Kamala Harris Election Campaign

[kookbreaker]

Hopefully there won’t be an FBi chief mouthing off about an email investigation in October this time.

Also, while Trump stumbled, Clinton didn’t exactly take advantage or inspire people. Right now I am seeing wonderous memes about Ganz that show enthusiasm I never saw in 2016 or 2020. People are actually voting for the Democrats as opposed to just voting against the Republicans.


Still, yeah, just because Trump is having trouble locating his own ass and Vance manages to shove his foot down his throat every second he speaks doesn’t mean overconfidence should rule.

 

[varwoche]

Samson, if she's "completely inarticulate" there must be numerous specific examples you can cite. Please provide three or more precise quotes, and/or links to youtube along with timestamps that indicate where the inarticulation is.

OK Samson how about supporting your claim with one example?

I already know you can't and won't. You have utterly no clue about Harris. You're mindlessly parroting racist filth, unburdened by reality.

 

[Donal]

Harris also hasn't been the target of a 30-year smear campaign. She also hasn't made the unforced errors Clinton did, although there is still time.

Its was also a different mindset then.While a lot of the opposition to Clinton in 2016 was rooted in mysogony and conspiracy theories, there also a lot of anger at "the establishment". And whether right or wrong, Clinton was the face of said establishment. And somehow, the Orange Weakling was presented as an outsider.

I think a lot of the chaos and ineptitude that followed has made people realize that experince in governing is a good thing for the chief executive of the country. The mask off hoods up lunacy coming fro mthe right is also driving more people to the polls.

And the Democrats also seemed to have learned that can't just run on "orange man bad". They have actually been doing good for the people. Harris and Walz so far seem to be running on good vibes and actual policies. The time may just be right for that.

 

[azazal]

Harris also hasn't been the target of a 30-year smear campaign. She also hasn't made the unforced errors Clinton did, although there is still time.

Its was also a different mindset then.While a lot of the opposition to Clinton in 2016 was rooted in mysogony and conspiracy theories, there also a lot of anger at "the establishment". And whether right or wrong, Clinton was the face of said establishment. And somehow, the Orange Weakling was presented as an outsider.

I think a lot of the chaos and ineptitude that followed has made people realize that experince in governing is a good thing for the chief executive of the country. The mask off hoods up lunacy coming fro mthe right is also driving more people to the polls.

And the Democrats also seemed to have learned that can't just run on "orange man bad". They have actually been doing good for the people. Harris and Walz so far seem to be running on good vibes and actual policies. The time may just be right for that.

The Clinton campaign and well a lot of people thought Trump's 2016 run was a joke and wasn't going anywhere. He wasn't taken seriously until too late. By that time the lack of campaigning in "safe" blue wall states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc.. cost Clinton the election. Harris does not appear to be taking anything lightly and is running to win, not coast into a perceived easy victory.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I do remember how it seemed that Trump's campaign was a disaster in 2016 though.

Admittedly Clinton did make some mistakes. Telling the truth about the basket of deplorables, for example.

Telling the truth wasn't the mistake. The mistake was publicly backpedalling on it and not just owning it when we could all see how true it was. The Trump campaign was a disaster, but the Clinton campaign response to it was nonexistent because they considered themselves above it all. Obviously the voting public was going to recognize this clown for what he is, so it would demean her to have to point it out. They took the high road with all the enthusiasm of a wet kleenex and got stomped.

Thankfully Harris/Walz is shaping up to be the exact opposite. And oh look, just two weeks in and she's gone from -3 to +8 nationally. Sure, the only poll that matters is the one on Nov 5, etc, but look at what a little engagement and actual damn charisma can get you instead of treating politics like a zero-sum demographic numbers game.

 

[acbytesla]

Harris also hasn't been the target of a 30-year smear campaign. She also hasn't made the unforced errors Clinton did, although there is still time.

Its was also a different mindset then.While a lot of the opposition to Clinton in 2016 was rooted in mysogony and conspiracy theories, there also a lot of anger at "the establishment". And whether right or wrong, Clinton was the face of said establishment. And somehow, the Orange Weakling was presented as an outsider.

