- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Saying she needed more time is just admitting to not using the time she had well enough. Everyone can use more time. But you get what you’re given, and flagrantly ignoring how precious your time is until it’s all gone is just being bad at your job. No matter what your job is.
That imperiousness spilled over into Harris’s brusque and heartless response to protestors over Gaza, clearly heard when she responded to demonstrators at a rally, “You know what, if you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, I’m speaking.” The point was clear: if you criticize me on this issue, you’re just asking for a Trump win. When she mentions genocide, it’s only twice, in reference to protestors, like the time they showed up at a Detroit rally as what she describes as a “noisy group” (well, yes, they were protesting!): “Kamala, Kamala, you can’t hide. We won’t vote for genocide.” She paints their opposition to her on the issue as “reckless,” and otherwise avoids mentioning them. They were there, and it was annoying, but what can you do? is the attitude.
Like most liberals and Democrats, Harris assumed Gaza would not matter to enough voters. She seems to have assumed that the issue would never have a reach beyond, perhaps, Dearborn, Michigan, which has a high concentration of Arab Americans. She speaks of pity for dead children, which is a standard liberal response, but stakes her political position close to Israel. She did not allow even the anodyne Uncommitted group of pro-Palestine voters to speak at the convention, but praises herself for having received praise from the Washington Post’s David Von Drehle for how she tackled the issue: “And, behold, she had her boat through the impossible strait.” Yet, she maintained complete silence on the matter of genocide. As with gay men and trans people, she banked on the idea that no one would care about insignificant numbers of people.
In 2016 Dearborn voted 63 percent for Clinton. In 2024, Harris got 36 percent, while Trump got 43 percent. Meanwhile, Rashida Tlaib, a vocal critic of Israel and a staunch advocate for trans rights, won her seat by 63 percent.
spits on the Biden and Harris campaign
what an embarassment, on so many levels…
Man that’s a long article.
TLDR anyone?TLDR She lost because she was out of touch with her own base on the Israel Gaza genocide
The amount of people who care about what goes on in the Middle East is comically low. I find that the people who think that the world revolves around Gaza are people who don’t go out that much. Your average American just went through a pandemic that caused a lot of inflation an economic instability and the prices for just about everything go up, and people blamed Biden for it because he was the incumbent president even though most of it wasn’t his fault. It’s really as simple as that.
You don’t seem to realize that all of our politicians are bought and paid for by the Israeli lobby AIPAC. Israel literally has universal healthcare and free college paid for by American taxpayers. We also send them unlimited money for weapons. If you’re not pissed you should be. https://www.trackaipac.com/
The article is a bit difficult to really summarize because the writer goes over many examples from the book, but this paragraph near the end of the article seems like a good enough condensation of it (I only briefly skimmed the article - it is pretty long):
By now, there is a mountain of evidence that Joe Biden was not capable of carrying on as president, let alone moving into a second term. Harris’s excuses and prevarications on that matter are no longer worth taking into account. The more pressing question is: what kind of a candidate did we get in Kamala Harris? 107 Days shows us a great deal of who she was and is, and it’s a disconcerting sight. Harris does not emerge as a gifted and visionary politician, or even a moderately skilled one. The book confirms what many on the left have known for a long while: that Harris has neither the qualifications nor the expertise to lead the world’s most powerful country.
The book confirms what many on the left have known for a long while: that Harris has neither the qualifications nor the expertise to lead the world’s most powerful country.
Um… pretty sure she could do a hell of a lot better than what is currently going on right now. She’s not my favorite pick by far, but what qualifications or expertise do you really need at this point? The presidency is now officially a joke.
Thanks,
I only briefly skimmed the article - it is pretty long
Exactly, I ended up reading the first third or so, but thanks for the Paragraph, that seems like the author’s own TLDR.
The only one she would have been better than is of course Trump, but here we are…No problem!
tl;dr: Kamala’s a terrible politician, and out of touch with reality.
That does not ring true as the reason why she lost the election.
Trump is absolutely an even worse politician and way more out of touch with reality. But it didn’t matter because so are the people that vote for him.
