Where did Harris go wrong?

[KYTOP]

Ok, so multiple people, and talking heads, over the past several months have been paid 6 figures plus, to tell us where the election was headed and why. Many with a very bias slant. Ended up they didn't know shit and probably still don't. We don't get payed the big bucks but I think we know as much as them. So where do you think she went wrong? What if anything could she have done different?

The line that James Carville gave to Clinton still holds true today, "Its the Economy stupid". She and Biden could say inflation was falling and the economy was getting better but most working class people just don't see it. They aren't comparing prices between now and a month ago. They are comparing prices between now and 4 years ago. Instead of parading Celebrities around, people wanted an answer as to what she would do different for the Economy, she didn't give them an answer they could believe. The Trump economy was really very good before Covid hit, inflation was low. People remember that. I had always said Trump would have won in 2020 if COVID had not happened. I still believe that. COVID is now in the rearview mirror and couldn't help Harris as it did Biden.

Parading Liz Cheney all around the country along with an endless list of singers and actors I think blew up in her face. It was Elitist, like they think they know more than me. Do you think Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga know how much a gallon of milk costs. Harris do us all a favor and take all your celebrity friends on a field trip to the grocery store. Scarborough on MSNBC was shocked the day after the election to find out what the cost of butter was. This is why she lost, she doesn't know either. Does Trump, maybe not, but working at McDonalds, Giving a news conference from the cab of a garbage truck, Riding with a Teamster in a Semi, showing up at a grocery store, sure made him look like he knew them better than Harris did.

Her response to any Trump attack ad was, he's a fascist he's a Nazi, on and on. The Anti-Harris ad about her support of Trans in women's sport, she did not respond to. Trump internal info shows that one ad repeated during multiple Football games, moved the needle 2.7% in Trump's favor. It got support from men of all races and suburban women who have daughters playing high school and college sports.

I think the list is endless and now that I really think about it, I am surprised that i was surprised she lost.

PS Trump will receive OVER 50% of Americans votes. That Majority are NOT Fascist, Nazi's or garbage. They are people just trying to make ends meet and put food on their table.

So try to be nice but what did she do wrong or what did Trump do right?

[bucknaway]

My honest thoughts on where she went wrong was.

1 she didn't answer questions showing that she have full knowledge of what the problems were and what her solution would be. 

2 she seemed to fear questions from the public and relied on her go to answer of coming from a middle class family. 

3 she didn't give enough hard-hitting interviews to sharpen herself when asked tough questions. 

4 she depended too much on celebrities. 

5 she relied too heavily on the race card to the point that minorities pulled away. 

6 she used her sex and race as a weapon and used it to attack more than attract. 

7 when giving a chance to sell the public on her, all she did was talk about Trump when everybody already made up their minds about Trump.

8 she didn't project strength when giving an opportunity to send a message to world leaders. 

9 she picked the wrong running mate. 

10 she depended too much on teleprompters.

[Suckrates]

7 hours ago, KYTOP said:

 

PS Trump will receive OVER 50% of Americans votes. That Majority are NOT Fascist, Nazi's or garbage. They are people just trying to make ends meet and put food on their table.

So try to be nice but what did she do wrong or what did Trump do right?

 

Perhaps, but they are also gullible Fools to think TRUMP is the man to help them,  He's a greedy self-centered narcissist who doesnt give a shit if they go hungry or homeless, as long as HE can live high on the hog.   Too bad they drank his Kool Aid and will suffer from being duped.  You reap what you sow.   

[Moses]

Harris had no chance.

She is a classic example of the wrong person at the wrong time and in the wrong place.

"Wrong person" - no experience, no charisma, no past results to convince of future results. There is no trust in her personally, and so she had to attract all these celebrities - "look, they trust me."

"Wrong time" - even if she was a strong politician, she did not have time to convince people: she was nominated too late. Her nomination should have started 2 years ago and done it confidently, consistently and calmly.

"Wrong place" - the current administration has nothing to brag about. Biden's administration did not bring positive results and Harris did not have the opportunity to rely on them "Look what I have already done. And I will do even more if you elect me."

Well, and a big mistake was constantly mentioning Trump - every time she said his name, she advertised him. It doesn't matter that she added "fascist" and something else, people don't remember that, people remember the name.

