbered by a plan, experience, knowledge, temperament, restraint or antagonism is our greatest strength for victory in 2028.

by Anonymousreply 315November 29, 2024 4:47 PM

[quote] Never forget, we are running against Trump, Congressional Republicans, White Christian Nationalists AND Fox, Newsmax and OAN.

...and X, 'bro' podcasts, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC.

[quote] And yet somehow, Kamala still lost. When you have a knife that won’t even cut through soft butter, it’s time to look at the knife.

Oh, honey...it only appeared to be soft butter to the uninitiated and naive. That butter churned for ten years. But hey, if you have a knife that can cut it, we're all ears.

by Anonymousreply 316November 29, 2024 4:54 PM

Needs to be two straight white guys - at least one with military service.

by Anonymousreply 317November 29, 2024 5:02 PM

I disagree with the poster who said the Democrats need to become "more butch". That is heterosexist bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 318November 29, 2024 5:08 PM

Nobody wants this.

by Anonymousreply 319November 29, 2024 5:11 PM

Beyonce is the best option.

by Anonymousreply 320November 29, 2024 5:18 PM

I was not initially a Kamala fan, but she grew on me and I happily voted for her (I admired Joe, but his best days are far behind him—they may have been over halfway through his term). But, Nixon aside (please), it’s rare for someone who’s lost the presidential election once to win later. I think it would take Trump and Vance fucking up the country even more than I expect them will for Kamala to win in 228, even as an anyone-not-Republican candidate.

by Anonymousreply 321November 29, 2024 5:27 PM

Josh Shapiro will crush her in a primary.

by Anonymousreply 322November 29, 2024 5:35 PM

r322, not with two years of hard campaigning against Trump.

by Anonymousreply 323November 29, 2024 7:25 PM

I'm not seeing the election appeal of Josh Shapiro.

by Anonymousreply 324November 29, 2024 7:27 PM

Only the worst possible candidates could lose to Trump. Despite proving that in 2016, Democrats in 2024 were gung-ho about doing it again. Will Democrats again pull from the bottom of their reservoir in 2028?

by Anonymousreply 325November 29, 2024 10:54 PM

Trump would have crushed any dem this year with “ maybe” the exception of one or two guys who cannot run again.

The Dems are now the minority party. And the Dems only hope for 2028 is a massive fuck up for the country.

And even then when things turn bad it’s often the enemies from within that are blamed and hunted. ,

In some ways the Dems in 2024 are now like the German army in March 1945 planning massive counter attacks to turn things around. While many officers are planning to kill other German officers as traitors

Many Dems do not realize how the country at this moment is not with them,

by Anonymousreply 326November 30, 2024 11:09 AM

Fortunately, R326, we’re a two-party system. And we’re living through a worldwide phenomenon where the people are unhappy & booting the in-party out every chance they get. It’s now the Republicans time in the barrel.

by Anonymousreply 327November 30, 2024 12:08 PM

To my point, Tom Friedman, writing about "the coming A.I. storm," recently noted the following:

[quote] President-elect Trump, if you think blue-collar workers without college degrees are facing challenges today, wait until four years from now.

In addition to all the much talked about anticipated horrors of the next four years, we will have the most anti-science administration in modern history. With the explosion of A.I., what could possibly go wrong?!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 328November 30, 2024 12:54 PM

Are you suggesting the Dems don’t have significant problems to fix and we just got caught up in a world wide shift R327 ?

We are a two,party system. And once the GOP won 6 straight presidential elections. The Dems had a 28 year long run of wins of their own.

Not counting the FDR and Truman run.

And often in history when things did turn really bad it was almost never the moderates that were turned to fix things. Often they turn much harder Right.

And other times they turn really harder Left as they did in 1917.