I think a lot of the chaos and ineptitude that followed has made people realize that experince in governing is a good thing for the chief executive of the country. The mask off hoods up lunacy coming fro mthe right is also driving more people to the polls.

And the Democrats also seemed to have learned that can't just run on "orange man bad". They have actually been doing good for the people. Harris and Walz so far seem to be running on good vibes and actual policies. The time may just be right for that.

Believe it or not. I've already heard that this was planned. Sort of a Democratic October surprise in July. That Biden never intended to run. The Democrats wanted to catch the GOP flat footed.

Get them totally prepared to run against Biden.and pull a switch-a-roo. Republicans attacked Hillary for years. It took them time to run a campaign that eroded her favorability rating. This was something they wouldn't be able to do in months.

 

[Donal]

The Clinton campaign and well a lot of people thought Trump's 2016 run was a joke and wasn't going anywhere. He wasn't taken seriously until too late. By that time the lack of campaigning in "safe" blue wall states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc.. cost Clinton the election. Harris does not appear to be taking anything lightly and is running to win, not coast into a perceived easy victory.

The press is also doing a better job, although they still have a ways to go.

 

[Ziggurat]

Believe it or not. I've already heard that this was planned. Sort of a Democratic October surprise in July. That Biden never intended to run. The Democrats wanted to catch the GOP flat footed.

I believe that you heard that, I just don't believe it's true. If that was the plan (and I see no evidence that it was), it was a really stupid plan. Letting Biden debate in the condition he's in rather than drop out before the debate just exposed what a sham the administration is.

Although given those involved, I suppose the fact that it would be a stupid plan isn't really evidence against it.

 

[Segnosaur]

Harris also hasn't been the target of a 30-year smear campaign. She also hasn't made the unforced errors Clinton did, although there is still time.

Every candidate will probably make mistakes. I think people make far too much of Clinton's errors. (I suspect if you go back to Obama or Bill clinton, you can probably find campaign blunders there. They just didn't have to contend as much with Fox News and Russian disinformation amplifying those mistakes.)

Its was also a different mindset then.While a lot of the opposition to Clinton in 2016 was rooted in mysogony and conspiracy theories, there also a lot of anger at "the establishment". And whether right or wrong, Clinton was the face of said establishment. And somehow, the Orange Weakling was presented as an outsider.

Another issue to keep in mind:

In general, the more moderate candidate tends to have a slight advantage in elections. (Which makes sense... being moderate means you have a better shot at picking up independent voters, and you are less likely to "inspire" people to vote against you.)

Believe it or not, in the 2016 election, Trump was actually seen as the more "moderate" candidate. It seems strange in hindsight, but remember, at the time Trump was largely a political unknown, and he made a lot of vague (and often contradictory) promises that people were able to read in what they wanted. He also did things like held up a rainbow flag at one of his rallies (making it seem like he might be pro-LGBTQ), talked about "fixing the tax system" and closing loopholes (sounding suspiciously like "make the wealthy pay more"), and claimed he was against the Iraq war all along (a lie but people didn't properly challenge him on it.)

Seeing all that might have made some voters more complacent than they should have been.

Now, fast forward to the 2020 and 2024 elections, Trump is no longer the new guy on the scene. He has a 4 year track record to go on, featuring tax cuts for millionaires, a repeal of abortion rights and attacks on the LGBTQ community. Add to that his association with Project 2025, and he can no longer be seen as the "moderate" in the race.

 

[Ziggurat]

The press is also doing a better job, although they still have a ways to go.

A better job at what? Covering for Democrats?

 

[Donal]

Believe it or not. I've already heard that this was planned. Sort of a Democratic October surprise in July. That Biden never intended to run. The Democrats wanted to catch the GOP flat footed.

Get them totally prepared to run against Biden.and pull a switch-a-roo. Republicans attacked Hillary for years. It took them time to run a campaign that eroded her favorability rating. This was something they wouldn't be able to do in months.

That would require a level of savviness, agility, and operational security that no major political party on Earth is capable of.

Although, I will say, I have been shocked at the Dem's organization, unity, and agression these last few weeks. I am actually a little scared for the other shoe to drop.

 

[Donal]

A better job at what? Covering for Democrats?

