Who should run for the Dems?

Random said:
This is the key part right here. The right wing spent a fortune trying to make Harris seem to be a leftist wacko, and the Harris campaign responded by running away from the left. It didn't help because the right wing would have painted her as a leftist wacko regardless of what she did. The people who vote based on "vibes" rather than hard facts do not change their minds when a candidate changes their policies for the simple reason that they are not basing their votes on policy in the first place.
Click to expand...
Harris was the one who decided to come out in favor of taxpayer-funded gender reassignment surgery for prisoners and illegal aliens. That falls pretty squarely in leftist wacko territory. I voted for her, but I pretty much knew the race was over when Trump started airing those "Kamala is for they/them," ads.
 
arthwollipot said:
See this is what I mean about spin. The numbers are the numbers. But you didn't say it was why people chose to vote for Trump, you said it was why people chose not to vote for Kamala. Spin.
Click to expand...
Spin? *LOL* The heading on the table, as published by Harris's own polling firm was, "Reasons To Not Choose Kamila Harris," and the table itself was in a section of the report titled, "Reasons Voters Did Not Choose Harris."
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Harris was the one who decided to come out in favor of taxpayer-funded gender reassignment surgery for prisoners and illegal aliens. That falls pretty squarely in leftist wacko territory. I voted for her, but I pretty much knew the race was over when Trump started airing those "Kamala is for they/them," ads.
Click to expand...
She made rhose statements during the 2020 cyle, which Dems won. She avoided the topic in 2024, where Dems lost. Running away from left-wing positions is not the winner people think it is.
 
jt512 said:
Spin? *LOL* The heading on the table, as published by Harris's own polling firm was, "Reasons To Not Choose Kamila Harris," and the table itself was in a section of the report titled, "Reasons Voters Did Not Choose Harris."
Click to expand...
Of course they did. But what they were actually reporting was "Reasons people chose Trump instead of Harris".

Like I said, it'd be interesting to canvass the opinions of those who chose neither Harris nor Trump. But they didn't do that, because as @ahhell said, nobody cares what the people who don't care think.
 
Last edited:
Noted that, unable to defend your spin argument (the motte), you have silently abandoned it, and pivoted to the non-voter issue (the bailey).
arthwollipot said:
Of course they did. But what they were actually reporting was "Reasons people chose Trump instead of Harris".#
Click to expand...
Harris lost to Trump, Trump voters, especially the late-deciders for hin, are the most import group to understand: they are the ones that Harris had the most potential to win over, but failed to.
arthwollipot said:
Like I said, it'd be interesting to canvass the opinions of those who chose neither Harris nor Trump. But they didn't do that, because as @ahhell said, nobody cares what the people who don't care think.
Click to expand...
I don't really understand what you are getting at. The poll was designed to determine why voters, especially swing voters—late deciders, who were the most persuadable candidates—voted why they did.
 
Brainster said:
Harris was the one who decided to come out in favor of taxpayer-funded gender reassignment surgery for prisoners and illegal aliens. That falls pretty squarely in leftist wacko territory. I voted for her, but I pretty much knew the race was over when Trump started airing those "Kamala is for they/them," ads.
Click to expand...
Are you sure that was what she said? Or was that her discussing what is required under a law signed by Donald Trump?
 
jt512 said:
I don't really understand what you are getting at. The poll was designed to determine why voters, especially swing voters—late deciders, who were the most persuadable candidates—voted why they did.
Click to expand...
No it wasn't. It was designed to determine why those people voted for Trump.
 
arthwollipot said:
No it wasn't. It was designed to determine why those people voted for Trump.
Click to expand...
Largely a distinction without a difference, but, technically, you are wrong, as the poll includes third-party voters as well.
 
Last edited:
Random said:
She made rhose statements during the 2020 cyle, which Dems won. She avoided the topic in 2024, where Dems lost. Running away from left-wing positions is not the winner people think it is.
Click to expand...
So you think if she had just embraced left-wing positions like taxpayer-funded dickectomies, she would have won?
 