I believe that the country has changed it’s just a question of how.

by Anonymousreply 329November 30, 2024 1:12 PM

GQP has their special weapon: Miss Lindsey. The media loves her, and anchors and reporters won’t dare ask her a hardball question.

by Anonymousreply 330November 30, 2024 1:13 PM

R329, we haven't had three consecutive close presidential elections since the 19th century. So I don't see this election as a referendum on either party. We're just a very divided country.

by Anonymousreply 331November 30, 2024 1:27 PM

She’d better not. I am weary of the current Democratic leadership. It’s their self seeking and mercenary ways that played a role in what we’re facing now.

by Anonymousreply 332November 30, 2024 3:19 PM

The MAGAs are not going to commit the same mistake that the North made.

They are going to crush the Democratic Party to protect their Capitalist overlords.

Wonder when they are going to realize they have OWNED THEMSELVES.

by Anonymousreply 333November 30, 2024 3:45 PM

By 2026 or by 2046 or 2054 at the latest.

None of us know for sure R333

by Anonymousreply 334November 30, 2024 3:48 PM

[QUOTE] In some ways the Dems in 2024 are now like the German army in March 1945 planning massive counter attacks to turn things around.

MARY.

by Anonymousreply 335November 30, 2024 3:51 PM

[QUOTE] But, Nixon aside (please), it’s rare for someone who’s lost the presidential election once to win later.

Um, are you forgetting that Trump lost in 2020 and then won?

by Anonymousreply 336November 30, 2024 3:54 PM

All the more reason for Kamala to keep in the public eye.

by Anonymousreply 337November 30, 2024 3:55 PM

Oh she's in the Eye, honey. Did you see her Thanksgiving speech?

by Anonymousreply 338November 30, 2024 3:58 PM

R336, an advantage Trump had, apart from running against a vice president of a very unpopular president, is that he already had been president. And as is often the case with former presidents, his presidency was viewed more favorably in the rear view mirror. Having never been president, Harris would not have that advantage.

by Anonymousreply 339November 30, 2024 4:28 PM

Biden was SOLD as a "very unpopular" president, even though he fixed Trump's economy.

Funny that when you have a Fox-Advertizing/Marketing/Analytics machine with a client of ONE, you CAN sell a bag of Trump sugarcoated shit.

Biden was the most successful President since Johnson. And MAGA wants to erase all of Johnson's progress.

by Anonymousreply 340November 30, 2024 4:51 PM

[quote]Biden was the most successful President since Johnson.

So succesful he handed over the country to Trump by not keeping his word that he was limiting his Presidency to one term.

Biden was the most disliked President in decades.

And that perception had nothing to do with Fox News.

by Anonymousreply 341November 30, 2024 4:57 PM

[quote]by not keeping his word that he was limiting his Presidency to one term.

Can someone give me the link to this? Did Biden say he was a transition President and everyone took it to mean one term when he really didn't say that? Like Harris being a Border Czar when it was FOX who said that. I keep hearing it, but is this just another repeated lie that MAGA wants taken as fact?

by Anonymousreply 342November 30, 2024 5:05 PM

[quote] Biden was the most successful President since Johnson

This is a frequently repeated cliche but it is absurd. Nixon, Reagan, and Obama all had much broader and influential policy achievements than Biden. No policy Biden enacted will be remembered or substantially affect the lives of the general public.

by Anonymousreply 343November 30, 2024 5:22 PM

[quote] by not keeping his word that he was limiting his Presidency to one term.

[quote] Can someone give me the link to this? Did Biden say he was a transition President and everyone took it to mean one term when he really didn't say that?

There will be no link because he never said he intended to be a one-term president. But some people took his statement that he would be a transitional figure to mean he would not run for a second term.

by Anonymousreply 344November 30, 2024 5:30 PM

Not Fox News. It was the conservative blogosphere R341. They were absolutely rabid, as were the preachers.

by Anonymousreply 345November 30, 2024 5:35 PM

[quote]No policy Biden enacted will be remembered or substantially affect the lives of the general public.

I have a feeling that Harris will fully explain The TWO TRILLION DOLLAR, ARPA and PPP Trump Recovery Plans that only Democrats voted for.

They are the reason people stood around with thumbs up their asses wondering why they weren't feeling the recovery. YOU KEPT YOUR JOBS ASSHOLES!

