Why did Kamala Harris lose? Everyone knows the answer:
- Inflation.
- Refusal to break with an unpopular Biden.
- Too little appeal to the working class.
- Too woke.
- Press was derelict in warning the country about the danger of Trump.
- Gaza.
- Supporting biological trans boys in girls' sports.
- Liz Cheney.
- Avoiding media interviews for first month.
- Immigration.
- Latino men.
- Tidal wave of disinformation.
- Misogyny.
- Prosecuting Trump galvanized the GOP base.
- Too much flip flopping on fracking etc.
- Identity politics.
- Biden stayed in race too long.
- Keeping Jen O'Malley Dillon as campaign manager.
- Coronated too quickly with no public input.
- "Joy."
- "Fascist."
- Biden stimulus.
- Failure to go on Joe Rogan's podcast.
- Too lefty.
- Too centrist.
- Elon Musk.
- Laughed too much.
- Picking Tim Walz for VP instead of Josh Shapiro.
- No Sister Souljah moment.
Phew. It's a miracle she managed to get any electoral votes at all.
We'll know for sure when California finally gets all its votes in, but it sure looks like "resentment over inflation", "Biden's unpopularity", and "Latino men following the general trendline of non-college-educated men on politics" are strong candidates.
First two were basically beyond Democrats' control, except insofar that Biden could have committed earlier to not running again. I don't think that would have saved whoever became the Democrat, though - it certainly didn't save John McCain in 2008 when Bush's unpopularity was sinking the party.
I think Biden’s unpopularity and resentment over inflation are the same thing. I also think getting 46% of the Latino vote (despite demonizing them every day) was a really big deal and I think that was associated with the “trans issue” (which in itself was a cipher for anti-gay feelings).
Legal immigrants - the ones who vote — are getting really tired of their conflation with illegal immigrants. Never contribute to this problem.
I guess they aren't aware that Steven Miller wants to deport even immigrants with legal status
Trump’s people hate them both and believe they are “poisoning our blood”. But the thing I didn’t consider (until now) is that most Hispanics who are citizens are probably from Mexico. The recent illegals are mostly from Central and South America. I suppose the dynamic might be more akin to “Asian” encompassing people of Japanese and Korean ancestry who don’t think of themselves as similar at all.
Most Hispanics who are citizens have likely been American for many generations, having been settled in the Southwest before those parts of Spanish America and Mexico were acquired by the US.
Agreed. I am now 100% indifferent to the people who are deported, as the AmericanPeople™ have spoken.
Legal immigrant and look exactly like the illegal immigrants Trump talks about? Make sure you're carrying certified copies of your papers, "real Americans".
Shits left to give approaching zero.
Winding down the notion of a "United States" is going to be a increasing issue for both the left and right.
I think the unpopularity was a grab bag of inflation, fearmongering over crime and immigration*, and just general relentless negativity from conservative media - including Fox News, the biggest cable news network in America.
* To be fair, the Biden folks could have handled immigration better. News pieces on it basically said that they considered it a political hot potato with no real upside, and so they tended to punt on the issue and hope it resolved itself.
To be fair, the Biden folks negotiated a bipartisan bill to address immigration. The GOP tanked it on Trump's command because it would hurt his campaign.
"I think Biden’s unpopularity and resentment over inflation are the same thing." I don't think so, because Biden's unpopularity (approval ratings well below 50%) started almost concurrently with his inauguration.
Biden could also have sold himself and his policies a lot better. The inflation wasn't his fault and his overall economic policies were very successful, but the public never really got that message because Biden was a behind-the-scenes guy, not a salesman or a self booster.
It if had been Trump, he would have made sure that he got no blame for the inflation and that the blame went somewhere else. Taking credit and parceling out blame are Trump's undeniable talents, and have served him well.
This a thousand times. The president needs to be a relentless salesman to be successful. If Trump has taught Democrats nothing else I hope he at least taught them this.
If a tree falls in the forest and the NYT doesn't write it up, did it really make a sound?
a major take away I think is traditional media is dead, the low info voters who decide elections don’t watch Fox, let alone read newspapers or watch mainstream news they get their “info” from social media, podcasts, etc.
