Komm, Kamala, Komm and Save the Nation!

[Stavros]

So far, not so good. It could be a deliberate smear campaign by those who don't support the Democrats at any time -eg, the Telegraph article linked via Yahoo- or those who think she is in a thankless job but could nevertheless make more of her status to reach out to the people she needs if she is the nominee in 2024 -but is this a big IF? I don't know much about her other than what I read in the press, so I wonder what other people think? But as I said in another post, if she is the nominee in 2024 Trump's disciples will consider his success a 'slam dunk'.

https://news.yahoo.com/future-president-kamala-harris-now-121553773.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

https://news.yahoo.com/democrats-kamala-harris-problem-155913380.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAM1SZOZ0oM2gjRuKUIbA2YfUyqBu vFNz8e4hcTsOvTTnLhhoyC2MPSoJovGmvPJBBwWoXVSkXyo0Ff sFJA6Khj4ciEsy88pwGIvhrSFY1b4-yKAgIY-YyStN_wyIgf_bo0F3YVzbAkb7OvQC68Prbw05Q7HicetLxpJV_ RSseiYg

My post is a reference to JS Bach's Cantata, linked here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzWJsRjanC4

[Stavros]

The articles on Harris continue to cast doubt on her as a politician, and her potential ascendancy to the White House as President.

On the one hand, as Vice-President she will never have the profile of the 'Boss', and if given tasks, such as dealing with illegal immigration and border control that cannot be resolved without significant policy agreements with the Central American states where most of the immigrants come from, it is either a thankless task, or one that will take years to achieve.

On the other hand, the changes taking place to US society that give non-White non-Christians the edge in urban conurbations, suggests that Harris has a 'natural' constituency of voters who look like her, identify with her personal history, and could warm to her if she has the right policy options that appeal to them, as well as a broad section of the US population including the 'White' blue collar and Middle Class voters Democrats tend to rely on.

Some reports suggest the problem is her, that she is difficult to work with and does not inspire much personal loyalty, that she regularly changes her staff. The media does her no favours being mostly anti-Democrat, while the opportunities for the pro-Republican media to denigrate her for reasons that have nothing to do with her politics would guaranteee an ugly, nasty campaign were she to run for the White House.

I think she needs to carve out a space for herself which promotes popular policies and presents her as a competent manager. But does she have both to work with?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60061473

[blackchubby38]

The articles on Harris continue to cast doubt on her as a politician, and her potential ascendancy to the White House as President.

On the one hand, as Vice-President she will never have the profile of the 'Boss', and if given tasks, such as dealing with illegal immigration and border control that cannot be resolved without significant policy agreements with the Central American states where most of the immigrants come from, it is either a thankless task, or one that will take years to achieve.

On the other hand, the changes taking place to US society that give non-White non-Christians the edge in urban conurbations, suggests that Harris has a 'natural' constituency of voters who look like her, identify with her personal history, and could warm to her if she has the right policy options that appeal to them, as well as a broad section of the US population including the 'White' blue collar and Middle Class voters Democrats tend to rely on.

Some reports suggest the problem is her, that she is difficult to work with and does not inspire much personal loyalty, that she regularly changes her staff. The media does her no favours being mostly anti-Democrat, while the opportunities for the pro-Republican media to denigrate her for reasons that have nothing to do with her politics would guaranteee an ugly, nasty campaign were she to run for the White House.

I think she needs to carve out a space for herself which promotes popular policies and presents her as a competent manager. But does she have both to work with?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60061473

Do you honestly believe that media is anti-Democrat?

[Stavros]

Do you honestly believe that media is anti-Democrat?

A throwaway comment, but there is probably more anti-Harris and critical press on Biden here than in the US. It might not work in the US but the media scene there is confusing as I doubt most Americans get their news from the Times, Post and CNN. But thanks anyway for not responding to the purpose of the thread, which apart from your post has excited zero comment, as in your case none at all on Harris.

I guess she is doomed. Like her country.

[thombergeron]

Any serious consideration of the careers of black women politicians will reveal a pretty obvious double standard. It's a double standard for women in general, but it's particularly egregious in the cases of women like Kamala Harris or Maxine Waters. There is no detail of Kamala Harris's career and personality that wouldn't be celebrated if she were a man, and especially if she were a white man.

This is true across the political spectrum. Barbara Lee has been a stronger and more consistent advocate of progressive governance than Bernie Sanders could hope to be. But a black woman in this country would never garner anything even close to the kind of national cult-like following that Bernie enjoys with his banal retread of progressivism.

Here's the kind of leader Kamala Harris is. In her first race for elected office, she unseated a two-term DA, who was a third-generation SF politician. Hallinan had the backing of police unions. One of Harris's signature issues was her opposition to the death penalty. One of her first cases as DA was against a gang member who killed a plainclothes police officer with an AK-47. At Officer Espinoza's funeral, newly elected US Senator Dianne Feinstein publicly chided Harris, who was present, for not pursuing the death penalty in the case, to raucous applause from the police officers present. Harris put the killer away for life without parole and her consequent two terms as SF DA are considered some of the most successful in city history.

[Stavros]

Thanks, thombergon, for an alternative view on Harris. My problem is that not being in the US I don't know how she is viewed generally, as I don't know where most people get their news from. There are obvious print media stars, though I doubt most Americans read the NYT or the Post, either because they don't want to subscribe online or just don't read newspapers, and other than Fox News, CNN, and the other well know broadcasters, I assume a lot of people get news from local tv and radio stations, which in some States I assume are hostile to Democrats, but I just don't know. I also know nothing about social media such as Facebook and how influential it is.

Also, while the coverage here is often about the disappointment of the Biden administration so far, it seems to me that his aim to restore a bi-partisan Congress is doomed because the Republican Party, with or without Trump, abandoned bi-partisan politics in favour of a sectarian conflict that to me is leading the US into a conflict from which there is no simple resolution. On that basis, I can see Harris, if she has a good year in policy terms, building enough support to win the nomination, but in a country so divided and wracked by 'revisions' to the electoral system that results are questioned, but by Democrats rather than Republicans. We cannot yet know how effective the voter suppression mechanisms are going to be in States like Texas, I think the predictions suggest that in theory Harris or the Democrat nominee in 2024 could win the popular vote but lose in the Electoral College.

Either way, yes, she gets a hard time in the media, but must also up her game if she is serious about 2024.

[blackchubby38]

A throwaway comment, but there is probably more anti-Harris and critical press on Biden here than in the US. It might not work in the US but the media scene there is confusing as I doubt most Americans get their news from the Times, Post and CNN. But thanks anyway for not responding to the purpose of the thread, which apart from your post has excited zero comment, as in your case none at all on Harris.

I guess she is doomed. Like her country.

Oh, I'm sorry I didn't realize I had to respond to the purpose of the thread. Well then allow me to retort.

First, I think many Americans do get their news from the Times, Post, and CNN. Although when it comes to CNN, that is not always a good thing.

As for Kamala Harris.

Is it possible that the criticisms Harris has been receiving are based in racism and misogyny? Absolutely. I would be naïve to think that female politicians and especially minority ones at that must deal with things that their male counterparts do not have to.

It is possible that she is not difficult to work for and the problem is with the former members of her staff who were not cut out for working for the vice president of the United States of America? Or in the case of Symone Sanders (one of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign people) were not the right people to begin with.

Can she be expected to fix an immigration problem that is decades in the making and several presidential administrations bear responsibility for, no she should not. But when Biden assigned her the task, she could have not acted like it was an inconvenience.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omrMRP15q9M

Or just maybe, just maybe, all the reports about Harris are true and she is difficult to work for. Maybe she is the perfect example of what happens when you pick someone for a job solely based on their race and or/gender and don’t take things into consideration like qualifications, compatibility, and leadership skills. Or what happens when a person is not allowed to choose someone they want to, but because of outside forces, they have to pick someone else instead.

As for her possible campaign in 2024, considering how poorly she did in the 2020 Democratic primaries and debates, you can say that was already doomed to begin with.

[Stavros]

Thanks for this Blackchubby, the point being that I value your intelligent posts, I hope you understand that, though obviously you and everyone else is free to post whenever they want, or not to.

You offer contrasting views, and useful ones, as for example, I don't know who Symone Sanders is. I wonder if this lacuna in leadership, somethig we have in the UK, means that the Democrats are going to engage in a messy sequence of Primaries and Caucuses when the time comes, whereas it appears that the only person who might challenge Trump, assuming he runs/is allowed to run (for legal reasons) is Ron DeSantis.

With Luxury Liz Truss or Richer-than-you Rishi Sunak poised to replace Boris Johnson -assuming he doesn't survive his latest crisis- and Macron potentially on the skids in France, Heaven help us all!

[thombergeron]

As for Kamala Harris.

Is it possible that the criticisms Harris has been receiving are based in racism and misogyny? Absolutely. I would be naïve to think that female politicians and especially minority ones at that must deal with things that their male counterparts do not have to.

It is possible that she is not difficult to work for and the problem is with the former members of her staff who were not cut out for working for the vice president of the United States of America? Or in the case of Symone Sanders (one of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign people) were not the right people to begin with.

Honestly, this is indistinguishable from criticism of Hillary Clinton. Nothing specific, just vague insinuations based on developments that would be unremarkable if the officeholder were a man.

Symone Sanders wasn't just some 2016 Bernie campaign person. She was a senior advisor in Joe Biden's 2020 campaign. She was one of Biden's main surrogates because she's great on TV. She's not only Harris's Chief Spokesperson, she's also Deputy Assistant to the President himself. She has worked in the White House of the President that she helped elect for a year following the campaign, and now she's leaving her public sector job for a more lucrative opportunity in the mainstream media. This a completely banal Washington career trajectory unless you're trying to spin something.


Maybe she is the perfect example of what happens when you pick someone for a job solely based on their race and or/gender and don’t take things into consideration like qualifications, compatibility, and leadership skills. Or what happens when a person is not allowed to choose someone they want to, but because of outside forces, they have to pick someone else instead.

Listen to yourself here. Kamala Harris was the twice-elected Attorney General of the State of California. She was elected to represent California in the United States Senate. But she lacks the qualifications, compatibility, and leadership skills to be Vice President of the United States? Maybe you could be a little more specific about what you believe Harris lacks.


As for her possible campaign in 2024, considering how poorly she did in the 2020 Democratic primaries and debates, you can say that was already doomed to begin with.

Yes, she did so poorly that she was selected to serve as Vice President on a ticket that won by historic margins. Total loser. Nothing going for her.

[MrFanti]

I'm sure Black Chubby remembers this...
But Harris had dismal support from the Black community to the extent that she quit her run for POTUS before the Primaries even began.

However, since she's Bi-Racial, it would be interesting to see how/what the ethnic groups on her mother's side felt about Kamala pre-Primaries.

[thombergeron]

Y'all. Harris currently enjoys a 72% approval rating among Black Americans. It's only slightly lower than her 77% approval among Democrats. Black voters were lukewarm on Harris at the top of a ticket in a must-win election because they (rightly) suspected that America is still too racist and misogynist to elect a black woman to the Presidency.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/04/kamala-harris-black-voters-2020-075651

Harris is 57 years old and currently holds the highest elected office any woman has held in American history. If you're anti-Kamala, you better steel yourself because she's going to be bothering you for another couple decades or so.

[filghy2]

I don't know much about Kamala Harris, but I agree that woman in politics face double standards. I've never understood the degree of animus in the US towards Hillary Clinton. The most bizarre thing was the people saying they voted for Trump in 2016 because they couldn't stand Hillary's lies. A similar thing happened with Julia Gillard, Australia's first and only female Prime Minister. She was actually very effective in getting legislation through a hung parliament, but the common perception seemed to be that she was calculating and devious.

Many of the reasons people give for not liking these politicians seem like rationalisations. If they behave like a typical male politician they are criticised for being ruthless, calculating and devious. If they behaved in a more stereotypically feminine way many of the same people would no doubt complain that they were not strong and forceful enough to be a good leader.

[Stavros]

Two interesting posts above. I recall some of the ridicule Julia Gillard faced in Parliament, but don't know much else about her. As for Harris, the demographic points thombergon makes are similar to the ones I made in the OP. So it begs the question, is she the victim of a biased media -in the UK she doesn't have much support it seems- or does she really have problems of management with her staff and her 'Vision' if she has any?

There is so much to happen in the interim, not least the prospect that Trump will not be able to run for legal reasons, or like Putin he just likes tugging at people's egos. Then there is the prospect that Harris might be President sooner than we think... but let's not dwell on that now....

[Stavros]

I sometimes get the impression that it's not can Kamala save the Nation, but can anyone save Kamala? She seems to me to be level-headed, calm in a crisis, reasonable but maybe not the charisma that some people seem to need, as if Presidents must make rousing speeches to the masses.

She gave a considered and well-judged speech to the Munich Security Conference a few weeks, ago, and in this clip she demolishes the superficial nonsense of De Santis on Ukraine, a topic of which he knows nothing, indeed, his ignorance on a variety of important issues ought to raise concerns. It seems to me the logic of his position is to withdraw the US from NATO.

Anyway, some people here will have seen it, but I still think she can grow into the role and if Biden drops out or something else happens, it will be her opportunity to prove she can do it.

Kamala Harris Slams Ron DeSantis' Ukraine Statement (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/kamala-harris-slams-ron-desantis-053159100.html)

[Stavros]

By the little which can thus satisfy the human spirit, one can measure the extent of its loss (Hegel).

Good Luck America! You are going to need it.

Kamala Harris's full speech to the Democratic National Convention (youtube.com) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61HY9atD2H4)

[blackchubby38]

By the little which can thus satisfy the human spirit, one can measure the extent of its loss (Hegel).

Good Luck America! You are going to need it.

Kamala Harris's full speech to the Democratic National Convention (youtube.com) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61HY9atD2H4)

So I take it you didn't like her speech?

[Stavros]

So I take it you didn't like her speech?

Great speech, but is it enough? Now the shit will fly, indeed, Trump was borderline insane during the speech given the hysterical reaction as it unfolded. A grim portent of the next few months.

I guess the Convention speech is always more about tone and the story rather than policy details, and she has an engaging story that must resonate with a lot of Americans. She never really addressed the issues around immigration and the border; she did make important statements about Abortion which everyone knew she would, but did not make a strong statement about the 2nd Amendment and how to remove Battlefield Artillery from the streets. It was fine to make remarks about taxes and corporations, but that shadow called the National Debt is getting longer as the days get shorter. I appreciate her argument about Palestinian Self-Determination but it is not clear if this means a break with Netanyahu, if not Israel, though I assume she hopes Netanyahu will not be Prime Minister if and when she takes office in January 2025, something most people hope for.

The US, as we see it here, is not just a divided, but a bitterly divided country, and a week long pep talk doesn't change that, not least when Trump is planning an 'awards Gala' for Jan 6 rioters next month, a sad comment on how that kind of violence and contempt for the rule of law and Congress, has become normalized.
Trump will host an ‘awards gala’ for rioters who stormed the Capitol on January 6 | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-awards-gala-capitol-rioters-b2600552.html)

It now comes down to undecided voters in swing states, and how Trump and his friends handle the campaign from now on. But is it not possible that as in 2016, the Democrat will get most of the votes, but lose the Electoral College?

And the debate between the two next month will be worth watching, that's for sure.

[Stavros]

And of course I would appreciate your reaction to the Convention, and how you see the campaign(s) going from now to the 5th of November (which is Guy Fawkes night here in the UK, that moment when a band of men tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament -and failed).

[Stavros]

An interesting take on the Convention's 'message management' with the additional fact that the Biden Administration has delivered for both 'Progressives' in the party and if not the left, then in some cases, eg the environment, albeit via the Inflation Reduction Act, policies they approve of. The point being that what unites the Democrats appears to be stronger than what divides them.
The Hidden Reason Chicago Was Such A Rousing Success For Democrats (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/hidden-reason-chicago-rousing-success-202918229.html)

Yet Harris has been at the top of US politics, but did not present her own record of achievement as a way of arguing she is ready for the top job. But again, if this was all about image management, then she did what she had to, and one assumes she will defend her and Biden's record when the time comes for her to be questioned about it.

[MrFanti]

I do find it fascinating that someone who did so incredibly poorly in the primaries is now way out front.......
But then again, the Democrats didn't hold a process for nomination (Like Black Lives Matter wanted).....

[Stavros]

Not a 'heritage American', as Tucker Carlson might put it, and not eligible for vote either, but for different reasons. Imagine, it is 2024 and the argument comes from the first half of the 19th century. No going back? Sometimes it seems some Americans have never gone forward.

Republican group cites notorious Dred Scott ruling as reason Kamala Harris can’t be president | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/kamala-harris-president-supreme-court-b2601364.html)

[Luke Warm]

I do find it fascinating that someone who did so incredibly poorly in the primaries is now way out front.......
But then again, the Democrats didn't hold a process for nomination (Like Black Lives Matter wanted).....

She did pretty well in the primaries, one of the last people to drop out, and impressed people enough to be selected as VP.

As far as Black Lives Matter wanting an open primary at this late stage of the game… first of all, which chapter of Black Lives Matter? My understanding is that there are several different chapters. Also, as we have been told many times here, black voters are not a monolith. If one limited faction of black voters wants something, they only speak for themselves. It’s just one voice out of many. And an open convention would be a total disaster, they would have to invent that whole scenario out of thin air. Everybody who voted for Biden also voted for Kamala. If something were to happen to Biden, Kamala would automatically become president, as everyone knows. Kamala as candidate is clearly the fairest, most logical choice.

[Luke Warm]

Not a 'heritage American', as Tucker Carlson might put it, and not eligible for vote either, but for different reasons. Imagine, it is 2024 and the argument comes from the first half of the 19th century. No going back? Sometimes it seems some Americans have never gone forward.

Republican group cites notorious Dred Scott ruling as reason Kamala Harris can’t be president | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/kamala-harris-president-supreme-court-b2601364.html)

Today’s conservative movement is a joke. One moment they are strict originalists, the next they are making up new ideas that have nothing to do with the Constitution (example - the “major questions doctrine”). What these clowns do is start with the results that they want to see, and then work backwards from there to justify it. What do conservatives believe any more, besides unlimited access to guns, hating uppity women and queers, and giving tax breaks to millionaires? I hate what Trump has done to America but as a democrat, I love how MAGA has absolutely eviscerated conservatism. Trump has done more to single handedly destroy conservatism than any smelly hippy could ever dream of.

[MrFanti]

As far as Black Lives Matter wanting an open primary at this late stage of the game… first of all, which chapter of Black Lives Matter? .
The "main group"
Read this--> https://blacklivesmatter.com/black-lives-matter-statement-on-kamala-harris-securing-enough-delegates-to-become-democratic-nominee/

[Stavros]

The "main group"
Read this--> https://blacklivesmatter.com/black-lives-matter-statement-on-kamala-harris-securing-enough-delegates-to-become-democratic-nominee/


"“Black Lives Matter is independent of any political party...".

So, if they are not members of the Party, but

"Black Lives Matter demands that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) immediately host an informal, virtual snap primary across the country prior to the DNC convention in August. "

-Should they mind their own business instead of interfering in a Party they are not members of -or join the Party and influence it from within?

[Luke Warm]

Stavros makes a good point, that anyone who isn’t active in party politics shouldn’t expect to dictate the direction of the party. If you don’t participate in the party (or even vote, for that matter) nobody in the party cares about your opinion.

Also, I don’t think BLM would get a candidate that they like more, in an open primary. I think it’s very likely they would get a candidate that they liked even less.

A bunch of people in the media also wanted a last-minute open primary, and it was a bad idea when they pushed it too (I’m not singling out BLM)

[blackchubby38]

And of course I would appreciate your reaction to the Convention, and how you see the campaign(s) going from now to the 5th of November (which is Guy Fawkes night here in the UK, that moment when a band of men tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament -and failed).

As an Independent voter, I'm indifferent to political conventions. They have become 4 day jerk-off sessions for the respective parties. The only difference between the two being, that with the Republicans its about "look how bitter and angry we have become". With the Democrats, "its look how cool and progressive we are". I have no idea what their respective platforms were, which used to be a staple of the conventions.

As for how Kamala did, of course she didn't mention anything about immigration and the border. She is part of an administration that had three years to do something about it and pretty much failed in doing so. It was only until the year of the election did the Biden finally take executive action.

And before anybody runs up in here and says something about Trump telling the Republicans in Congress not to vote on the most recent immigration bill and therefore killing it. That's a byproduct of waiting until an election year to do something.

I will say this though. There is no denying the enthusiasm for Kamala Harris that was on display during the week of the convention and in the media. The shift in tone of many of the people who spoke was also noticeable. It was no longer about, "When they aim low, we aim high" and it was about taking the fight to the Trump and the MAGA Republicans. I don't think you would have saw the same thing if President Biden was still the nominee. Which has led me to come up with this conspiracy theory:

That even without his poor debate performance, the Democrats were going to find a way to replace Biden as the nominee, with invoking the 25th amendment as the nuclear option.

[MrFanti]

Also, I don’t think BLM would get a candidate that they like more, in an open primary. I think it’s very likely they would get a candidate that they liked even less.

We'll never know one way or the other since the Democrats didn't hold a "due process". I would debate that if BLM really wanted Harris, they would not have the point about having an open process.
I do know that during the primaries, there were quite a few of us within the Black community that did not like Harris and contrary to what Liberals believe, we don't all back someone solely on color of skin.

[Stavros]

As an Independent voter, I'm indifferent to political conventions. They have become 4 day jerk-off sessions for the respective parties. The only difference between the two being, that with the Republicans its about "look how bitter and angry we have become". With the Democrats, "its look how cool and progressive we are". I have no idea what their respective platforms were, which used to be a staple of the conventions.

As for how Kamala did, of course she didn't mention anything about immigration and the border. She is part of an administration that had three years to do something about it and pretty much failed in doing so. It was only until the year of the election did the Biden finally take executive action.

And before anybody runs up in here and says something about Trump telling the Republicans in Congress not to vote on the most recent immigration bill and therefore killing it. That's a byproduct of waiting until an election year to do something.

I will say this though. There is no denying the enthusiasm for Kamala Harris that was on display during the week of the convention and in the media. The shift in tone of many of the people who spoke was also noticeable. It was no longer about, "When they aim low, we aim high" and it was about taking the fight to the Trump and the MAGA Republicans. I don't think you would have saw the same thing if President Biden was still the nominee. Which has led me to come up with this conspiracy theory:

That even without his poor debate performance, the Democrats were going to find a way to replace Biden as the nominee, with invoking the 25th amendment as the nuclear option.

Thank you for your views. I think you are right on some things. With regard to the Border, what I think was missing was a candid discussion of what her mission was and what it did -or rather did not- achieve. The aim was to send her to Central America to address the origin of the problem of migration, yet it is clear that the causes of that Exit are beyond the ability of the Vice-President of the US or even the President(s) of Central America to control. At the core is corruption, violence and States that do not function in a world contaminated by the global trade in narcotics, where the largest single market is in the US itself. Harris could have given a speech about this, but too full of negatives to win her votes -best to avoid it altogether. Using the speech to campaign against recreational drug use in the US would also be futile, even if there is a strong message there -eg, 'every time you snort a line, someone in the South has had their time'.

Conferences in the US have long been ad campaigns that are carefully choreographed to trumpet success, and just as people were worried that Chicago in 2024 could be a re-run of Chicago 1968, so they underestimated the control at the top making sure this did not happen. But yes it does mean there is no serious presentation of policy, as that is no longer the purpose of the Conference just as the system of Primaries means that in most cases the candidate arrives knowing he or she will get the delegates votes. But if across the US, the party activists chose the Presidential candidates, who would they end up with?

Now consider why: in the UK, it used to be the case that the annual conference of the Labour Party was a policy making conference that established the agenda for the Party. The policies came from the members -the Parliamentary Party of MPs, the Trade Unions who helped create and still to this day are the major financial backers of the party, and the individual members who pay an annual fee and send in Resolutions to Conference as voted on by activists in the Constituency parties. And there is the problem and one that I think the Democrats have dealt with -activists are more radical than average voters. Thus, in 1981 the Labour Party Conference voted to abolish the UK's 'independent' nuclear deterrent, ie 'Ban The Bomb' became party policy; and it voted to Leave the European Union, 35 years before Brexit.

Because the Party then became saddled with policies that were trashed in the mostly pro-Thatcher media, when the succession of defeats in elections forced the party to change is messaging, Conference ceased to be a policy-making event, and under Blair it became like the American version, a holiday camp of positive messaging and feel-good messages, though one must say before Iraq there was a lot to feel good about. Just as the power of Murdoch's The Sun media at the time meant Blair had to invite Murdoch into No 10 Downing St to assure him that his plans for Labour had little or nothing to with the Party's Socialist origins, just as Harris has rejected the New Deal framework that led to increases in personal taxation, though these days nobody wants to point out that such taxes were at their highest when Eisenhower was President and the US experience economic growth that these days are the stuff of dreams.

Key takeaway: never let the activists in the party, or the delegates to Conference set the agenda. In fact: keep them out.

So I guess as an Independent you are living in a policy desert in which the media does not address your concerns, whatever your priorities are, and that when they do, it is all done as a confrontation between two sectarian campaigns that never accept that anything on the other side has any merit. You have ended up with a political landscape in which the Conferences tell you nothing, and in which a lot of day to day messaging doesn't tell you either. Referring back to my Hegel quote, who would ever have imagined a world in which one Presidential candidate refers to blow-jobs in campaigning literature as if that sort of language was normal? The media driven need for a constant stream of positive-negative messaging has corrupted the actuality of democracy, which was always supposed to be shaped by citizens debating which policy is the best for all, and then deciding to implement it.

It is a depressing situation, made worse by the fact that one of the candidates had refused to accept he lost one election, already claiming that the fixed elements of the previously 'rigged' election are still in place, even when his own people are busy shredding voter rolls and attempting to put in place partisan election workers who may yet do the fixing on his behalf. All of this inconceivable in years gone by.

I don't know if you feel disenfranchised, but I do understand how in this landscape of sectarian bitterness, the alternatives may be there, but also be ineffective in changing the game. You are stuck in a loop, and the only hope for some is that at least Trump will not be President.

None of which addresses the most difficult problem the US has right now: if social policy is 'returned to the States', it doesn't matter what the Federal Govt or Congress wants, the power of control has shifted to the States and I don't see how that process can be reversed unless the State itself changes, which would mean solid Republican States becoming Democrat, though I suppose it is not absolutely impossible.

[BostonBad]

Kamala's policies will make us more equal and poorer off as a result. Poor people will always exist so long as television, Doritos, cheap beer and sofas exist.

Trying to help people that won't help themselves by hurting others financially is unfair.

She's wrong on the economy, energy, the border and drugs.

In support she incarcerated over 1500 Black men for a little weed, yet hard, dangerous drugs enter our nation's borders everyday. She's a joke of a border czar.

[Stavros]

Kamala's policies will make us more equal and poorer off as a result. Poor people will always exist so long as television, Doritos, cheap beer and sofas exist.

Trying to help people that won't help themselves by hurting others financially is unfair.

She's wrong on the economy, energy, the border and drugs.

In support she incarcerated over 1500 Black men for a little weed, yet hard, dangerous drugs enter our nation's borders everyday. She's a joke of a border czar.

a) Harris has never been a 'border Czar', the phrase is meaningless anyway, as if any one person had total control of the borders of the US. Her task was to visit countries in Central America to tackle the exit of their citizens at source. If she failed at this, I suggest you take a closer look at the political mess in El Salvador and Honduras, to name just two.

b) Harris has given specific details on some of the economic policies she is promoting, with regard to child care, and the financial opportunities she thinks the Federal Govt can give to small and medium sized enterprises, where Trump has merely promised the same old tax cuts for the super-rich (ie, people like himself), and when asked about child care, produced an answer that was literally incomprehensible, even to himself, as it appears he didn't understand the question.

c) is the economic record of the US under President Biden so bad? Inflation is down, hiring is up. Does the President or the Federal Govt control the price of bacon or the rent people pay? Again, Trump has promised nothing, merely attacked the Biden Administration, because he doesn't have any economic policies other than those tax cuts. Thereagain, maybe he has 'concepts of a plan' for the economy, who knows?

d) I have linked Harris's record as Attorney General in California on the other thread. Perhaps she was administering the laws she inherited from the California legislature, and was not free to pass sentences that were not permitted by the law?

e) dangerous drugs do arrive in the US every day, most of them brought in by Americans, because Americans love them. As for weed, Trump wants it legalized in Florida. Maybe all those lazy sods chewing doritos on their sofas while watching The Young and the Restless, will get weed on welfare....?

