Then why campaign at all?Its laughable to think going on Joe Rogan would have had any effect on the elections.
The problem with Harris is that she was perceived as an empty suit, unable to stray away from her script and sticking to an administration that was clearly judged defavorably, rightly or not.You really think so? I think part of the problem was Trump coming off as approachable (for lack of a better word), whereas Harris appeared more stiff and like a polished politician. Going on these bro Podcasts and having a normal chat might have closed that gap somewhat. That is if Harris was able to do it.
And just to be clear, I’m not at all saying it was the difference between winning and losing.
The two actual choices they had were "continuity with the current administration" and "the previous administration." They thought the current administration was bad so they went with the other one.Before you discuss what the democrats could have done done, reflect on the two choices that were there: an experienced career politician vs a rapist criminal who is losing his cognitive abilities. It should never have been a contest.
Not really.The two actual choices they had were "continuity with the current administration" and "the previous administration." They thought the current administration was bad so they went with the other one.
This just underlines how bad the Harris campaign actually did. They were running against a walking, talking disaster. Trump did not run a good campaign, and yet he won quite easily in the end.I reject the idea that the democrats somehow failed. There are always things you can do differently: no one has any idea whether it would have made a difference.
For Trump to be reelected, two things had to happen:
- people had to be willing to ignore Trumps misdeeds, especially his rapes, racism, treason and corruption
- people had to be willing to vote for further loss of abortion rights, voting rights and mass deportations
It is men who have thrown women under the bus, racists, and others who voted ‘for the economy’ who are morally bankrupt.
Before you discuss what the democrats could have done done, reflect on the two choices that were there: an experienced career politician vs a rapist criminal who is losing his cognitive abilities. It should never have been a contest.
You really don't need to convince people you are better than a convicted felon who also tried to organise an insurrection. As bad of a candidate Kamala is, Trump should have not even registered on the polling. They are in different universes integrity wise. The fact that this did not happen reflects extremely badly on the general voter in US.This just underlines how bad the Harris campaign actually did. They were running against a walking, talking disaster. Trump did not run a good campaign, and yet he won quite easily in the end.
Shaming the voters has been tried before, and it failed. The Democrats have to actually offer something, and drastically improve their messaging to drive turnout with their base.
Not really.
It was "continuity with the current administration" and "rapist criminal who is losing his cognitive abilities".
If this was true, Harris would have won easily.You really don't need to convince people you are better than a convicted felon who also tried to organise an insurrection. As bad of a candidate Kamala is, Trump should have not even registered on the polling. They are in different universes integrity wise. The fact that this did not happen reflects extremely badly on the general voter in US.
I mean obviously it isn't true after the result. Hence the point that the average US voter is kinda nuts.If this was true, Harris would have won easily.
It obviously reflects poorly on the electorate, no argument there. But I think a better description than "nuts" would be "disengaged and uninformed". Substance and policy is nothing in US presidential elections now. Messaging is everything. And that is something Trump did far better than Harris.I mean obviously it isn't true after the result. Hence the point that the average US voter is kinda nuts.
I reject the idea that the democrats somehow failed. There are always things you can do differently: no one has any idea whether it would have made a difference.
For Trump to be reelected, two things had to happen:
- people had to be willing to ignore Trumps misdeeds, especially his rapes, racism, treason and corruption
- people had to be willing to vote for further loss of abortion rights, voting rights and mass deportations
It is men who have thrown women under the bus, racists, and others who voted ‘for the economy’ who are morally bankrupt.
Before you discuss what the democrats could have done done, reflect on the two choices that were there: an experienced career politician vs a rapist criminal who is losing his cognitive abilities. It should never have been a contest.
Not really.
It was "continuity with the current administration" and "rapist criminal who is losing his cognitive abilities".
You really don't need to convince people you are better than a convicted felon who also tried to organise an insurrection. As bad of a candidate Kamala is, Trump should have not even registered on the polling. They are in different universes integrity wise. The fact that this did not happen reflects extremely badly on the general voter in US.
The future is bleak. Social media algorithms have introduced people like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson to young and mid age men and female varieties for young women. Most of the voters don't even know 1/10th of the info out there, they just know they hate the democratic nominee and think trump is better for the economy because their algorithm told them that. I'm seeing it here in Canada. Otherwise normal, smart people with the absolute worst political takes about how Trump is the best option. I ask for one example and they can't give it.This just underlines how bad the Harris campaign actually did. They were running against a walking, talking disaster. Trump did not run a good campaign, and yet he won quite easily in the end.
Shaming the voters has been tried before, and it failed. The Democrats have to actually offer something, and drastically improve their messaging to drive turnout with their base.
I really do hope this mode of thinking is on its last legs. It's just not very useful.It is men who have thrown women under the bus
Amen.You really don't need to convince people you are better than a convicted felon who also tried to organise an insurrection. As bad of a candidate Kamala is, Trump should have not even registered on the polling. They are in different universes integrity wise. The fact that this did not happen reflects extremely badly on the general voter in US.
Disagree. What should have happened is that established Republicans got rid of Trump. When that didn’t happen, Trump should have lost in a landslide, forcing the Republican party to normalize.Sticking to hard lines like this and not focusing on offering something tangible as a reason to vote for you is likely a part of the reason why Harris lost. For better or worse, regardless of what you think of the voters, they are the voters and you need to find a way to win them over.
Shaming the electorate and saying they should not even consider voting for this other person is not going to win any elections. “I’m not the other guy” is only going to get you so far, regardless of who the other guy is.
New research suggests that the Democrats’ struggles in communities battling fentanyl addiction had little to do with economic theory or messaging—it was, more simply, a failure of political attention.
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet” - Abraham Lincoln"Every quote becomes 10x better once you attach a famous name to it" - Abraham Lincoln
