- Reaction score
- 16,794
- Points
- 1,280
Because he’s on “their team”.
Thankfully, I have never seen LPC, CPC, or NDP branded merchandise. Can’t say the same for the Dems or GOP.
US Presidential Election 2024 - Trump vs Harris - Vote Hard with a Vengence
- Thread starter kkwd
- Start date
Thankfully, I have never seen LPC, CPC, or NDP branded merchandise. Can’t say the same for the Dems or GOP.
There is a website selling Joe and the Hoe must Go merch. Classy…
- Reaction score
- 16,794
- Points
- 1,280
I’m sure those are going at firesale prices now…
The good thing is that they have new market for these
If a contender for President of the United States cannot be clear about what it means when he says Americans ‘won’t have to vote anymore’, does that not cast significant doubt about his fitness for the job?
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,099
- Points
- 1,040
A lot can happen while you step away from a keyboard for a few days.
Biden resigning and a wave of endorsements for Harris was and is the only path for Democrats to keep their voters on board. If Biden had been forced out, they'd lose some Biden supporters. If the party engineered a scheme to block Harris, they'd lose some Harris supporters. Now they can pretend to have an open nominating convention which Harris is close to certain to win, and she can pose as the voice of the administration's popular policies so that a set of foreign and domestic emperor's clothes can be created for her.
There should be (and seems to be) a favourable poll bump; if there had been none, it would be a safe bet to write her off. If she doesn't bump above Trump in aggregate matchups, that's an unfavourable indicator. If she doesn't bump above Trump in the battleground states, that's a really unfavourable indicator.
It's unlikely Republicans have been wrong-footed, since Harris was always the most obvious alternative. The switch from attacking Biden to attacking Harris is what's expected. Whoever is the leading or actual nominee is going to be attacked. Harris as nominee makes the Republicans' job easier as much as it does Democrats'.
Harris is going to legitimately be attacked as a DEI candidate because those were key selection criteria. Biden said he'd choose a black woman, and he did. VP candidates are almost always former or serving state governors or senators. The list of black female former/serving state governors or senators was a (very, very) short one. Harris flamed out in the 2020 primaries. She has neither foreign policy nor domestic policy chops - if anything she has done is rolled out as evidence that she somehow does, then I'm a plumber because I've changed out a couple of toilets. She will do fine regurgitating prepared and rehearsed speeches written for her; wait and see whether she can offer something other than an incoherent stream of platitudes when speaking off the cuff. Expect her campaign handlers to manage her almost as tightly as Biden's did. The way in which she was selected, the reluctance of the administration to give her much responsibility, and her mediocre to almost non-existent achievements with what she was given are all now boat anchors.
Biden resigning and a wave of endorsements for Harris was and is the only path for Democrats to keep their voters on board. If Biden had been forced out, they'd lose some Biden supporters. If the party engineered a scheme to block Harris, they'd lose some Harris supporters. Now they can pretend to have an open nominating convention which Harris is close to certain to win, and she can pose as the voice of the administration's popular policies so that a set of foreign and domestic emperor's clothes can be created for her.
There should be (and seems to be) a favourable poll bump; if there had been none, it would be a safe bet to write her off. If she doesn't bump above Trump in aggregate matchups, that's an unfavourable indicator. If she doesn't bump above Trump in the battleground states, that's a really unfavourable indicator.
It's unlikely Republicans have been wrong-footed, since Harris was always the most obvious alternative. The switch from attacking Biden to attacking Harris is what's expected. Whoever is the leading or actual nominee is going to be attacked. Harris as nominee makes the Republicans' job easier as much as it does Democrats'.
Harris is going to legitimately be attacked as a DEI candidate because those were key selection criteria. Biden said he'd choose a black woman, and he did. VP candidates are almost always former or serving state governors or senators. The list of black female former/serving state governors or senators was a (very, very) short one. Harris flamed out in the 2020 primaries. She has neither foreign policy nor domestic policy chops - if anything she has done is rolled out as evidence that she somehow does, then I'm a plumber because I've changed out a couple of toilets. She will do fine regurgitating prepared and rehearsed speeches written for her; wait and see whether she can offer something other than an incoherent stream of platitudes when speaking off the cuff. Expect her campaign handlers to manage her almost as tightly as Biden's did. The way in which she was selected, the reluctance of the administration to give her much responsibility, and her mediocre to almost non-existent achievements with what she was given are all now boat anchors.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 6,681
- Points
- 1,160
If anything she should be
- Reaction score
- 16,794
- Points
- 1,280
If they do, expect a metric ton of social media and articles about how Trump comes across when he speaks. It’ll be like when Fox criticized the Dems for talking about Trump’s age, when the GOP has been talking about Biden’s age the entire time until he left.
Right? It’s such an obvious trap that normally I wouldn’t expect the GOP to fall for it, but then again the GOP has to publicly tell its members not to make racist and sexist comments about Harris, so…uh…yeah they’ll fall for it.
- Reaction score
- 1,429
- Points
- 1,060
270toWin - 2024 Presidential Election Interactive Map
Create your own forecast for the 2024 presidential election
www.270towin.com
play with what states are going to swing which way
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,099
- Points
- 1,040
What I wrote is misleading, or close to it. Biden made a specific promise to nominate a black woman for a USSC vacancy, to secure support in the SC primary via House member Clyburn. For VP, he started by talking about choosing a woman, and later about choosing a woman or person of colour. He was pressed by some Democrats to settle on a black woman, to which he eventually agreed.