Significant Biden policies that were not hi lighted because of the HORRIFIC rise in the price of eggs,

by Anonymousreply 346November 30, 2024 5:40 PM

R336. But he had already won once (like Cleveland).

by Anonymousreply 347November 30, 2024 6:07 PM

[quote]There will be no link because he never said he intended to be a one-term president. But some people took his statement that he would be a transitional figure to mean he would not run for a second term.

It was certainly implied.

"So Biden never explicitly made a one-term promise during the campaign, but he certainly implied it with the language of “transition.” You don’t typically think of eight years in office as a “transition.” And he had surrogates talking to their pals in the press planting the seeds of a single term, for a Democratic electorate that never saw Biden as their first choice, just as an acceptable consensus pick to take out the hated incumbent." - The Hill 06/13/24

And this from Politico:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 348November 30, 2024 6:14 PM

[quote]It was certainly implied.

Implications are like assumptions...

They are never true until proven true.

by Anonymousreply 349November 30, 2024 6:30 PM

If it was implied, why was there not a groundswell of opposition to his candidacy? Why did no major candidate at least launch an exploratory committee?

by Anonymousreply 350November 30, 2024 6:35 PM

And who ever defined a transition as only 4 years not 2 or 8 years ?

by Anonymousreply 351November 30, 2024 6:35 PM

r350, exactly. Nobody in the Democratic Party pulled a Teddy Kennedy when they had the chance.

OK, more MAGA propaganda. Just like Harris was the Border Czar when she wasn't.

Got it.

by Anonymousreply 352November 30, 2024 6:44 PM

[quote] Nobody in the Democratic Party pulled a Teddy Kennedy when they had the chance.

Dean Phillips tried.

by Anonymousreply 353November 30, 2024 6:48 PM

Who? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

by Anonymousreply 354November 30, 2024 6:49 PM

There were many warning signs.

First, the 2020 Democratic primary veered so far to the left that it seemed to be a cartoon. In particular, Elizabeth Warren destroyed anyone who could actually win votes. And this - with the George Floyd protests - is what many Trump voters see as the Democratic Party.

Second, Biden made a selfish deal to secure the nomination quickly. Not only did he commit to a black female VP, but he chose one that he didn’t trust with power. Real bright when you are pushing 80.

Third, running for a second term when it was clear he wouldn’t win and would be lucky to still be alive.

Of course, Trump is now following nearly the same playbook.

by Anonymousreply 355November 30, 2024 6:51 PM

The Democratic Party never veered so far left. That was all MAGA Propaganda.

Except for the .6% of American trannies and MAGA hating us for not stomping on them like kittens, ther was no extremee.

Economic policies were solid.

Trump fucked the best border bill since Reagan's amnesty.

But the EGGS!!!

by Anonymousreply 356November 30, 2024 7:03 PM

[quote] Second, Biden made a selfish deal to secure the nomination quickly. Not only did he commit to a black female VP, but he chose one that he didn’t trust with power. Real bright when you are pushing 80.

What in earth is wrong with choosing a black woman?

What vice-president other than Cheney has had any power whatsoever?

by Anonymousreply 357November 30, 2024 7:07 PM

Elizabeth Warren proposed fairly extensive changes to our economy, supported by a legally dubious wealth tax that her own party would not have supported. She wanted the secretary of the perhaps soon to be defunct Department of Education to be some one who met the approval of a young trans student.

I didn’t ssy anything was wrong with a black female VP. The problem is that Biden didn’t think she was qualified to hr president, which was one reason he insisted on staying in the race.

by Anonymousreply 358November 30, 2024 7:13 PM

R358. My God. Biden confided to you his reasons for running again? Please, tell us more.

I think it’s case closed on Warren taking the county far left. Well researched and argued!

by Anonymousreply 359November 30, 2024 7:21 PM

[quote] What vice-president other than Cheney has had any power whatsoever?

How soon they forget.

by Anonymousreply 360November 30, 2024 7:28 PM

[quote]And who ever defined a transition as only 4 years not 2 or 8 years ?

You're being disingenuous. A transitional President would imply one term. Not completing a term and running again.