I don't think that would have saved whoever became the Democrat, though...
Agreed. We don't have a parallel university to test it, but my sense is 2024 came very close to being one of those "it just wasn't going to be" elections. No way the Republican was going to win in 1932, 1936, 1964, 1996 or 2008. No way the Democrat was going to win in 1952, 1956, 1972, 1980 or 1984.
I seriously doubt this race was realistically winnable for the Democratic nominee. Governing parties in every single rich democracy lost ground in 2024. Voters fucking hate inflation.
She didn’t promise to feed the rich to everyone else: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/11/why-donald-trump-won-election-white-house/
an interesting take
and yet
those being fucked over voted for the guy who will fuck them over even more
meanwhile, we are told by some of the very smart posters here it is Dems who sneer at "poor white folk" and don't do a thing to help
"Oh hey, it's Commie Kamala promising to destroy your small business and raise your taxes" is what we would have heard slightly more of.
Too much joy, not enough hate.
Two possibly three out of that list are the reasons. Most everything else is excuse making to justify voting due to the two or three reasons.
You forgot “garbage”
Occam's razor: America wanted DJT. That's who we are as a people, It's depressing, but it's the simplest hypothesis that fits all the facts.
This one's on us, folks.
+1
+1000
Apparently, he got more than 50% of the vote. Every single day he showed us exactly who he is. No punches pulled. Thus, you are right. A bitter pill to swallow.
Of the votes cast.
115M or so voting age people did not in fact vote.
Correct. And among those people who did vote, "this is who we are as a people" by an eventual margin of maybe two percent.
We basically shrug an move along when a school gets shot up, so....yeah.
I will point out that Trump has received the same number of votes as in 2020; non-Trump voters, on the other hand, have disappeared. So, yes, some people, a sizable minority want Trump. Most still don't, but couldn't bother to vote.
A really sad piece of news to digest. But not voting for Harris is a vote - for Trump.
And a vote ,for Trump is a vote for Stephen Miller:
“ Yes. We started a new denaturalization project under Trump. In 2025, expect it to be turbocharged.”
Same number as 2020, give or take a million or so. But indeed, the drop-off in Democratic votes is striking. Currently showing ~62.2 million in 2024 versus ~81.2 million in 2020. Per the respective Wikipedia pages…
I will point out that Trump has received the same number of votes as in 2020
I will point out that millions of votes haven't been reported in from the West Coast yet, mostly California. Let's hold off on the pronouncements on exactly how the vote shook out until then, shall we? It looks to my eyes like turnout is going to come pretty close to 2020, and that what happened is that several million Biden voters shifted to Trump instead of sticking with Harris.
Turnout was not the problem.
It was. Harris will end up with about 71 million votes at the most. Biden received 81 million. Trump received the same number as in '20.
More to the point, a lot of people who would/could have voted for Harris didn't. If there are the same number of Trump voters as 2020, that doesn't show any movement from non-Trumpers to Trump. So the fault lies with Harris, sorry to say.
It's actually the World Series. Every time the World Series features the Yankees vs. the Dodgers in a presidential election year, the Republican wins the election.
poor Adlai Stevenson faced 2 of those matchups.
And that's why the Dodgers are just wrong.
Racism
And sexism. God knows when this country ever elects a woman to the presidency. Never?
At the time she was running Biden's campaign, I thought Jen was doing a terrible job, but it turned out it was the candidate that wasn't actually up to running for president. What she did to get Kamala Harris out there and drive the excitement was masterful.
Whittle it down and it's just all about inflation, immigration, and gender.
+1
It was really the greatest losing campaign in US history.
A bull moose would like to talk to you.
I don't think the bull moose held a candle to this, starting in July and creating it's own bandwagon out of thin air, it's a miracle how well they did.
"It was really the greatest losing campaign in US history."
The greatest campaign that happened to lose?
It was really fucking ingenious and masterful.
The key thing lacking, not enough hate.
That seems rather back-handed as compliments go.
It's not.
. . . and race.
People have zero interest in policy. They hear about it and cannot imagine how it will ever affect them.