Didn’t seem to hurt him given he won the election.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,099
- Points
- 1,040
Biden's reputation isn't the point; Harris's is. Anyone recruited with criteria that include identity politics is liable to criticism for that; subsequent failure to demonstrate reasonable competence amplifies it.
Narrowing a job search by playing identity politics reduces the likelihood of finding the best candidate, but doesn't always preclude finding an adequate candidate. Combining identity factors with other factors such as the political resume factor (governor, senator, House member, perhaps senior state-level position) created a set of filters which narrowed the set of pass-throughs too much. Harris's problem is that she's inadequate, which calls into question the identity factors and legitimates "she got the job because..." criticism.
VPs are picked on a whole pile of criteria. You make it sound like her being a woman of colour was the only consideration when it is not.
Why would she be inadequate exactly? Her previous pedigree seems to be somewhat more substantial than someone like Vance. The fact that she is a woman of colour with her background seems to be a feature that gives that ticket an edge.
I do agree though that she would be an inadequate candidate for MAGA world. But they aren’t trying to convince them.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,099
- Points
- 1,040
As I wrote and you quoted, those factors weren't the only factors. They were definitely limiting factors.
Pedigree matters if there are useful achievements included in the experience. She hasn't been given a lot of responsibility during Biden's administration, and hasn't done very well with what she was given. Her record in Senate doesn't stand out. She has stated some policy aspirations that will be a difficult sell, and she will have to defend herself. She is hampered a bit by perceptions of her relationship with Willie Brown. She has difficulty speaking with substance and coherence without a script. Vance has managed to get in some military service and success in business, as an author, and as a politician. He at least has demonstrated a breadth of talent. Credentialism and identity politics might be compelling for people who favour style over substance, but isn't really a useful way of selecting major political leaders.
- Reaction score
- 5,523
- Points
- 1,060
Rewriting history.
Deleted GovTrack article naming Harris the most leftist Senator. Even left of Bernie Sanders
web.archive.org
Harris' pedigree
To prove fealty to Kamala Harris, the media gaslights voters by rewriting her past
The push to rewrite Kamala Harris' record as vice president and in the Senate is as Orwellian as it sounds.
www.usatoday.com
Deleted GovTrack article naming Harris the most leftist Senator. Even left of Bernie Sanders
Kamala Harris’s 2019 legislative statistics.
Ranked most liberal compared to All Senators, and other 2019 legislative statistics
Harris' pedigree
I cannot overemphasize how highly I encourage the Republicans to try to push this and make it an issue. Absolutely no way that hopping back on that bus can possibly disadvantage them.
As for her ‘inadequacy’, well, that can and will only be ultimately judged in November. At present the task she needs to be adequate for is being elected. After that we’ll see. Personally I’ll put just as much stock in what she assembles for a cabinet.
- Reaction score
- 16,794
- Points
- 1,280
I see those articles and wonder what the point is to write them?Rewriting history.
To prove fealty to Kamala Harris, the media gaslights voters by rewriting her past
The push to rewrite Kamala Harris' record as vice president and in the Senate is as Orwellian as it sounds.www.usatoday.com
Deleted GovTrack article naming Harris the most leftist Senator. Even left of Bernie Sanders
Kamala Harris’s 2019 legislative statistics.
Ranked most liberal compared to All Senators, and other 2019 legislative statistics
Given that the bases are entrenched and that the undecideds and independents aren’t going to vote for whether someone is more or less liberal/conservative, calling Harris the most leftist politician isn’t really going to move the needle. Some Democrats may like her less but not to the point that they will vote for the GOP. Some other Dems will actually support her more, because a previous criticism was that she was pro-cop and pro-prison.
What will almost certainly be brought up again in the next few months is Roe v Wade and delegating it to the individual states. Having a woman publicly be the face of a party wanting to bring it back will resonate with female voters, even undecided or independent ones, and especially ones in states who now have various restrictions on abortion. That will move the needle because it is a countrywide issue that affects at least 50% of Americans.
The GOP doesn’t have any really good rebuttal for that, especially given that some states have since further restricted access to abortion. It would be interesting to see how they answer (or deflect) the inevitable questions.
Last edited:
You seem to be minimizing what she has done and aggrandizing Vance’s record. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think she is spectacular as a candidate but her pick to be VP was much more than just EDI. She also had run in the primary with a number of supporters. If Trump had been a bit more nice to Nikki Haley he’d have her supporters who now seem to have moved the Harris’ camp with Haley Supporters for Harris.
She was seen as a tough on crime prosecutor, was a state AG and Senator and now VP. The issues that her detractors have with her seem to be her politics. But even now it seems to be more about her race and her gender. Which is exactly what her campaign wants the GOP and Trump to be focused on.
Vance’s speaking seems to have put him in damage control mode this week and he is now has the lowest approval rate of any VP pick in US history. How much of a standout was he in the senate? Military records while good don’t seem to be an issue or factor anymore. Trump’s attacks on candidates military records seems to have cemented that and the left and right don’t seem to care about a military. He was picked to double down on MAGA. They did this because they thought they were going to beat Biden.
Similar threads