[Suckrates]

You all are just HATERS and tearing a very smart and qualified person apart simply for personal reasons, AND the fact that she is a WOMAN, and perhaps even worse a woman of color...She barely mentioned her sex and race and did everything that was asked of her by the party, the media and the public.... Keep in mind she got 48% of the vote when ONLY being in the race a VERY short time.  She picked a person that complimented HER, just as Trump did picking another racist, misogynst , MAGA nutjob to compliment him....

She did a wonderful job with the cards that were dealt her, and the situation was was thrust into.  IF she were a man, you wouldnt have a thing to say,  None of you could have dont better if in the same situation , and none of you are qualified to critique her.....YES she lost, but Trump has also lost before.  The only thing I agree with that has been said in previous posts is TIME & Place matters, and 2024 wasnt Harris's time and place.    Lighten up HATERS !

[EmmetK]

3 hours ago, Suckrates said:

You all are just HATERS and tearing a very smart and qualified person apart simply for personal reasons, AND the fact that she is a WOMAN, and perhaps even worse a woman of color...She barely mentioned her sex and race and did everything that was asked of her by the party, the media and the public.... Keep in mind she got 48% of the vote when ONLY being in the race a VERY short time.  She picked a person that complimented HER, just as Trump did picking another racist, misogynst , MAGA nutjob to compliment him....

She did a wonderful job with the cards that were dealt her, and the situation was was thrust into.  IF she were a man, you wouldnt have a thing to say,  None of you could have dont better if in the same situation , and none of you are qualified to critique her.....YES she lost, but Trump has also lost before.  The only thing I agree with that has been said in previous posts is TIME & Place matters, and 2024 wasnt Harris's time and place.    Lighten up HATERS !

Qualified? Qualified for what? When she ran against Biden and about 13 others in the 2020 democrat primary she polled at around 1%.
Her favorability was so low, she had to drop out in December, two months before the Iowa caucus. 
She was a DEI hire. Biden acknowledged that he only hired her because she was a minority female, AND not because she was the best qualified.

TRUMP2024
MAGA

[Suckrates]

9 minutes ago, EmmetK said:

Qualified? Qualified for what? When she ran against Biden and about 13 others in the 2020 democrat primary she polled at around 1%.
Her favorability was so low, she had to drop out in December, two months before the Iowa caucus. 
She was a DEI hire. Biden acknowledged that he only hired her because she was a minority female, AND not because she was the best qualified.

TRUMP2024
MAGA

YES qualified, much more so than Trump, who only won because he's a good and successful LIAR,  and luck was on his side.  So stop your hating,  its not a good look.   Take your win and be grateful.   Whats given can be taken away, you'll learn that in 2028. 

[EmmetK]

The American people made their decision on whether or not she was qualified.

Donald Trump:

• led an insurrection against the government
• is a pathological liar
• is a convicted felon
• was impeached twice
• was indicted on 34 separate counts

Read the above. That was Cackling Kamala's opponent. Any "qualified" candidate would have clobbered her opponent with that resume. In addition, Cackles outspent Trump 2-to-1, and had the total support of the fake news media and its propaganda machine.

The American voters totally rejected any idea that Kamala was qualified for anything other than permanent retirement.

TRUMP2024
MAGA

[Suckrates]

2 hours ago, EmmetK said:

The American people made their decision on whether or not she was qualified.

Donald Trump:

• led an insurrection against the government
• is a pathological liar
• is a convicted felon
• was impeached twice
• was indicted on 34 separate counts

Read the above. That was Cackling Kamala's opponent. Any "qualified" candidate would have clobbered her opponent with that resume. In addition, Cackles outspent Trump 2-to-1, and had the total support of the fake news media and its propaganda machine.

The American voters totally rejected any idea that Kamala was qualified for anything other than permanent retirement.

 

 

Yup you are correct, but that doesnt mean they werent mislead or even WRONG in their choice.   They need to find that out for themselves.  And STOP dismissing the FACT that she won 48% of the vote.  You cannot discount what those people believed and perhaps THEY were right ?.  YES more were swayed in Trumps favor .  Have you heard of TEMPORARY INSANITY ?      Well you see it on full view display in 51% of America.....   There isnt anything that cant be REVERSED.    She ran a respectable race and had a great following, just not Great enough.  and you dont need to write a followup post that HE won the popular vote too.   I KNOW.....That just goes to show the corrosive power of brainwashing. 

[EmmetK]

24 minutes ago, Suckrates said:

 

Yup you are correct, but that doesnt mean they werent mislead or even WRONG in their choice.   They need to find that out for themselves.  And STOP dismissing the FACT that she won 48% of the vote.  You cannot discount what those people believed and perhaps THEY were right ?.  YES more were swayed in Trumps favor .  Have you heard of TEMPORARY INSANITY ?      Well you see it on full view display in 51% of America.....   There isnt anything that cant be REVERSED.    She ran a respectable race and had a great following, just not Great enough.  and you dont need to write a followup post that HE won the popular vote too.   I KNOW.....That just goes to show the corrosive power of brainwashing. 

Brainwashing?  Lying?  Do you mean like the phony Russian collusion hoax? That kind of brainwashing and lying?
That's the brainwashing and lying that the dems ran with for three years used it as an excuse to impeach President Trump.
That's also the type of brainwashing and lying that the fake news media ran with for 3 years.

When it comes to brainwashing and lying, your side takes the Gold, Silver, and Bronze medals.

TRUMP2024
MAGA

[Suckrates]

1 hour ago, EmmetK said:

Brainwashing?  Lying?  Do you mean like the phony Russian collusion hoax? That kind of brainwashing and lying?
That's the brainwashing and lying that the dems ran with for three years used it as an excuse to impeach President Trump.
That's also the type of brainwashing and lying that the fake news media ran with for 3 years.

When it comes to brainwashing and lying, your side takes the Gold, Silver, and Bronze medals.

TRUMP2024
MAGA

 

Guess you missed the memo that the Russian collusion was a fact, not the fiction you CHOOSE to believe it is...  We all know by now that you CREATE your own narrative in the absence of Facts and data...  Its a choice.  Stick with what you know    🤣     Gives you a counterpoint and reason to LIVE.....

[unicorn]

Aside from the fact that she was nominated too late, and that Biden should have handed the torch sooner, I don't think she was forceful enough in countering the ridiculous notion that the economy would end up in better shape under Trump, nor in highlighting the economic successes under Biden. Poll after poll showed that the #1 concern for voters was the economy, and poll after poll showed that the majority of the public believed Trump's lies that (a) the economy was in bad shape, and (b) things would be better under his leadership. The truth of the matter, of course, is that, after inheriting a terrible economy as well as the inevitable rise in inflation due to China's disastrous "zero-Covid" policies, with its attendant supply-chain issues, the economy rebounded tremendously into one of the best on the planet, with full employment, low inflation, lowering interest rates, and a booming stock market. Trump has been mostly quiet about what he'll do, relying mostly on BS platitudes. Of the two things he said he'd do, substantially raising tarifs, and mass deportations, if he's successful in doing them, both will obviously have a devastating effect on inflation and business profits. 

It's absolutely axiomatic that raising the costs of imports will lead to price increases and hurt businesses' bottom lines. And, of course, getting rid of cheap foreign labor in the food industry and elsewhere will also inevitably lead to price increases as well (especially for food). Yet Trump succeeded in convincing people that inflation was increasing under Biden, which is the opposite of the truth. Instead of simply pushing the message that Trump is unfit for office (which he is), the Democrats needed to address the voters' #1 concern, the economy, and point out that things would be better under the Democrats (which it would have been). For decades, the US economy has always done better under Democratic leadership than under GOP leadership. The Democrats failed to get that message out.

I also wonder whether it was wise to blast voters' phones with frequent daily texts. It certainly pissed me off. Since I don't live in a swing state, this harassment even made me consider not voting for any candidate. 

[EmmetK]

Left-wing hack Fareed Zakaria from fake news CNN got it right.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day....

TRUMP2024
MAGA

[EmmetK]

Left-wing Bronx Congressman Richie Torres:

"Donald Trump has no greater friend than the far left, which has managed to alienate historic numbers of Latinos, Blacks, Asians, and Jews from the Democratic party with absurdities like "Defund the Police" or "From the River to the Sea" or "Latinx."
There is more to lose than there is to gain politically from pandering to a far left that is more representative of Twitter, Twitch, and TikTok than it is of the real world. The working class is not buying the ivory-towered nonsense that the far left is selling"

https://x.com/RitchieTorres/status/1854193086756171879

 

TRUMP2024
MAGA

 

[KYTOP]

13 hours ago, EmmetK said:

Left-wing hack Fareed Zakaria from fake news CNN got it right.