They vote for personality, and really nothing else.
'Fuck you' is the clever American personality.
Not seeing Fox News on the list. I thought it was Fox News that done it?
I'm tired of hearing people blaming Fox News for everything. No one is tied to a chair and forced to watch. They choose it because Fox News tells them what they want to hear. If there wasn't a Fox News, they'd get the same propaganda from somewhere else.
It's not Fox News. It's the people who watch it.
Well, to some degree. But Fox News packages up what conservatives want to hear so nicely. It's their business model. And the evening commentators act like they are sort of journalists. Since Fox is a news channel, it seems like these commentators are tied into the real facts. But they aren't. They are expert propogandists who seem to believe their own bullshit which makes them rich. (Sean Hannity’s net worth is $300 million.)
I see what you did there, Kevin. I'm on board with it.
Interesting theories.
I think it was a multitude of things but here's a couple
Reagan pushed for LARGE tax cuts for businesses and got them. The economy roared to life but, unfortunately at the expense of the middle class and the poor. But Reagan did show SOME concern for our national debt because he DID raise taxes albeit too little too late. The thing was he got away with it. He got social security taxed among other things
After Reagan all the GOP could do was elect George HW Bush. Likeable guy but not a great orator like Regan. Bush Sr disconnected the upper class from the middle class GOP, and none of his aw shucks speeches could reconnect the GOP to the middle and lower classes.
Interesting that Grover Nordquist and his starve the beast policy grew in popularity during this time but George was done. Instead we elected a brash young Democrat named Clinton to the WH. The economy roared to life (again) allowing for increased spending AND close to balanced budgets. But Clintons tryst with Lewinski brought out the double speak that our politicians are so fond of. "I did no have sex with that girl"!!!! Bill technically was correct but he sullied his marital vows. In doing this he laid the ground work for all subsequent Presidents to flaunt their knowledge of the English Language when trying to wriggle out of politically damaging situations. Linguistic gymnastics in political talk became the norm. Until Barack Obama. He brought back a sense of realism to the White House and democrat party. He included the GOP in policy talks - butted heads with them but gave them a little of what they wanted.
Trump saw an opening to relate to the working class by using coarse language, simple terms, and inappropriate drawings. His was a term of excesses. The hair, the tough talk - the bravado.
Joe Biden did not possess this type of personality. He was and always had been a bit of a policy wonk - worked across the aisle and to this day still has firends on the GOP side.
But Trump played his audience and got a lot of people excited again.
Unfortunately it's too late.
My prediction is Trump will die in office. His life expectancy is too short and his diet and health are questionable to say the least. He's past his expiration dated but republicans do not want to hear that.
I do not wish anything ill for him. Nor do I wish ill for the GOP - but they will get ill trying to figure out whats (or who's) next, if my prediction is correct.
The GOP will fall apart trying to find someone who can emulate DJT.
Two Words:
Racism
Misogyny
I'd add inflation and nostalgia. People wanted life to return to 2019, prices and all and Biden couldn't give that to them. No one can, but Trump claimed he could.
Correct.
+ 1000000
Seems like I vaguely remember another republic where inflation brought in a Leader.
With good German genes.
Actually, inflation had been tamed for years by the time Hitler was appointed.
In addition to Joel’s response, the inflation in Germany in the first part of the 1920s wasn’t just (high) inflation, but hyperinflation.
Anyone who is concerned about the future should not be thinking about the things that might have swung the election a little bit one way or another, but why someone as obviously incompetent and malevolent as Trump even came close in the first place. Only if that problem is solved can progress be made.
It is definitely not inflation or the economy themselves because Trump won in 2016 without those issues and they are not real concerns now. Biden actually did better on these things than Reagan. But the combination of Trump's lies and media bias may have made these things into artificial concerns that influence even those who don't just believe everything Trump says. Something has to substitute for bigotry when people are asked why they vote for Trump because people don't admit to racism.
Bigotry (racism, religiosity, misogyny, regionalism) is the main constant, not just for Trump but for Republicans for the last fifty years. Trump and followers increased the blatant bigotry in the last days, and this is when Harris's poll numbers sank. Trump won against two women, lost against a man.