[MrFanti]

In support she incarcerated over 1500 Black men for a little weed, yet hard, dangerous drugs enter our nation's borders everyday. She's a joke of a border czar.

Part of the reason why she faired miserably in the primaries. Very few of Black America supported her back then.

Which gives the Black Lives Matter stance on her and how the Democrats "nominated" her much more substance.

[Stavros]

Has nobody over there heard of 'tactical voting'? People who are not that keen on Kamala might vote for her to keep Trump out -is there any other way to achieve this, given there are no independent candidates worth a second look? Or maybe there is so much schadenfreude about the state of the nation that some people want Trump to win just to watch the country fall apart?

Trump boasts about the Supreme Court justices he nominated who in their hearings said they would retain Roe v Wade and then repealed it, yet it is probably the most unpopular policy associated with him and the Court.
Harris is doing well because of her position on Abortion, which is also a position on women's health, and the political issue of who gets to decide how to treat a woman whose pregnancy is in crisis.
To vote against that would to some people be like voting against women, and freedom.

Is Harris really to blame for the decisions made by the AG's office in California that locks up Black men -isn't this a nationwide problem? As I put it in the previous post, was Harris in a position to change the sentencing of a court?

How about the case in South Carolina where a man believed to be innocent has now been executed? How unusual is that?
South Carolina executes first man in 13 years despite new evidence of innocence | South Carolina | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/20/south-carolina-death-row-prisoner-execution)

And what about Robinson, 'Martin Luther King on steroids' -do Black people vote for him because he is black, or because they share his odious views of women and transgendered people?
Kamala Harris ties Mark Robinson around Trump's neck in brutal new North Carolina ad (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/kamala-harris-ties-mark-robinson-around-trump-s-neck-in-brutal-new-north-carolina-ad/ar-AA1qV3Yw)


If the election is this close, a tactical vote might be the hard choice some Americans have to make. On this side of the Atlantic, it looks like a no-brainer.

[Stavros]

As the man says, this is Empathy. Of the kind Trump cannot even imagine.

Kamala Harris STUNS CROWD IN AMAZING HUMAN MOMENT w/ Woman at Town Hall!!! (youtube.com) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnEmieOa660)

[tslvr]

Someone remind me how many votes she got in the primaries. This is the US, our parties now pick the candidate through a primary system. I don't care which party you support, but this is just part of the breakdown of the American system. And when America falls, the world will rip apart at the seams.

[Stavros]

Someone remind me how many votes she got in the primaries. This is the US, our parties now pick the candidate through a primary system. I don't care which party you support, but this is just part of the breakdown of the American system. And when America falls, the world will rip apart at the seams.

I don't understand your point. Here in the UK it is not possible to be Prime Minister without being either an MP, and to be an MP that person must be selected by the members of a political party, which is not so different from the registered voters in the US choosing their candidate in a Primary, or a Caucus. If the Primary system is removed, how will either the Democrats or Republicans choose their candidate for President? I don't know how candidates are chosen for the House, Senate and other local offices.

If the American system was different, it might be that someone like Trump, who has never been a member of any party would not have been able to walk into the Republican Party and take it over -he registered to run as an Independent in 2000 but realized he had no chance without an organization with automatic reach across the whole of the US, hence his choice of the GOP.

How you choose your Presidents might be something to debate, I don't know enough about the mechanics, but allow me to suggest it is not Primary or Caucus votes that is likely to break down the American system, but the policies of a party that most Americans do not want -eg, Abortion, Gun Control, Dictatorship- which Trump and Republicans in some States are going to, or already have imposed on citizens.

How can you hold a country together when one party imposes policies on the people that limit their freedom, threatening designated 'enemies' of the party with prison or bankruptcy or even execution not because they are enemies of the USA but because they disagree with Trump-? It may all be bluster and rhetoric if and when he becomes President and realizes he doesn't have the 'immense power' he once saw in the movies, but I think he will try to see how far his immunity goes -and that is more likely to break down the integrity of the US system, plus the fear that if/when he loses there will be another round of court case after court case to prove he won when he didn't, and so forth.

Then the more long term issue not related to elections -if the Supreme Court 'returns' key policy decisions to the States, what is the purpose of the Supreme Court or even Congress? By establishing States Rights as a form of power, one is surely seeing the road to State Autonomy, the USA being a Union of 50 different countries each with their own policies on tax, abortion, education, the climate -not so different from what exists today, but without the guarantee that an American citizen has equal rights across the whole country, because Republicans do not believe in equality of any kind, being a party of privilege.

So I am not sure the Primaries are the fault, and if Harris did not do well in those elections, so what? She is the candidate now- and when compared to a mostly incoherent, ignorant fool who is obsessed with his own greatness I am amazed this is even a contest.

[filghy2]

Someone remind me how many votes she got in the primaries. This is the US, our parties now pick the candidate through a primary system. I don't care which party you support, but this is just part of the breakdown of the American system. And when America falls, the world will rip apart at the seams.

What an ignorant argument. Selection of candidates has always been a matter for the parties, as in other democracies. The primary system is not in the constitution. It only started in 1972, so for the first 189 years of the USA's history candidates were not selected by primaries. Are you saying that all those Presidents were illegitimate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary

If Biden resigned or died Kamala Harris would become President as she's the VP. That is in the Constitution. People voted for Biden knowing this. There have been several times in US history when the VP has become President in this way. Obviously that didn't lead to the breakdown of the US, let alone the world.

Also, you are missing the obvious point that the only way Kamala Harris can become President for the next 4 years is if she's voted in in the election. How would that be undemocratic?

[filghy2]

Someone remind me how many votes she got in the primaries. This is the US, our parties now pick the candidate through a primary system. I don't care which party you support, but this is just part of the breakdown of the American system. And when America falls, the world will rip apart at the seams.

PS, which one of these do you think might be the greater threat to democracy:

(a) a candidate who was chosen without a primary because the previous candidate dropped out at a late stage; or

(b) a candidate who has refused to accept the outcome of the vote in the last election and tried to overturn it through unconstitutional means?

[MrFanti]

Someone remind me how many votes she got in the primaries. This is the US, our parties now pick the candidate through a primary system. I don't care which party you support, but this is just part of the breakdown of the American system. And when America falls, the world will rip apart at the seams.
It was abysmal - she was one of earliest people to withdraw.
--> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_ primaries

[Stavros]

It was abysmal - she was one of earliest people to withdraw.
--> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_ primaries

Indeed, but now tell me this: how many Vice-Presidents have taken one step further to become the Presidential candidate, and then be elected as President?

FDR-Truman
Eisenhower-Nixon
Kennedy-LBJ
Reagan-Bush (I)
Clinton-Gore -almost
Obama-Biden
Biden-Harris -?

That means the few examples that don't match are Ford, Carter and Bush (II), or 14 years out of the last 80.

[Stavros]

At least this: Comrade Harris is not proposing to use the US Military to round up anyone and everyone who despises Trump and kill them. She hasn't even mentioned 'the Enemy within', even if the irony is that we all know who, in fact, that enemy is.

That Trump seems to know the toxic terms of division and hate that have been fundamental to the rhetoric of Nigel Farage is striking, eg Farage calling the date of Britain's exit from the EU 'Liberation Day', and his numerous odious comments about immigrants.