[quote]OK, more MAGA propaganda. Just like Harris was the Border Czar when she wasn't.

“She is the most qualified person to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle in stemming the movement of so many folks to our southern border," Joe Biden March 24, 2021

Note the words: to LEAD our efforts. She was appointed the leader.

"Czar" is not, and never has been an official position, it is a moniker. And it was applied to Harris in 2021 regarding the border.

"Several media organisations, including the BBC, described Ms Harris as a “tsar” in news reports." - BBC 13 August 2024

by Anonymousreply 361November 30, 2024 7:53 PM

Imply to you. To me it implies a transition from one thing to another with something in the middle.

by Anonymousreply 362November 30, 2024 9:39 PM

Donors will not be enthused about backing her for President again.

by Anonymousreply 363November 30, 2024 10:58 PM

Says you.

Were Republicans held hostage?

by Anonymousreply 364November 30, 2024 11:24 PM

Cut with the nonseense. Kamala ran a great campaign. It's a problem when you're running not against a political party but a criminal mob who will say ANYTHING to get elected and who have learned how to k eep their followers isolated from the truth. Kamala ran as the only candidate with a positive message who can unite everyone. What we needed of course was a laser-focus on the corruption of the Republicans and Trump specifically, but it still would not have worked. You have to separate the cultists from their daily reinforcement for that to work.

by Anonymousreply 365December 1, 2024 4:30 PM

R365 You're over-estimating how much of Trump's support was the whackadoos. A big chunk were people who didn't care about all of the controversy over Trump, or actually enjoyed watching the incumbent party work itself into a froth.

"I'm voting for Trump because Fuck You Dems!"

Yes, if Trump actually burned the country to the ground, you might have some of his supporters "get it", but would it really be worth it?

by Anonymousreply 366December 1, 2024 5:12 PM

Laser focus on corruption…NO. Focus on people’s actual concerns..inflation, crime, culture wars where white men are the enemy…

by Anonymousreply 367December 1, 2024 5:47 PM

Take it back.. once Trump and Company start stealing and rigging the system again people will notice that.

by Anonymousreply 368December 1, 2024 5:50 PM

Correction to the title: The majority of Democrats do NOT want Kamala to run again in 2028.

by Anonymousreply 369December 2, 2024 2:11 AM

We shall see, r369...

by Anonymousreply 370December 2, 2024 3:26 AM

But I do want her to give the response to his SOTU address IF HE GIVES ONE.

by Anonymousreply 371December 2, 2024 3:28 AM

No R367 Republican corruption is the enemy. They are literally worse than the politicians in Argentina and Brazil right now, and that's saying a lot.

by Anonymousreply 372December 2, 2024 4:39 AM

For 2028, dust off Bernie to run yet again. Those Bern-Bros will then be in their late 40s and early 50s, delivering Pizza and/or working for DoorDash, and still anticipating that free tuition.

by Anonymousreply 374December 2, 2024 7:55 PM

Fuck off R31,R36 with your pathetic white male cock sucking. You online bitches aren't fooling anybody. You're Incel MAGA gays.

by Anonymousreply 375December 2, 2024 9:48 PM

[quote]No women. No blacks. No LGBTQ. No California.

It's kind of funny: the Democrats consider the US racist and misogynist...so what do they do? They run a black woman for President!

And then they're surprised that she lost.

That's good advice from R36. It's good advice if you want to win next time.

by Anonymousreply 376December 2, 2024 11:15 PM

So many filthy people post here.

by Anonymousreply 377December 3, 2024 12:15 AM

Biden 2028!! Let's make it happen, people!!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 378December 6, 2024 1:43 AM

Ritchie Torres/Tammy Duckworth 2028

by Anonymousreply 379December 6, 2024 2:39 AM

[quote] Josh Shapiro will crush her in a primary.