I was watching Fareed Zakaria on CNN Sunday morning and was impressed with his full Opening monologue and his quote of some interesting statistics in the opening segment. I think he hit the nail on the head with his comments as to WHY? Below is the unedited link to the first 10-11 minutes of his show. It is worth a watch if you got 10 minutes: 

 

[unicorn]

On 11/11/2024 at 8:01 AM, EmmetK said:

...Even a broken clock is right twice a day....

[stevenkesslar]

20 hours ago, KYTOP said:

I was watching Fareed Zakaria on CNN Sunday morning and was impressed with his full Opening monologue and his quote of some interesting statistics in the opening segment. I think he hit the nail on the head with his comments as to WHY? Below is the unedited link to the first 10-11 minutes of his show. It is worth a watch if you got 10 minutes: 

 

 

I agree with you.   That is excellent analysis from Fareed.  It is now almost a consensus starting point.  Meaning that not everyone will agree with every point.  But that provides a framework for debate.

So I'll debate some points.

The statement I disagree with most is Frum at the end.  Democrats are not going to turn on each other.  They are going to resist the worst impulses of Trump, as we should.  Examples:  tax cuts for billionaires, genocide against Palestinians, tax cuts for billionaires, cutting Medicaid if they try, tax cuts for billionaires, mass deportations separating parents and children, anti-democratic actions, tax cuts for billionaires.   When these things start to happen it will quickly unite Democrats.  How do I know this?  Name a year between 2015 and 2024.

I like Ezra Klein's phrase "incumbency penalty."  That is a hard fact screaming to be heard.  And he is right that Democrats almost won.  As of right now, there is almost ZERO shift in the House.  Republicans maybe pick up a few seats.  We lost one Senate seat in a swing state, and won four in states Trump barely won.  We lost three Senate seats in red states.  That is a huge problem Democrats will have to spend many years fixing.  We lost the Presidency by a few points at most, much smaller than Trump lost by in 2020.   So basically Democrats are deeply unpopular in red states, but winners or viable in blue and purple states.

And this is in a year when, to quote Klein, most incumbent parties were "annihilated."

This should be embarrassing to Democrats.  We won the affluent, and lost the poor.  By comparison, in 2016 when Trump won he only carried the group from 50k to 100k.  In 2020 when he lost he only carried the group from 100k up.  In 2016, Clinton won voters under 50k by 53/41.   In 2020, Biden won the same group 55/44.   If lower income voters had chosen Harris by the same margins as Clinton or Biden, she probably would have won the narrowest of victories in the blue wall states.

Why the shift? I'm guessing it's not because these voters want more tax cuts for billionaires, fewer health care premium subsidies, and elimination of all child tax credits.   Fareed is right that the US economy is booming, and the envy of the world.  Stanley Druckenmiller is not struggling to buy milk or gas.    So Democrats don't need to, and won't, move back to welfare state politics.  But what this period proved is that you can have a booming economy, and Druckenmiller can be making money hand over fist on a tech boom.  But the working class still feels left behind.   

Meanwhile, seniors shifted a little bit toward Harris.  I suspect that may reflect the fact that they tend to own homes or stocks or both.  So they are big winners of soaring stock market and housing valuations.   Working class people who pay rent are the big losers.

I think it is a good thing that Democrats are going to have to think long and hard about this.   You seem like you are not a fan of the expanded child tax credits, @KYTOP.  But they were wildly popular with the working class voters, especially Latinos, who got them.  So if Democrats want to actually do something to fix this problem, those tax credits will go down much better than tax cuts for billionaires.  Of course, a strong economy is the most important thing.  But we have had that, and the working class still feels left behind.

Like Ron Brownstein, I am not sure the culture war issues are as salient as some people think.  If they were, it was a side dish to the main plate of It's The Economy, Stupid.  I think the main way they hurt in 2024 is Harris is a California liberal.  So it made it easier to define her as such. 

Are Democrats in general persona non grata?  I don't think so.  If Andy Beshear had run, I don't think moderates would have turned against him because he is a Democrat.  Again, Harris won the vote of moderates, but by less than Biden did in 2020.   So this will be a painful debate.   But not too painful.   I think what just happened buries ideas like "LatinX" for all time.

I posted this in another thread.  But it is worth really absorbing.

 

That is not the portrait of a political party in collapse.  Unless we are talking about Republicans.  Democrats are doing a lot of things right.  Just ask Andy Beshear.

The one thing I disagree with Fareed about is "lawfare".  I think it was a tactical mistake to lead with Bragg, which in relative terms was a petty crime.  I agree with the analysis that Merrick Garland should have come out swinging early in 2021.   And we should have had a trial on Jan. 6th, which polls said voters wanted.  In fact, we had lots of trials.  And lots of those felons went to jail. To me, Biden was weak for waiting years. He should have said Jan. 6th is a serious crime that needs to be prosecuted ASAP.

If anyone thinks that this election somehow voids out all those polls that showed that the vast majority of Americans were disgusted with Trump's actions on Jan. 6th, we'll learn soon enough.   Trump will probably over reach. Because he just can't help himself.

What seems very likely is that low income voters who supported Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020 were just pissed.  Biden and Harris paid the incumbency penalty.  But there is no particular reason to think Trump will suddenly become the President of low income voters.  He will cut taxes for billionaires and his rich donors.   And probably try to cut safety nets vital to these low income voters. 

If Democrats almost won in 2024, what is likely to happen in 2026 if Trump follows the course he has promised to?

Democrats need to dump some positions that made us look extreme.  But we need to double down on a lot of positions and policies that have been, and still are, at our core.  If we can almost win in a year when incumbents were annihilated in most places, like the UK and France and Germany, we should be able to win in 2026 if we focus on these problems.

It is sad but also funny that if Democrats need a model of how you attract the working class Latino vote, we have an incredibly clear and relevant example right next door, in Mexico.  The working class party there just beat the incumbency penalty.  And elected a woman the Latino working class loves.  We should dump LatinX and adopt Aprende X, Y, and Z.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[stevenkesslar]

On 11/8/2024 at 4:50 PM, bucknaway said:

 

5 she relied too heavily on the race card to the point that minorities pulled away. 

6 she used her sex and race as a weapon and used it to attack more than attract. 

 

That's a thoughtful list.   There will no doubt be a lot of debate about the role race and gender played in this election.  I'll push back on those two points above.   If we go by what Harris actually said, it seems like she tried to do the exact opposite.  

She could have attacked Trump during the debate for being White, which is the wrong race.  She could have called him a racist.  She could have said you are a male, which is the wrong gender.  She could have said that she was Hillary, and the really important thing is to vote for a woman.  Because if you don't vote for a woman, you are a sexist.  She didn't get within a mile of any such statement.

Instead, when she attacked Trump hard she quoted Republican leaders - White men, mostly - who have said very negative, and correct, things about Trump.

I don't think she made her race or gender an issue.  Because I think her campaign correctly perceived that being Black and female wasn't ever going to be a plus.  

Example:  in 2008, it is not like Obama won because he was a Black man, and any white would have lost.   Hillary Clinton would have won in the environment of 2008, had she beat Obama in the primary.

Harris made little mention of the fact that she is a woman.  She did not use it in the way Hillary "I'm With Her" did.   She did focus on abortion, for sure.  But that's her focusing on the issues.  She did talk a lot about child tax credits, which are particularly popular among Black and Latino parents with children.  But that is her focusing on the issues.

She also kept saying specifically that she planned to earn the vote of everyone, including Blacks.  

The strongest piece of evidence for your claim is that Obama did try, and fail, to tell Black men they should vote based on race.  Which they did in 2008 and 2012, for sure.  That didn't work as well in 2024.

The other huge piece of evidence for your claim is that all over the globe there is a growing gender gap between men and women.  Women voted for Harris.  Men voted for Trump.  That's a global reality which is a very big deal.  Not something that evolved based on anything Harris or Trump said.  

I'm reacting to your comments in part because I view 2024 as a victory for America's growing multi-racial democracy.  Latinos and Blacks said we can, and will, vote as we damn well please.   We are a better country than we were when Republicans were the party trying to STOP Blacks from voting.  