No, at simply covering the facts and reality. Part of that is pointing out how weird it is to want to do things like inspect genitals at a high school basketball game. Or to require teenage girls register when they have their periods.

things like that are weird and gross.

 

[Segnosaur]

The press is also doing a better job, although they still have a ways to go.

A better job at what? Covering for Democrats?

The press in general wants to be seen as unbiased.

Now, Trump was clearly the worse candidate, but they didn't want it to be in a 24/7 "attack Trump all the time" situation, so they dutifully reported on various anti-Clinton stories, even when it was likely those stories didn't actually mean anything.

Take for example the Uranium One "scandal". It was a non-story, but it appeared on major news networks just like Trump's "Grab em by the pussy" statement.

The media does need to learn that being unbiased does not mean "both sides get equal amounts of bad press". If Trump does 100 wrong things, the media does not need to report on meaningless bad stories about the democrats just to appear even.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Believe it or not. I've already heard that this was planned. Sort of a Democratic October surprise in July. That Biden never intended to run. The Democrats wanted to catch the GOP flat footed.

Get them totally prepared to run against Biden.and pull a switch-a-roo. Republicans attacked Hillary for years. It took them time to run a campaign that eroded her favorability rating. This was something they wouldn't be able to do in months.

I don't buy it either, Democrats just aren't that sneaky. Biden made the right call at a good time to do it, but he was definitely railroaded into it. If they had known there would be this level of enthusiasm for Harris he would have bowed out much earlier. Personally I was expecting a circular firing squad of tired candidates limping into the convention with "oh well i guess they're the best we've got" vibes. Happy to have been wrong about that.

A better job at what? Covering for Democrats?

Sure, Jan.

 

[acbytesla]

I believe that you heard that, I just don't believe it's true. If that was the plan (and I see no evidence that it was), it was a really stupid plan. Letting Biden debate in the condition he's in rather than drop out before the debate just exposed what a sham the administration is.

Although given those involved, I suppose the fact that it would be a stupid plan isn't really evidence against it.

I don't either. I think some people turn everything into a conspiracy.

But that doesn't mean his administration is a sham anymore than FDR's. It is amazing just how much his administration accomplished. I definitely think they limited his appearances because of ageism in the same way that the Roosevelt administration hid the effects that Polio had on him. Or how JFK's hid his Addison"s.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't either. I think some people turn everything into a conspiracy.

But that doesn't mean his administration is a sham anymore than FDR's. It is amazing just how much his administration accomplished. I definitely think they limited his appearances because of ageism in the same way that the Roosevelt administration hid the effects that Polio had on him. Or how JFK's hid his Addison"s.

You're comparing Biden to the wrong democrat. You should be comparing him to Wilson.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, at simply covering the facts and reality.

Oh dear. You actually think they're doing a good job at covering facts and reality?

They are not. That's why they were surprised at Biden's debate performance.

 

[kookbreaker]

I do not buy it, but I suspect Biden did drag out his candidacy for a bit after the debate fiasco so that it would be very difficult to put up a challenge to Harris.

Another thing to remember is that Trump had minimal traction until his campaign came up with the whole “drain the swamp” bit which made him look more like an outsider coming into clean up than the grifter he actually is. Clinton did nothing to really counter this and Trump had narrowed the gap too much.

 

[Donal]

Oh dear. You actually think they're doing a good job at covering facts and reality?

They are not. That's why they were surprised at Biden's debate performance.

I said a better job. As in realtive to 2016 when they treated the child rapist your are simping for as a talk show guest.

Why exactly are you simping for a child rapist?

 

[acbytesla]

You're comparing Biden to the wrong democrat. You should be comparing him to Wilson.

No, he's not Wilson. Wilson had a stroke and was incapacitated. Edith Gault, his wife is often referred to as the first woman President. But that really isn't true.

I think Biden is fully capable right now. But age is taking it's toll on him and admittedly the public doesn't know how much. But unlike Trump, his administration is not chaotically ran. Go ahead compare the turnover. No administration has ever seen the level of turnover seen in the Trump administration.

Maybe a better comparison would be Ronald Reagan at the end of his first administration. I don't know just when his mental capacity started to decline. But it was definitely evident very early in Reagan's second term. And as much as I didn't care for Reagan's policies, I have to concede his White House was run efficiently.