I think it’s more that she is out of touch with the voters, and they absolutely were on Gaza. Not because they didn’t know, but because Democrats didn’t want to change their policy on Israel.The above sounds more like your personal opinion than a result of reading the article.
Trump is a brilliant politicaian. I hate the ground the man walks on, but don’t discount his political skills. He has stronger political instincts than almost every politician alive in America today. He can be evil while also being a great politician. You see his politics and conclude he doesn’t know what he’s doing. But you are simply not his target audience.
I disagree, he is a terrible politician but an excellent demagogue.
People seem to confuse the idea of getting people to vote for you as the only requirement for being a good politician, but that is definitely not true.
To be a good politician, you need to also be able to improve conditions in the country,and create acceptance of the policies, and as president to be able to cooperate with congress for the good of the country, and to not be corrupt is pretty high up there in requirements too.I have no idea how anyone can call Trump a good politician???
You’re confusing being a good politician with being a good leader or representative. Being a politician is all about winning elections. The man can’t lead the country worth a shit, but he can get elected.
No what you are describing isn’t even really a politician, but just a demagogue.
A demagogue makes promises to win an election, a politician work to deliver on the promises, and help make things better.A politician is a person who participates in policy-making processes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician
Winning an election is only a means to become a politician, not the end.
Politicians make decisions, and influence the formulation of public policy.
Exactly the parts I described as determining whether a politician is good or bad.
A more formal definition:
Politician: 1: a person experienced in the art or science of government especially: one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government. 2a : a person engaged in party politics as a profession.[1]
So contrary to what you claim, not at all about campaigning or election by any definition, but the actual work that is done AFTER an election.
I doubt they read the article, but I read a decent bit and that’s actually a fair summary of what the author wrote. I didn’t see any real support for their opinion, mostly just repeated and slightly differing versions of derision. I’m not super fond of Harris so I was curious what they’d lay out but it doesn’t appear all that substantial especially for a thesis project like that.
Oh, so you don’t like my summary of the article you didn’t read? Maybe you should go read the article then, then you can come back here and we can have a proper argument about what you expected the TL;DR should be.
I don’t know why you think you don’t have time to read the article, you seem to have an awful lot of time to split hairs about “out of touch with voters” vs “out of touch with reality” as if these are vastly different things in your attempt to start an argument while agreeing with literally everything I was trying to suggest with that term. I have clearly made the mistake of stepping into your well-laid trap, you got me, fair and square, I concede to your superior intellectual position and withdraw my own, whatever you think that may be.
I have to say though, you sound very much like you have a little bit of personal opinion going on here too. I’m not terribly interested in what that is, so I’ll be leaving now.
Oh, so you don’t like my summary of the article you didn’t read
I actually read quite a bit of the article before responding.
For instance her idea that having a gay running mate might be a problem, was in my opinion naive.
It’s like she thinks democratic voters will only vote for the status quo, when they are screaming for change.
But that so typical for many people, they are so obsessed with appearances, that they end up always seeming superficial and shallow and without substance.
Stupid when there was no way she could beat Trump on that aspect.
Not the actual words in book, but it’s a lot easier to fill 100 pages with her word salad than it is with “it was Russia, Bernie, sexism, Comey”
Here’s the gist of the article:
-
In her memoir 107 Days, Kamala Harris claims her presidential campaign faltered simply because she didn’t have enough time — the article argues the real issue was that she lacked a clear vision and failed to connect meaningfully with voters.
-
The campaign leaned heavily on celebrity endorsements and loud visuals instead of substance, leading many voters to feel she was more style than substance, and that she didn’t really understand their everyday concerns.
-
Despite massive funding and early momentum, the deeper problem was that she never defined why people should vote for her — not just to stop someone else — and the book lays bare how that lack of self-awareness sealed the campaign’s fate.
The campaign peaked and then she started trying to appeal to the right with fucking Liz Cheney. Dragging it out longer would have been worse as she was actively disconnecting from the voters she was initially appealing to.
Thanks, that’s an amazing TLDR, and that sounds like a good fit to how it was IMO.
I think her plan to make it easier to buy a house, may have been part of how people thought she just doesn’t get it.
-