The creation of the right-wing media of all types must be a major factor in the continued swing to the right, as well as the continued importance of bigotry.
If there aren't solutions to bigotry and the enormous net rightward bias of the media not much else is going to matter.
Stop and think about where racism comes from. It's a throwback to our tribal days where we competed for resources with neighboring tribes. It's rooted in a zero-sum view of the world. I don't think you'll find many white billionaires who are worried about black billionaires. They all know where their money comes from. They're not in competition.
As long as people see themselves in competition with others in a zero-sum game, there will be resentment. Republicans tap into that resentment. Democrats explain to people why they're wrong. Gee, I wonder why things don't turn out well for Democrats.
Word.
Trump was a real-estate investor, and fancied himself a deal-maker, and the acquisition itself is zero-sum — if the seller gets more than the property is objectively worth, he wins and the buyer loses. Trump is considered to have overpaid for a number of his properties (the Plaza, e.g.). He’s trapped in a zero-sum way of thinking.
"Bigotry (racism, religiosity, misogyny, regionalism) is the main constant, not just for Trump but for Republicans for the last fifty years. Trump and followers increased the blatant bigotry in the last days, and this is when Harris's poll numbers sank. Trump won against two women, lost against a man."
That sounds just about right. Unfortunately, I don't see that changing any time soon barring some sort of catastrophy.
It is definitely not inflation or the economy themselves because Trump won in 2016 without those issues and they are not real concerns now
Wait, you really think all elections have to be decided by the same issues? I have news for you: different elections have different deciding factors.
2016 was decided mostly by four factors: (1) Third termitis (2) immigration (3) recessionary conditions in the upper midwest (4) poor candidate quality on the part of Democrats.*
*I like and admire Hillary Clinton a great deal, and she was obviously superior to Trump in myriad ways; but that's just it: he was utterly abysmal—indeed he lost the popular vote—but she still didn't have the charisma/effectiveness as a candidate to put ther campaign over the top. A big part of it went back to Iraq: fairly or not, a lot of the party's left never forgave her for that, as we saw very clearly in the long and bitter 2016 Democratic primary. Basically, Dems were divided that cycle.
Democrats were facing an unfavorable structural political situation in 2016, and needed a very strong candidate. Hillary Clinton was only mediocre.
As for 2024, this year's election was mostly decided by strong anti-incumbency sentiment driven by inflation.
If Sec. Clinton was a mediocre candidate, why didn’t Obama defeat her much earlier for the Democratic nomination in 2008? That was close down to the last primaries.
If Sec. Clinton was a mediocre candidate, why didn’t Obama defeat her much earlier for the Democratic nomination in 2008?
I'm not claiming she was mediocre as a primary candidate. Indeed, she was tough in the primaries, both cycles.
And when I say "mediocre" it's not a knock on her personal skills as a campaigner. I'm saying she didn't possess the optimal mix of attributes* to close with enough persuadable voters or unify her own party.
For what it's worth I'm also not saying she was a poor candidate in the 2016 general election. A lot of people claim this, but not me. I try to choose my words carefully: she was just ordinary. Her campaign wasn't perfect, but it also wasn't the mess a lot of folks allege. Broadly speaking, it was competently run.
But the fundamentals pretty strongly favored the GOP in 2016, and "ordinary" wasn't enough.
*Iraq baggage (unpopular with a lot of young leftists); speaking fee scandal (this was a white hot issue in the era of Occupy Wall Street); lack of excitement/not a new face; lingering resentment in some quarters of her husbands sex scandal; Benghazi (not fair, but it was nonetheless a real vulnerability); Email (ditto not fair). By early 2016 she had quite high unfavorables. That's a just a fact, and Democrats nominated her at their peril. For the record I voted for her in the primary, so I'm not exempting myself from the charge of poor judgment.
Biden should have bowed of the second term a couple of years ago. Then there would've been a battle for the nomination and whoever would've emerged from that battle would have been a stronger candidate than Harris. Nothing against Harris or her campaign. She did a good job under the circumstances, but she was behind the 8 ball.