I am prepared for ANYONE to crush her in a primary. I want Dems to find a candidate who generates excitement in the base. Despite our optimism and best intentions it never happens. That's how we ended up with Biden in 2020. Biden was fine but he was not liked, even by Democrats. I would not be surprised, or disappointed, if Harris was our candidate in 2028. 4 more years of Trump and his MAGA foolishness will destroy the Republican party's prospects for keeping the White House. With a 4 year long launchpad, Harris can run and win in 2028.

by Anonymousreply 380December 6, 2024 3:05 AM

The Dems will choose a black woman to deliver the Dem response to the State of the Union address.

by Anonymousreply 381December 6, 2024 4:49 AM

Please god no. Just let white men lead like god intended.

by Anonymousreply 382December 6, 2024 4:51 AM

So the Democrats have bigoted cunts in their ranks just like Republicans. Thanks r382.

by Anonymousreply 383December 6, 2024 11:35 AM

R381 It will probably be Jasmine Crockett.

by Anonymousreply 384December 6, 2024 2:56 PM

"Bleach blonde, bad-built, butch body!" *mic drop*

by Anonymousreply 385December 6, 2024 3:19 PM

If Democrats want to take over the brand, Kamala should give the SOTU reply. To keep her, finally, on the offence, like Trump was the last 4 years.

WELCOME TO THE TRANSITION.

by Anonymousreply 386December 6, 2024 4:55 PM

[quote] It will probably be Jasmine Crockett.

Democrats probably need to hit rock bottom before they reform, but Crockett isn’t the bottom, so they could do worse.

by Anonymousreply 387December 6, 2024 4:56 PM

[quote] If Democrats want to take over the brand, Kamala should give the SOTU reply.

Maybe they could just play her unsettling valedictory video she made for her supporters.

by Anonymousreply 388December 6, 2024 4:58 PM

The response to the SOTU address is traditionally delivered by an up-and-coming politician for that party, not failures. As was the theme this year, " We won't go back," you can't have a reminder of the wipeout; it would be a bad look. NO, the response must be done by a white, male. Considering the state of the party, might I suggest Aidan Maese-Czeropski, a man of daring and bold decision making?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 389December 6, 2024 5:08 PM

No, the brand needs to keep app;lying pressure by ridiculing Trump and his Un-American policies.

by Anonymousreply 390December 6, 2024 8:11 PM

[quote] The response to the SOTU address is traditionally delivered by an up-and-coming politician for that party, not failures. As was the theme this year, " We won't go back," you can't have a reminder of the wipeout; it would be a bad look. NO, the response must be done by a white, male.

Sarah McBride checks all the boxes, and she’s someone that inspires Democrats.

by Anonymousreply 391December 6, 2024 8:16 PM

Ritchie Torres or Fetterman (if he’s capable of giving a speech.)

by Anonymousreply 392December 6, 2024 8:47 PM

Or Bernie for the fun of it. I know he’s not really a Dem.

by Anonymousreply 393December 6, 2024 8:48 PM

[quote]I do not rule out that a popular, viable Democratic candidate other than Harris will emerge for the 2028 election cycle. However, I am also excited by how she can overhaul and refine her image and platform in two years. She will be a killing machine without the albatross of Biden around her neck. I get that it's easier to be a pessimist and wallow in self-pity -- or to deride her for irrational reasons -- but Harris can run and win in 2028.

She can and I think she would have a shot. She ran a great campaign this time, it wasn't her fault that Biden stayed in place so long.

There will of course be a robust primary season, and whoever wins will be the candidate. Harris is just as good as anyone to participate, let her compete and see.

by Anonymousreply 394December 6, 2024 11:05 PM

The "It has to be a straight, white, midwestern man" nonsense needs to stop. We heard that about Kamala's VP pick and it gave us Tim Walz, who was dull as dishwater and brought nothing to the ticket.

by Anonymousreply 395December 7, 2024 12:17 AM

[quote] Sarah McBride checks all the boxes, and she’s someone that inspires Democrats.

A part of me would love for this to happen because it would make Nancy Mace have a meltdown.

by Anonymousreply 396December 7, 2024 12:22 AM

[quote]Sarah McBride checks all the boxes, and she’s someone that inspires Democrats.