How many political parties has Farage cobbled together to promote his version of English Nationalism, and how many has he trashed? Following his example, is Trump in the process of trashing the Republican Party? After all, the self-confessed professional liar he has chosen to be his VP, JD Vance has trashed the legacy of Ronald Reagan while Project 2025 seeks to re-construct the USA as a White Christian Nation where most decisions are made by the Government not individuals or markets.

Ergo: with Comrade Harris what you get is the consolidation of Capitalism in America, what you get with Trump or Vance (who, in the event of their success will remove Trump from the White House before you can say Covfefe) is Dictatorship.

My, what a choice that is!

[blackchubby38]

In a couple of weeks, this piece may turn out to be much ado about nothing or a postmortem about a failed presidential campaign.

The 4 reasons Harris is losing.


http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4929051-the-4-reasons-harris-is-losing/

[Stavros]

In a couple of weeks, this piece may turn out to be much ado about nothing or a postmortem about a failed presidential campaign.

The 4 reasons Harris is losing.


http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4929051-the-4-reasons-harris-is-losing/

Interesting, and a rational presentation. What puzzles me is, if Harris has those weaknesses, what about His Imperial Majesty?

How Trump can be a serious candidate when he regularly uses childish abuse to smear people better than himself, when he promises or threatens to deploy the US military with lethal force against US citizens, when he is a convicted criminal, a known con-man and liar, and when he boasts that the Justices he nominated who now sit on the Supreme Court endorsed a policy on Abortion that is not only one of the most unpopular policies across the US but one that helped his party lose the mid-term elections in 2022.

When it comes to self-harm, it seems that America has a problem, and a lack of therapeutic solutions, but it also seems that people who don't like Trump but won't vote Democrat are happy to see their country decline into even more violence and corruption than exists already. It is like Brexit, you won't know what damage has been caused until you can't repair it and have only shit sandwiches for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

As for the border, which I am sure will dominate much of the interview Harris has with Fox News she has agreed to -this evening (14th October) on Channel 4 News, Christopher Steele has argued that there has been a major expansion of the Russian intelligence corps in Mexico, and that the Russians, having identified immigrants, legal and illegal as a toxic problem for Biden-Harris, are manipulating the issue to damage the chances Harris has of becoming President as obviously, they want their boy Trump to win, though one wonders if they have also been cultivating JD Vance given the strong possibility he will be part of the team that removes Trump from office at the earliest opportunity.

Does this mean shocking incidents involving illegals will have been paid for by the Russians? Maybe.

Here is the link but not sure if it is available outside the UK, or on YouTube.

Could Russia intervene in US election? Former British spy explains – Channel 4 News (https://www.channel4.com/news/could-russia-intervene-in-us-election-former-british-spy-explains)

Trump sparks outrage after calling for army to handle enemies on election day | US elections 2024 | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/14/trump-military-enemy-within-armed-forces-election-day)

[sidney111]

In a couple of weeks, this piece may turn out to be much ado about nothing or a postmortem about a failed presidential campaign.

The 4 reasons Harris is losing.


http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4929051-the-4-reasons-harris-is-losing/

i have read about the democrats trying to change the electoral collage, several times over the last couple of years, I have to say I have no idea who will win this election.

[filghy2]

In a couple of weeks, this piece may turn out to be much ado about nothing or a postmortem about a failed presidential campaign.

The 4 reasons Harris is losing.


http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4929051-the-4-reasons-harris-is-losing/

It seems like overextraolation of limited data to say she is definitely losing. Although the recent trend has been slightly against her, the polls in battleground states are still quite close. She's ceratinly doing much better than Biden was.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/elections/president/2024/battleground-states

I don't think she's the ideal candidate, but that really comes down to Biden's disastrous misjudgement in trying to run again. Also, he chose her as his VP.

[filghy2]

Indeed, but now tell me this: how many Vice-Presidents have taken one step further to become the Presidential candidate, and then be elected as President?

FDR-Truman
Eisenhower-Nixon
Kennedy-LBJ
Reagan-Bush (I)
Clinton-Gore -almost
Obama-Biden
Biden-Harris -?

That means the few examples that don't match are Ford, Carter and Bush (II), or 14 years out of the last 80.

Nixon and Biden had to wait 8 years, though, and Nixon lost the first time. LBJ became President because of the assassination (otherwise Kennedy would have been running in 1964). You also forgot Humphrey, Mondale and Pence, who all ran unsuccessfully for President. Some others were so unpopular they never ran (Quayle, Cheney).

Bush Senior is the only VP since 1945 who was elected to directly succeed the President they served under. I think the truth is that the VP's job has been a bit of a poisoned chalice.

[MrFanti]

Obama faces backlash for comments toward Black men
https://thehill.com/homenews/race-politics/4929604-obama-backlash-black-men/

“Why are Black men being lectured to? Why are Black men being belittled in ways that no other voting group?” Turner said Thursday night on CNN.

Exactly!
Please do not lecture us Mr. Obama - we are not your slaves, we are free thinkers.

[Stavros]

Obama faces backlash for comments toward Black men
https://thehill.com/homenews/race-politics/4929604-obama-backlash-black-men/

“Why are Black men being lectured to? Why are Black men being belittled in ways that no other voting group?” Turner said Thursday night on CNN.

Exactly!
Please do not lecture us Mr. Obama - we are not your slaves, we are free thinkers.

How about you, Mr Fanti -are you comfortable with the idea of a woman being your President, regardless of her politics?

[blackchubby38]

How about you, Mr Fanti -are you comfortable with the idea of a woman being your President, regardless of her politics?

Even though you asked Mr. Fanti, I'll answer your question.

I'm comfortable with the idea of a woman being President of the United States. I voted for Hillary in 2016. On a side note, I'm also comfortable with a woman being Mayor of NYC. I voted for Nicole Malliotakis (who is a Republican) in the 2017 mayoral election. Even though I'm comfortable with woman governor, I voted against Kathy Hochul in 2022.

Having said all that, I think the problem this time around is that I'm not really comfortable with Kamala Harris as a candidate and I have a feeling that a lot a people feel that way or this election wouldn't be so close.

[filghy2]

Having said all that, I think the problem this time around is that I'm not really comfortable with Kamala Harris as a candidate and I have a feeling that a lot a people feel that way or this election wouldn't be so close.

Because you don't like what she's been saying, or because you're not sure what she really stands for?

Was there any practical alternative, given Biden dropped out so late?

[Stavros]

Even though you asked Mr. Fanti, I'll answer your question.

I'm comfortable with the idea of a woman being President of the United States. I voted for Hillary in 2016. On a side note, I'm also comfortable with a woman being Mayor of NYC. I voted for Nicole Malliotakis (who is a Republican) in the 2017 mayoral election. Even though I'm comfortable with woman governor, I voted against Kathy Hochul in 2022.

Having said all that, I think the problem this time around is that I'm not really comfortable with Kamala Harris as a candidate and I have a feeling that a lot a people feel that way or this election wouldn't be so close.

I guess Harris will take New York so it makes no difference there who you vote for. But if you lived in a swing State, would you vote tactically?

[blackchubby38]

Because you don't like what she's been saying, or because you're not sure what she really stands for?

Was there any practical alternative, given Biden dropped out so late?

Its more about I don't know what she really stands for or what she actually did to deserve to be the hyphenated part of a presidential administration.

To be fair, I also think she picked a weak individual as her running mate.

Finally and this maybe for superficial reasons, I'm not fan of the campaign slogan, "Another Way Forward". It has "Great Leap Forward" connotations to it.

There were probably better candidates. But I think this opinion piece may explain why none of them step forward.

Did political correctness and backroom dealing doom the Democratic ticket from the start?

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4942011-did-political-correctness-and-backroom-dealing-doom-the-democratic-ticket-from-the-start/

[blackchubby38]

I guess Harris will take New York so it makes no difference there who you vote for. But if you lived in a swing State, would you vote tactically?

I would. But lets be honest about something, I tactically voted in 2020 and I think the same can be said about many other voters. We didn't vote for Biden, we were voting against Trump. There is a difference between the two. A difference that many in the media and Democrats still haven't realized 4 years later.

[Stavros]

I would. But lets be honest about something, I tactically voted in 2020 and I think the same can be said about many other voters. We didn't vote for Biden, we were voting against Trump. There is a difference between the two. A difference that many in the media and Democrats still haven't realized 4 years later.

I understand the first part of your point, but four years later Trump is even more extreme, unhinged and threatening than he was first time round in 2016, isn't that scary enough when you factor in the people he is likely to bring into his administration, with the rider that they might engineer him out of office as soon as they can to impose their diet of Christian Nationalism on the people regardless as to whether or not they or you want it?

Re your link to thehill article-

a) the irony is that Agnew was forced to resign because he was guilty of tax evasion, whereas these days being a convicted criminal is a plus for Republicans, who have no morals, no shame, no guilt. The route used to be local politics-state politics-national politics, whereas now it seems to be the From the Court House to the White House (with apologies to Jesse Jackson).

b) I agree that 'machine politics' was part of what got Harris into the VP position, it has been part of Democrat politics since the days of Mayer Daley maybe even before, but on what grounds would Harris have resigned if there were no health problems, legal issues and so on? It is unrealistic for thehill to put this into the mix.

c) when these decisions were made, Biden and his team may have assumed Trump would not be the candidate in 2024 either because of his legal problems, one or more of which in theory have jail time attached to a guilty verdict (though I doubt he will ever get that kind of sentence); or that he would not get the candidacy.

Perhaps what people have not realized, or accepted, is that a hard core of American voters don't care if their President is liar and a coward, a crook and a con-man and that he and everyone knows it and doesn't care, either about him, or the consequences. Maybe this is not the end of the USA, but as Churchill once put it, it may be 'the beginning of the end'.

Compare this: the difference between Brexit and Trump is that Brexit has had a devastating financial impact
-as part of the 'divorce' settlement with the EU,
"The Treasury’s latest estimate is that the net cost of the settlement to the UK will be £30.2 billion. £23.8 billion of this had been paid as of December 2023."
Brexit: the financial settlement - a summary - House of Commons Library (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8822/)

Another survey argues the London economy has shrunk by more than £30 billion, plus this

"Independent report by Cambridge Econometrics, commissioned by City Hall, shows London has 290,000 fewer jobs than if Brexit had not taken place, with half the total two million job losses nationwide coming in the financial services and construction sectors"
New report reveals UK economy is almost £140billion smaller because of Brexit | London City Hall (https://www.london.gov.uk/new-report-reveals-uk-economy-almost-ps140billion-smaller-because-brexit#:~:text=The%20new%20report%2C%20by%20Cambri dge,of%20Brexit%2C%20the%20report%20reveals.)

The potential divorce of some States from the Union, and I think Trump will promote this, even more so if he loses, will cost the US substantially more than Brexit has cost the UK, while we still struggle with the divisions and bitterness of it all, while the consequences for the US are even more dire, with a knock-on effect in Ukraine and the Middle East.

The worst case scenario may not be another world war as in 1939-45, but multiple civil wars (and millions made homeless) with the US resembling the narco-states of Central and Southern America with the cartels and crooks in charge, ie Musk and the other Oligarchs kneeling at the feet of His Imperial Majesty.

And again, who cares about that?

[filghy2]

Having said all that, I think the problem this time around is that I'm not really comfortable with Kamala Harris as a candidate and I have a feeling that a lot a people feel that way or this election wouldn't be so close.


There were probably better candidates. But I think this opinion piece may explain why none of them step forward.

Did political correctness and backroom dealing doom the Democratic ticket from the start?

Maybe someone else could do a little better, but I find it hard to believe that there's some alternative candidate who could be winning easily. Democrat powerbrokers were ruthless enough to push Biden out when they thought he couldn't win. If there was a clearly better option would they have passed it up just because of political correctness or internal politics?

There seem to be two main things affecting swinging voters in this election, who are generally people who don't pay much attention to politics.

(a) They are unhappy with how things have gone over the past 4 years and, in contrast, have a relatively rosy view of Trump's term (at least until the pandemic came along).

(b) They tend to discount Trump's wild threats as mostly just rhetoric and assume that he won't follow through or that more sensible Republicans will stop him (as occured in the first term).

I think any Democrat candidate would struggle to cut through in these circumstances. If Republicans had nominated someone relatively normal they would probably be coasting to an easy victory.

As I recall, you didn't like any of the candidates in 2020 apart from Biden, and you obviously soured on him. You do seem to prefer theoretical Democrat candidates to actual ones.

[MrFanti]

Even though you asked Mr. Fanti, I'll answer your question.

I didn't see Stavros question, but here's my 2 cents.

I don't give a rats @ss what the gender of POTUS is.
Example, I was for Hillary Clinton OVER Barack Obama.

(Not all of us vote for a certain candidate solely because they are Black....)

[blackchubby38]

Maybe someone else could do a little better, but I find it hard to believe that there's some alternative candidate who could be winning easily. Democrat powerbrokers were ruthless enough to push Biden out when they thought he couldn't win. If there was a clearly better option would they have passed it up just because of political correctness or internal politics?

There seem to be two main things affecting swinging voters in this election, who are generally people who don't pay much attention to politics.

(a) They are unhappy with how things have gone over the past 4 years and, in contrast, have a relatively rosy view of Trump's term (at least until the pandemic came along).

(b) They tend to discount Trump's wild threats as mostly just rhetoric and assume that he won't follow through or that more sensible Republicans will stop him (as occured in the first term).

I think any Democrat candidate would struggle to cut through in these circumstances. If Republicans had nominated someone relatively normal they would probably be coasting to an easy victory.

As I recall, you didn't like any of the candidates in 2020 apart from Biden, and you obviously soured on him. You do seem to prefer theoretical Democrat candidates to actual ones.

I didn't have an issue with Pete Buttigieg. Also, I haven't really soured on Biden, since I wasn't 100% on him in the first place. I did think he should have stayed in the race though.

Here is something else to take into consideration. When I first registered to vote back in 1992, I did so as an Independent. But I have voted Democrat in every Presidential election that I have participated in since then. Although I just recently registered as Democrat so I can start voting in primaries.

So it doesn't really matter if I supposedly prefer theoretical Democratic candidates to actual ones. The important thing is that I actually show up on election day and vote. Even if the candidate is a flawed one.

[filghy2]

Also, I haven't really soured on Biden, since I wasn't 100% on him in the first place. I did think he should have stayed in the race though.

That's hard to reconcile with your previous comments

[filghy2]

Here is something else to take into consideration. When I first registered to vote back in 1992, I did so as an Independent. But I have voted Democrat in every Presidential election that I have participated in since then. Although I just recently registered as Democrat so I can start voting in primaries.

So what does it actually mean in practice that you register as an Independent? Does it matter only for whether you can vote in primaries?

[blackchubby38]

That's hard to reconcile with your previous comments

Here is a post that I made back on 03-13-2024.

"I also don't think its healthy for one's psyche. Whether it be an individual's or the nation's. I mean let's put this in perspective. Now that the primary process is indeed over after two rounds, that means both Biden and Trump will be running a general election campaign for the next 6 months.

So my thinking is going to be this. I'm going to put the 2024 Election out of mind as much as humanly possible, show up on Election day, vote for Biden, and hope he is doesn't expire in office. Or after 90 days, he has a change of heart and resigns from office."

I also never explicitly said he should drop out of the race after the debate performance. Now, should he have decided to be one term President. That's a different story. Here is a post that I made in June.

"Their only best option now is to pray and hope Biden doesn't shit his pan..., I mean the bed come November.

In a perfect scenario, Biden would have pledged to be one term President back in 2020, therefore allowing Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, and anybody else who would have been interested to compete in the primaries.

Instead, the Democrats were so concerned about Trump being reelected, that they convinced themselves that despite Biden's obvious flaws, he was the only one who would beat Trump again. But the one thing that they, the media, and many Democratic voters have not realized (or they have and just don't want to admit it) is that if it wasn't for the pandemic, there is a very good chance Trump would have won back in 2020.

Even when you take that into consideration, there was still time to do something about it by people convincing Biden that he accomplished what he set out to do. He realized his goal of becoming President, he beat Trump, and he got the country back on track post pandemic*. Now it was time for him to hand the reigns over to someone else and let them be the Democratic nominee. It would allow him to concentrate on the running the country during a pivotal election year. But they didn’t do that.

There was still time to do something though. Maybe if more people would have the balls to do what Doug Jones (I made a mistake, it was Dean Phillips) did and challenge Biden during the primaries, it could have made a difference. Instead, the guy was dismissed, ridiculed and called a “Putin Puppet” and the Democrats rallied around Biden and declared, “He is our guy”.

So, here we are now and barring some unforeseen circumstances, the Democrats are stuck with Biden. Because even if many of them wanted to change donkeys in midstream, they couldn’t do so without possibly causing a civil war in the Democratic Party. As evident by this statement:

California delegate says Black women will 'blow the party up' if Dems pick a 'White man over Kamala Harris'


http://www.foxnews.com/media/califor...-kamala-harris

In conclusion, we just to have to hope that Biden’s staff does a better job at prepping him before the next debate and that he doesn’t have jet lag. Oh and that there aren't any October surprises."

*-If you don’t count things like immigration and inflation.

Any other comments that I made, were in response to what other people were saying once it became clear the Democrats wanted to Biden to drop out.

[blackchubby38]

So what does it actually mean in practice that you register as an Independent? Does it matter only for whether you can vote in primaries?

When I first registered as an Independent (once again when I was 18 in 1992), I didn't realized that I wouldn't be able to vote in the primaries. I just never bother to change it as I got older.

It was only when I first went to vote in a NYC mayoral primary and showed them my voter registration card, did I find out that I wasn't going to be able to vote.

[blackchubby38]

When I first registered as an Independent (once again when I was 18 in 1992), I didn't realized that I wouldn't be able to vote in the primaries. I just never bother to change it as I got older.

It was only when I first went to vote in a NYC mayoral primary and showed them my voter registration card, did I find out that I wasn't going to be able to vote.

Although, now that I think about it, I may have had to re-register in for the 2008 general election. So that would have been the second time that I registered as an Independent.

[filghy2]

I also never explicitly said he should drop out of the race after the debate performance. Now, should he have decided to be one term President. That's a different story. Here is a post that I made in June.

Yes, but you wrote that post when it looked like Biden was determined to stay in. Obviously, he was persuaded to change his mind and the change was achieved without a civil war. Are you saying that you wish he was still the candidate now?

[MrFanti]

Instead, the Democrats were so concerned about Trump being reelected, that they convinced themselves that despite Biden's obvious flaws, he was the only one who would beat Trump again. But the one thing that they, the media, and many Democratic voters have not realized (or they have and just don't want to admit it) is that if it wasn't for the pandemic, there is a very good chance Trump would have won back in 2020.

You are SPOT-ON here!
The Democrats had their heads so far buried in the sand that they either were oblivious to Biden's flaws, or thought the American people were too stupid too see the flaws in Biden....

And the Trump debate with Biden was actually a blessing for the Democrats as it gave the Democrats a "Biden Exit Strategy".......

[blackchubby38]

Yes, but you wrote that post when it looked like Biden was determined to stay in. Obviously, he was persuaded to change his mind and the change was achieved without a civil war. Are you saying that you wish he was still the candidate now?

I have thought about it and the best way I can answer this question is to say yes and no.

No.- Given how grueling this campaign has been, I hate to think how Biden would have been doing both physically and mentally at this stage of the game. Not to mention if there had been two more debates as previously planned, how he would have performed in them.

I'm also not sure if he would have been able to galvanize the base like Kamala did at the DNC. I saw an interesting stat the other day about Biden's approval in his third year in office compared to other U.S. presidents. It wasn't good.


Yes.- Yet, there is a small part of me that believes that if the Democrats are going to lose next Tuesday, they should have at least went down with the guy who brought them to victory 4 years ago. Because if Kamala does lose, there are going to be a lot of "what ifs", postmortems on what happened, and even a bit of "I told you so" from certain people. For those who believe that the media played a part in forcing Biden out, there is going to more mistrust from Democrats toward them.

Finally, looking back on 2024, I think people will begin to ask the biggest question of them all. Why exactly was the first Presidential debate held in the middle of June in the first place.

[Paladin]

You are SPOT-ON here!
The Democrats had their heads so far buried in the sand that they either were oblivious to Biden's flaws, or thought the American people were too stupid too see the flaws in Biden....

And the Trump debate with Biden was actually a blessing for the Democrats as it gave the Democrats a "Biden Exit Strategy".......

They lied and tried to hide biden's mental incompetence for more about two years. but the people were not to be fooled...

[filghy2]

They lied and tried to hide biden's mental incompetence for more about two years. but the people were not to be fooled...

It will be interesting to see what you have to say when Trump goes the same way

[Paladin]

It will be interesting to see what you have to say when Trump goes the same way

Hmmmmm, You ADMIT it about the senile, feckless foppish dolt biden?

I'll call Trump out, IF it ever happens to him.

[Paladin]

Here's how state primaries work - sort of.

A state can have either an open or a closed primary. MA, where I first lived is an open primary state, meaning that a registered voter of any party could vote in either party primary (only one!). FL where I am now is a closed party state, meaning you have to be registered to a party to vote in that party's primary. NY, which I lived in for a few years in between WAS open but binding, meaning that if you were independent or no party affiliation, you could vote in Either party primary, but by doing so you at that point joined that party. I remember this because when I voted in a primary in NY, they provided me with a small form, that stated "having joined the xxx party, I hereby elect to leave said party" or something to that effect. NY might have changed that. I left 30 years ago and won't return except to drive through it to get to New England, if I ever do that again.