Donal said:
Are you sure that was what she said? Or was that her discussing what is required under a law signed by Donald Trump?
Click to expand...
Yes. No.

She gave an interview to the National Center for Transgender Equality Action Fund’s founding director, Mara Keisling, on Oct. 4, 2019 — a clip of which Trump’s campaign used in its ad.

“I made sure that they changed the policy in the state of California so that every transgender inmate in the prison system would have access to the medical care that they desired and need,” Harris said.

Harris said something similar in response to a 2019 American Civil Liberties Union candidate questionnaire.

“As President,” the questionnaire asked, “will you use your executive authority to ensure that transgender and nonbinary people who rely on the state for medical care — including those in prison and immigration detention — will have access to comprehensive treatment associated with gender transition, including all necessary surgical care? If yes, how will you do so?”

Harris checked “yes” and wrote, “I support policies ensuring that federal prisoners and detainees are able to obtain medically necessary care for gender transition, including surgical care, while incarcerated or detained.”
Click to expand...
Note that although that site is sympathetic to taxpayer-funded gender reassignment surgery, they grudgingly rate Trump's statement about Harris supporting it, as "mostly true."
 
So, she's too far left for proposing an executive action to support legislation Trump signed?
 
Tim Walz. Not Harris. Maybe Pete as his VP. Two middle America, military veterans. Both smart and charismatic.
 
acbytesla said:
Tim Walz. Not Harris. Maybe Pete as his VP. Two middle America, military veterans. Both smart and charismatic.
Click to expand...
Yeah, not sure about that. At most maybe a surge early going but not that much more. I mean Trump's VP couldn't even get a starting chance after he stole the election by not certifying the 2020 election results.

Of course not serious about that, but Waltz might be too old news and I would almost suspect Harris to run again before him.

He has been outspoken about Trump recently however. But I could see him being trounced worse in the general than another Minnesota politician who ran for president in the general election back in the day if it's even possible. Looking at you, Mondale.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps if the Dems weren't fully into their rightward shift and actually supported their candidate, '84 wouldn't have been such a bloodbath. Granted, any candidate they put up would have probably been beaten.
 
PitPat said:
Yeah, not sure about that. At most maybe a surge early going but not that much more. I mean Trump's VP couldn't even get a starting chance after he stole the election by not certifying the 2020 election results.

Of course not serious about that, but Waltz might be too old news and I would almost suspect Harris to run again before him.

He has been outspoken about Trump recently however. But I could see him being trounced worse in the general than another Minnesota politician who ran for president in the general election back in the day if it's even possible. Looking at you, Mondale.
Click to expand...
I think it is obvious that Walz is running. And he is a far better candidate than Mondale ever was. Mondale was boring as hell. So I don't buy the comparison.
 
Also, people aren't head over heels for Trump economics. We can see the damage in real time instead of dealing with it over decades.
 
I'm unsold on Walz's charisma but Pete for VP is a great choice. He has the charisma and is probably the best at being a politician* as the dems have right now. The reasons I'd say VP and P is that Mayor and Transportation secretary aren't exactly traditionally direct steppingstones to the oval office and being gay won't help, probably hasten minority men's move away from the dems.

I'm still on either Shapiro or Whitmer. I've haven't seen a lot of them but they both seem to decent records as governor, not nearly as polarizing as Newsom or Cuomo.

*The selling yourself and your party part, charming and glib.
 
ahhell said:
I'm unsold on Walz's charisma but Pete for VP is a great choice. He has the charisma and is probably the best at being a politician* as the dems have right now. The reasons I'd say VP and P is that Mayor and Transportation secretary aren't exactly traditionally direct steppingstones to the oval office and being gay won't help, probably hasten minority men's move away from the dems.

I'm still on either Shapiro or Whitmer. I've haven't seen a lot of them but they both seem to decent records as governor, not nearly as polarizing as Newsom or Cuomo.

*The selling yourself and your party part, charming and glib.
Click to expand...
I think Walz is very charismatic and appeals to middle America in a way that Shapiro never could.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom