Kamala vs the Orange Felon - Presidential Race 2024 - Polls, News, Etc...

[SteveGrabowski]

Was talking about big Republicans, as well as Obama/Michelle, they poll extremely well.

You can call campaigning with Cheney to be a fail, but would you willingly eat crow if things had gone different and huge swathes of R's had actually flipped based on that?

Everyone hates Cheney, your political instincts are ridiculously awful if you think she could add anything positive to a campaign.

 

[ondma]

Whether you said it or not doesn’t change the point.

So for instance, Biden stating ahead of making the nomination that he was going to nominate a black woman for the Supreme Court was not identity politics? If he wanted to do that, OK, but why make a big deal about it? I makes the obvious question: Why not nominate the most qualified?

 

[K1052]

So for instance, Biden stating ahead of making the nomination that he was going to nominate a black woman for the Supreme Court was not identity politics? If he wanted to do that, OK, but why make a big deal about it? I makes the obvious question: Why not nominate the most qualified?

Trump promised that he would nominate a woman to SCOTUS. Why is it only identity politics when Democrats do it?

 

[ondma]

Harris was clearly the better candidate and extremely qualified to lead our nation. Nobody is perfect, and yet I haven’t seen a single reason provided not to vote for her that didn’t include ignorance or misogyny.

As things unwound, the Dems actually had no other choice. I agree she was qualified, but so were a horde of other democrats who might have been chosen had there been a real open primary. Probably Kamala would still have been the nominee, but someone not so intimately connected to the Biden policies and execution might have had a better chance. Dont forget Kamala polled like, I think, 1% in the 2020 primary and dropped out extremely early. She also ran as a very "progressive" candidate in that primary, and as the Presidential nominee had to try to reorient herself toward the center.

At least if the Dems had selected say, a governor or member of the house or senate, the Reps could not have used the argument, "You have been VP 4 years, why haven't you solved inflation, immigration, international hot spots, or whatever, already?" And Kamala didn't herself any good in this regard with her answer on the view about how she wouldn't change anything from what Biden did. That was a critical question regarding her campaign from the beginning, and she should have had a better answer prepared.

 

[ondma]

Trump promised that he would nominate a woman to SCOTUS. Why is it only identity politics when Democrats do it?

Point taken. The reps do it too.

However, the poster that I was referring to claimed that it was a "myth" that the Dems engage in "identity politics" or "woke" policies. This is just the example that I used to disprove that.

 

[gothuevos]

Everyone hates Cheney, your political instincts are ridiculously awful if you think she could add anything positive to a campaign.

People wanted change, so parading around a hated neocon warmonger wasn't a great look.

I'm not sure who exactly she was appealing to? The last few neocon never Trumpers? Man, even they probably don't like Cheney at this point.

 

[JD50]

So for instance, Biden stating ahead of making the nomination that he was going to nominate a black woman for the Supreme Court was not identity politics? If he wanted to do that, OK, but why make a big deal about it? I makes the obvious question: Why not nominate the most qualified?

What does "most qualified" even mean? There isn't some Supreme Court test where the person with the highest score wins. Black women were underrepresented on the SC, so he wanted to choose a black woman from the pool of qualified candidates. Diversity is important.

Now, I agree he shouldn't have said that, but only because people don't understand the above.

 

[gothuevos]

As things unwound, the Dems actually had no other choice. I agree she was qualified, but so were a horde of other democrats who might have been chosen had there been a real open primary. Probably Kamala would still have been the nominee, but someone not so intimately connected to the Biden policies and execution might have had a better chance. Dont forget Kamala polled like, I think, 1% in the 2020 primary and dropped out extremely early. She also ran as a very "progressive" candidate in that primary, and as the Presidential nominee had to try to reorient herself toward the center.

At least if the Dems had selected say, a governor or member of the house or senate, the Reps could not have used the argument, "You have been VP 4 years, why haven't you done this already?" And Kamala didn't herself any good in this regard with her answer on the view about how she wouldn't change anything from what Biden did.

Again, which is it?

Was Kamala too progressive or did not progressive enough for some of the Dem base?

@MrSquished doesn't believe this is a legit take, but it's an argument that keeps getting brought up here as well as with all the talking heads on all forms of media.

 

[ondma]

Again, which is it?

Was Kamala too progressive or did not progressive enough for some of the Dem base?

@MrSquished doesn't believe this is a legit take, but it's an argument that keeps getting brought up here as well as with all the talking heads on all forms of media.

Well, that is part of the Dem problem. They have a very diverse base, from extremely left to middle of the road. It is hard to appease them all, especially in a general election where you need to win independents and hopefully some from the opposition party. Personally, for me Kamala of 2020 was to far to the left to win a general election. She tried to move toward the center in her current campaign, but I dont think she effectively convinced people that she was sincere. And in the end, her campaign devolved into reproductive rights and "Trump is bad". TBH though, Kamala ran a better campaign than I expected.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Everyone hates Cheney, your political instincts are ridiculously awful if you think she could add anything positive to a campaign.

Then Kamala should have ignored her and we'd be back at 'Democrats alienate voters and hate all Republicans'.

 

[Brainonska511]

Then Kamala should have ignored her and we'd be back at 'Democrats alienate voters and hate all Republicans'.

Also, idiot undecided and "independent" voters are generally suckers for that bipartisan bs.

 

[manly]

The Democratic opinion of the situation wasn't uninformed. It's universally known that Trump has a core base that's incapable of being eroded, but that base has objectively shrunk from 2016 due to time passing and COVID. It was universally understood that he polled poorly with younger audiences, and his base did indeed shrink by 2020. It was understood that it would continue to do so for 2024.