The unfortunate thing about this election is that some people will interpret this to mean America is too sexist and racist to elect a Black woman.   (That would be you, Joy Reid).  You seem to be doing the opposite, suggesting that Harris weaponized her race and gender to "attack".   

The salient fact that I think is quickly becoming the consensus is that it was the economy, stupid.  Obama, a Black man, won twice.  In the first race he had a huge wind at his back because of the wrecked Bush economy.  His second election was taken by many to be a sign that America is less racist than we feared.   Because Obama had to defend a sluggish economy.  And he did.  If you want to talk about "attack", Obama attacked Romney hard and decisively as a fat cat who did not understand the working class, and was on the side of venture capitalists moving factories to China.  Harris mostly "attacked" Trump using the words of his own Chief of Staff and generals.  Not because he was a White man.

We'll never know.  But I think if Democrats had nominated Gavin Newsom, a White man, he probably would have lost, too.  His skill at defending California liberalism (we're the fifth largest economy in the world) would not necessarily have been an asset, either.   

The more interesting counterfactual would be a moderate White man like Andy Beshear.  Trump would not have run transsexual prisoner ads against him.  And he did win twice in Kentucky.  That said, now that we know how working class Whites and Blacks and Latinos voted, I think Republican Mike Murphy was right.  Thanks to high prices and interest rates, there was a "wall of lava" coming at Biden, or anyone who took his place.  I think Newsom or Beshear probably would have faced the same outcome. 

It was the economy, stupid. Not race or gender.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[stevenkesslar]

MARK PENN: 8 lessons for Democrats and Donald Trump

I'm going to add this as a bit of a rebuttal to myself.  😨

The polls actually were relatively close this time.   At least within the margin of error.  Mark Penn said he thought Trump had an edge.  And he turned out to be right.

I don't agree with all his points.  But I think he makes his points well.  And they are all points that should be debated.

His second point is the obvious one:  middle class economics matters.  It was interesting he did not use the words WORKING CLASS.   But, either way, it was the economy, stupid.   That connects to his last point:  Joe Biden never should have run.

His first point is the one that I think is worded particularly well, and why I am posting this to push back on what I wrote above.   I think Penn is right that it was predictable that moderates and conservatives would want to get their country back.  And they did.

I think it is a better and clearer way to think about the culture wars. I don't think America is too racist or sexist to elect a Black woman - or man.  I don't Harris ran a campaign in which she weaponized her race or gender.  Although some Blacks will decide America is racist.  And some Whites will decide Kamala was just a racist bitch.

What is more salient to Penn's point is that Harris is a California liberal, like me.  Biden often voted as a moderate, but his Presidency definitely leaned left.  Most notably on immigration, which we now know made a huge difference.  Even among Latinos.

I'm at least two things that make me a minority:  Gay, and a liberal.  Add being an escort for many years, which is something I was reserved about telling people about.  Plus I've spent much my life in politics, which is a game of addition.  So I am constantly aware of what Penn says:  liberals are about 1 in 4 Americans.  We can only win when moderates are on our side.    Which they actually are, more often than not.  But for Trump in 2024 and W in 2004, Democrats won a plurality or majority of votes for President every election in this century.  Democrats are pretty good at building coalitions.  And it works more often than not.

The best example of how this works in practice to me is same sex marriage.  The Gays tried hard for years to figure out how to win moderates over.  We did one thing consistently:  failed.  At least when we used liberal arguments about "basic rights".  Then we shifted to what was essentially a more conservative approach:  "We value marriage.  We value love.  We just want to be part of THAT."  Then we won.  There are many conservatives who would gladly ban same sex marriage if they had a majority against it.  Which they no longer do.

So I am glad Penn made this point first.  It is probably the most important thing Democrats need to understand, and change.  "Woke" is out.  Moderation is in.

First, conservatives and moderates took their country back

Quote

Only about 25% of the voters classify themselves as liberal compared to 75% who are moderate and conservative. Out went progressive DAs, marijuana referendums, and ranked voting efforts (except in D.C.). Moderates and conservatives are done with being ruled by the 25 percent.

 

[Mavica]

An enough blame to go around in the Democratic Party when so many people voted for a man whose ideas and lack of character and integrity, they despise ... instead of another, the other candidate.