What was that reason for voting for Trump, again?

Post Reply New Topic

But Harris and HC were opposed by the right in part simply because they were women (woman of color in Harris' case).

She's not though, her first Presidential campaign imploded early on because she was a terrible leader. She wasn't doing her homework in order to prepare for the debates and got blown out of the water by Tulsi Gabbard going after her for one of the most predictable things imaginable.

She's from CA a state that hasn't voted red since Reagan, does not bring any sort of constituency that Biden didn't already have locked down and lacked any of the competence required for Biden to let her do much of anything. The VP position does not qualify people to do anything, and in her case it's abundantly clear that she wasn't even prepared to step in if Biden had died in office, which is literally one of her 3 jobs.

As far as who is better, clearly she would have been better in that totalitarianism later is generally better than sooner, but if she failed so badly to put together a competent campaign the two times she ran for POTUS, what makes you think her cabinet picks would be any less incompetent?

Harris persecuted the black community and had hundreds of cases overturned due to her lack of competence. IIRC, it was procedural stuff related to handling of evidence.

But, anybody that calls her first rate as a prosecutor either doesn't know her record or has a very strange definition of first rate.

No, they were opposed because they were terrible candidates. I do realize that people like to say that it's because they're women, but HRC was absolutely despised by both parties and continually gave plenty of reasons for hating her. Her entire campaign was a cult of personality around somebody that doesn't have a personality. And as for Harris, I don't know how you run a person of color with that kind of a terrible record for persecuting the people that being a person of color is supposed to help you get on board.

People say that, but neither one of them were strong enough candidates to win an election fairly, and they both went down. I'm still not clear on what basis Harris being elected would have improved my life other than not being Trump, and there's a ton of other not Trump politicians they could have run.

People say the GOP needs better candidates than Trump.

They *did* have better candidates in '16, '20, *and* '24.

2016: Pataki, Jeb Bush, Kasich
2020: Bill Weld
2024: Will Hurd, Asa Hutchinson

Being a better President than Trump is setting a very low bar. She very well might have been both a better President than Trump and a disaster.

I saw very little in the campaign that suggested she would have been a good President. In fairness the skills involved in being a good candidate for President and being good President are not the same but often they do overlap. As a prosecutor the Public Relations involved is every once in a while holding a press conference discussing indictments. Being a candidate for President and being President involves a lot more.

The central message of her campaign seemed to change every other day. Joy, Brat summer, Republicans are weird, the economy is great, look at all of the celebrities endorsing me. That is not all her fault due to circumstances the campaign had little time to organize. But she should be faulted for not invoking the 25th amendment. But that is also the party’s fault for not pressing her to do that. Why did they not do that? Despite poll after poll showing “age” was a big problem for Biden they thought Harris would be less electable and they thought they could cover up Biden’s cognitive decline enough to beat the unpopular Trump.

When they had to dump Biden they decided against holding a quickie primary to choose a nominee. I imagine they thought that a divisive primary with less time to organize a campaign would have been the worse of two evils. I don’t know if that was true. I think no matter what they did it was probably too late. I do know in every conversation I had people were pissed off about her being “anointed”. The word coup kept on coming up. It was not a coup, it was perfectly
legal, but the perception was the perception.


Speaking of perception “DEI hire” was not completely BS. In 2020 Biden at first said he was going to hire a woman running mate. After the massive protests following the murder of George Floyd that became a black woman. In 2024 that became a gift for Trump.

While the MAGA’s understandably grab most of the attention, they are running the country after all, the upcoming elections as with 2024 the people who perceive the MAGA’s as the lesser of two evils will decide. Whatever the Democrats are doing or not doing is not working as Trump’s popularity is the highest it has ever been.

My guess is that the Democrats need to be socialist economically(don’t use that term) and culturally conservative.

I didn't say she was the best pick. But as AS alluded, comparing Kamala to trump, she didn't have a really high bar to clear. Honestly how much more incompetent can you be? trump has set a really low standard on a number of fronts. She isn't Dan Qaiyle, while she has a few quirks, but she is razor sharp and watching her take down a real corrupt pick in supreme court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh she is capable in debates.

Another big factor was that many potential Harris voters, especially in Michigan (home to a large Arab-American population), stayed home or voted for Jill Stein because of Gaza.

Matchboxvagabond:

In all honesty, prosecutors everywhere lose cases or found them overturned later, not just Harris.
And persecuted the black community? She prosecuted charges filed in her office, she hardly chose them.

They do, they just don't generally have hundreds of cases overturned because the evidence was improperly handled all at once. And yes, she persecuted the black community, you don't remember the truancy and marijuana charges that she was pushing in her tough on crime approach that magically hit the black community harder than others.

And no, she didn't have to prosecute any of those, prosecutors, especially when the attorney general, do have some degree of discretion. Around here our city attorney refused to prosecute pot possession and a lot of the retail theft. Just because something is on the books as illegal doesn't mean that the prosecutors are going to actually prosecute it. There's only so many prosecutors, judges and potential jurors to handle things. As a result, they can and do prioritize based on what their priorities are. She didn't have to prosecute the parents of children that were truant, she didn't have to go so hard on prosecuting people for possessing amounts of marijuana that are for personal use. She chose to for political reasons. And people shouldn't be making excuses for her.

I do get that people wanted to make the best of a bad situation with her, but she was a Senator for less than a term. And as VP she had relatively little to do. I think she was nominally assigned to work on border issues, but the VP has no real power there.

I'm not really sure how you get from her horrible record as AG, her nearly non-existent record as Senator and her record as VP where she didn't seem to really do anything, to her losing the Presidential race for reasons other than there being serious issues with her candidacy and the amount of time she had.

I dare so though, every thing about her is better than Mr. Eyeliner, JD Vance.