Polling as well has become very fuzzy since the rather catastrophic misses in 2018-2022 so they were watched but not taken as gospel. Given that, it wasn't unreasonable to assuming that they had a very high probability of winning as of a couple weeks ago.

Regardless of that, Democrats did not slack. They didn't hold course with what was subjectively a poor candidate, they pivoted when they needed to. They took the run seriously, pulled out the big names, including a bunch of former republicans.

Sometimes you can do everything right and still lose, that's really okay. I do think effort should be put into the various reasons why exactly non-core voters went for Trump. Like, you're not going to win the incels who think Trump is going to make women ownership legal, but find those weirdos who got confused because Biden wasn't on the ticket and talk to them. Find the ones that voted on inflation despite having no idea what it was and talk to them, figure out what they actually want. Hit the streets, get some data points, spend 2 years crafting a message, test it on midterms, and refine it for another 2.

... Assuming we get another chance in 2/4 of course.

This is some bullshit ass revisionism.

"We did everything perfectly and still lost the national PV to a scumbag demagogue." 🤣

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

This is some bullshit ass revisionism.

"We did everything perfectly and still lost the national PV to a scumbag demagogue." 🤣

It's not revisionism, that's literally what happened. Which parts are incorrect?

Also, I never said everything was done perfectly. The 'everything right' is a quote and relevant here.

 

[brycejones]

She's a dipshit for campaigning with Cheney.

You’re projecting again

 

[manly]

It's not revisionism, that's literally what happened. Which parts are incorrect?

Also, I never said everything was done perfectly. The 'everything right' is a quote and relevant here.

You made all these bold assertions that are your opinions and I think many are just wrong. If you really want a list, I'll do it but the general assertion is just laughable.

Perfect is kind of a synonym for "everything right." Don't act like they don't essentially mean the same thing.

 

[ivwshane]

So for instance, Biden stating ahead of making the nomination that he was going to nominate a black woman for the Supreme Court was not identity politics? If he wanted to do that, OK, but why make a big deal about it? I makes the obvious question: Why not nominate the most qualified?

Black women can’t be the most qualified? You don’t say…

 

[ondma]

People wanted change, so parading around a hated neocon warmonger wasn't a great look.

I'm not sure who exactly she was appealing to? The last few neocon never Trumpers? Man, even they probably don't like Cheney at this point.

Well, her Dad would probably qualify as a "hated neocon warmonger" but I am not sure Liz would. In any case, I don't think campaigning with her had much effect one way or the other. The electorate was much more concerned with other issues.

 

[ondma]

Black women can’t be the most qualified? You don’t say…

Quit twisting my words. I never said a black woman could not be the most qualified. I simply said that it is a bad look to narrow the choice to a certain racial/gender group ahead of time and announce it publicly.

 

[dlerious]

Again, which is it?

Was Kamala too progressive or did not progressive enough for some of the Dem base?

@MrSquished doesn't believe this is a legit take, but it's an argument that keeps getting brought up here as well as with all the talking heads on all forms of media.

Didn't that depend on when you asked her. She flip flopped on Medicare 4 all. She was for it, then against it, then some alternative.It seemed like she'd change her positions according to polling.

 

[MrSquished]

Right now with all the misinformation going on, I have no idea if Kamala should have have tacked to the left versus attacking to the center. I'm not even sure it matters at this point, but, I don't think there is enough data yet to see if there was.

The Democrats have such a big tent and the issues they support often can't be simplified for the stupid masses, let alone the absolutely massive right-wing media sphere that dominates. They are in a tough spot even with a respectable media.

Hopefully we get more data that can give us guidance as in very sooner rather than later

 

[ivwshane]

Quit twisting my words. I never said a black woman could not be the most qualified. I simply said that it is a bad look to narrow the choice to a certain racial/gender group ahead of time and announce it publicly.

It’s done all the time by all parties and it was done because Biden understood that representation comes from shared perspectives. You didn’t understand this because you’ve fallen for right wing propaganda where every issue is turned into something it’s not.

 

[dlerious]

Then Kamala should have ignored her and we'd be back at 'Democrats alienate voters and hate all Republicans'.

Bidens "garbage" comment didn't help with that perception.

 

[JD50]

Right now with all the misinformation going on, I have no idea if Kamala should have have tacked to the left versus attacking to the center. I'm not even sure it matters at this point, but, I don't think there is enough data yet to see if there was.

The Democrats have such a big tent and the issues they support often can't be simplified for the stupid masses, let alone the absolutely massive right-wing media sphere that dominates. They are in a tough spot even with a respectable media.

Hopefully we get more data that can give us guidance as in very sooner rather than later

IMO it doesn't matter and there's nothing Kamala could have done to win. People were convinced that the economy is terrible and they voted on that. Never mind that inflation is back down to normal, gas prices are back to normal, the stock market is at all time highs, wages are up, and unemployment is down.

 

[MrSquished]

IMO it doesn't matter and there's nothing Kamala could have done to win. People were convinced that the economy is terrible and they voted on that. Never mind that inflation is back down to normal, gas prices are back to normal, the stock market is at all time highs, wages are up, and unemployment is down.

That and also we need to factor the combined misogyny and racism. Without a doubt that was likely a significant factor.

 

[Brovane]

So Trump isn't a threat to democracy you're saying? It was just some BS to scare people out of voting for him you're saying?

It remains to be seen if Trump what Trump does in the next 4-years. I like to plan for the worse and hope for the best. If the Democrats plan on no elections in 2026 and 2028 and there is elections, Democrats will be un-prepared for the election when it does happen which seems kind of stupid. The alternative is insurrection against the government in power.