Agree. It will definitely be the Tranny.

by Anonymousreply 397December 7, 2024 11:09 PM

Sad not one Dem name that strikes a cord or gets anyone actually excited,

“ so they could do worse”

seems to be about where the Dems are.

by Anonymousreply 398December 8, 2024 4:16 PM

We already have a Billion Dollars invested in HALF of a Kamala Harris Campaign.

She needs to laugh at Trump all the way to the midterms.

by Anonymousreply 399December 8, 2024 6:10 PM

R368 is Susan Collins

by Anonymousreply 400December 9, 2024 3:25 AM

Kamala should have chosen Josh Shapiro. I supported her and voted for her but she is always so canned with her responses. Her speeches were very repetitive. Her campaign management was horrible too. So many poor decisions, She could have won.

by Anonymousreply 401December 9, 2024 3:49 AM

R401 Increasingly I think she wanted Shapiro but they knew she couldn’t win. Actually I know he was the top pick. Somehow it fell through though.

by Anonymousreply 402December 9, 2024 3:51 AM

Didn’t Shapiro’s oversized imagining of his role in a Harris Administration make his pick impossible?

by Anonymousreply 403December 9, 2024 4:21 AM

[quote]Didn’t Shapiro’s oversized imagining of his role in a Harris Administration make his pick impossible?

Even the people who vetoed Shapiro for being Jewish knew that wouldn't sell well, thus the need to create stories like the one you mention as cover.

by Anonymousreply 404December 9, 2024 4:38 AM

I’m still depressed about Kamala. It’s not going to happen. We need a hot straight white man with a wife and young kids.

by Anonymousreply 405December 9, 2024 4:51 AM

R405 Yes, with thick dick face and proven fertility - we'll all want to spread our legs and take him inside us.

by Anonymousreply 406December 11, 2024 9:27 AM

It’s sad but true. I just wish they had picked Gavin instead of Kamala. I don’t know why Gavin wants to wait until 2028 to run.

I am so heartbroken and angry about all of this. I trust no politician, news pundit/talking heads or any of the news outlets. They handed the election to TURD like a virgin island girl to the volcano.

by Anonymousreply 407December 11, 2024 12:58 PM

R407 the sad sad losers lament.

It’s a universal cry by those who have been crushed in life . Life is unfair.

If Gavin had run Harris would still have a political future.

by Anonymousreply 408December 11, 2024 1:09 PM

R408 has really bad breath.

by Anonymousreply 409December 11, 2024 1:10 PM

Shapiro is all in for 2028. It’s better he’s not tainted with the stink of losing to Dump.

by Anonymousreply 410December 11, 2024 1:22 PM

That stench you smell covers the entire party. We were just not that popular. Harris was just the one to take the actual beating.

It’s very possible the Dems will be less prepared for 2028, less liked, less important, more fringe and the gop doing quite well.

And please I don’t want to hear from anyone that says I am wrong if they were promising a Harris win a few short weeks ago.

by Anonymousreply 411December 11, 2024 1:50 PM

Miss Miss Lindz will do anything to suck [up to] Trump.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 412December 11, 2024 1:50 PM

Trump is now walking back some of his harsher campaign rhetoric and even co-opting some of the more popular Democratic ideas, such as offering citizenship to "Dreamers" and those here in the US for lengthy periods of time.

He's so desperate to be liked and popular, look to him to try more of this type of thing, even at the expense of angering some of his rabid base. It could bring him cross-over appeal, and make it more difficult for Dems to gain a foothold in 2026/8.

by Anonymousreply 413December 11, 2024 7:56 PM

Trump’s appeal is a cult of personality. There’s no one else who will fire up his MAGA base in 2028. DeSatan tried to copy him and failed miserably. Jaydine Vance is a total dud too.

by Anonymousreply 414December 11, 2024 9:02 PM

r413, no, he is deflecting to wishful thinking before he lowers his cruel cudgel again.

Trump only cares about himself. He has no empathy and everything is a cold, calculated move.

THEY ARE EATING THE DOGS!

by Anonymousreply 415December 12, 2024 1:16 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!