I'd be happy to re-run the experiment if I could but this kind of hindsight is not all that useful. My guess is Harris would have won an open primary anyway but who knows?
We're speculating what's done gone wrong.
Perhaps, she would've won -- but she would've come out stronger for that. Note, the people who didn't show up to vote were the potential Democratic voters. Trump got pretty much the same totals as in 2020. Could it be that short-circuiting the nomination process dampened the excitement and maybe even alienated some voters?
LOL! An experiment without a control.
Speculative. Sometimes primaries help the eventual nominee, sometimes they hurt him/her.
I think it really was about the economy. If a run of the mill Republican was running the results would have been even worse. Trump being who he is kept the race closer than it would have otherwise been.
If a run of the mill Republican was running the results would have been even tworse. Trump being who he is kept the race closer than it would have otherwise been.
Totally. Glenn Youngkin or Marco Rubio might have flipped two or three additional states and given the GOP more House seats.
Kamala Harris got about the same amount of votes as Hillary Clinton did, so I think the answer is just plain ol' misogyny. It seems like a female candidate will never get much more than 65 million votes no matter who it is or who her opponent is.
No. Harris is likely to have received 5-10 million more votes than Hillary Clinton.
If I read another reference to "low turnout" I think my head is going to explode. People, California and a few other states have millions of additional votes to report!
The unalterable beauty of the American system is there is always a tomorrow.
Nothing anyone does can ever change that.
However bad they are will never change this, if they did it would be admission that they're wrong and they'll never admit that.
Sorry, but for me “tomorrow” looks more like “Tomorrow Belongs To Me” from Cabaret:
https://youtu.be/_tUctFu46_c?si=pojaMfVY_LKeOhUM
Only a moment, the other moments mean more because they remain afterward.
No. The damage Trump will probably do in this second term will be long-lasting.
Destruction of the administrative structure of government will be difficult -- approaching impossible -- to reverse. Competent bureaucrats and scientists will not flock back to work in an "at will" environment wherein they must pledge fealty to a president who is free to issue illegal orders without accountability.
The federal judiciary will be packed with marginally competent ideologues like Aileen Cannon for generations, during which they will find quasi-legal reasons to rewrite the constitution.
The United States will go from being the "essential" nation to being a laughing stock to being an isolated international curmudgeon and bully, while leading the way toward ignoring climate change, to the extreme detriment of all of us.
Just a few "no tomorrow" thoughts off the top of my head. You know there are many more.
Dems can either make excuses and blame the other side or they can look for real answers and do some soul searching. Personally, Kamala lost my vote in 2016 when I saw her on a video cackling about arresting the parents of truants. Like she thought it was funny. Plus, claiming she could do it against everyone else's advice because she could. Never trusted her since then.
There were plenty of things that reinforced this decision. I am very bitter about medicalizing trans-children. (Don't say it doesn't happen - it happened in my family). I love the children, but horrified by the policy. There will be a day of reckoning for the "experts" and their allies. My grandsons will never again have the choice of having their own biological children.
I was also frustrated by the Dems trying to control the information we could get on social media. I wanted MORE information on COVID, not just "shut your mouth and wear your mask." The Dems couldn't have handled it worse, including their worship of Fauci. I give Trump a pass because there were still many unknowns in 2020, and he seemed to be trying to question the system he walked into.
And mostly: the Dems are the real Republicans. They represent the wealthy and highly educated. Funny thing that's who voted for them. I was looking for someone who didn't dis the poor and uneducated (or should I call them trash or deplorables.) The Dems lost me when I realized I was voting against everything I believed in. Like a social net for everyone. And a color blind society. And peace.
Which brings me to: Kevin listed all the Repubs that went Dem a few weeks ago, and most, if not all, had one thing in common: they pushed for the Iraq war and every other war in the Middle East. That's what the Dems have become.
BTW - I voted for Hilary, but had reservations because of her involvement in Iraq and Libya. Last time I voted for Biden, as a middle of the road kind of guy. That was another misjudgment. And, yes, I voted for Trump this time. Been bit too many times.
I appreciate your honest take but I find it amazing that Trump never said anything that caused you to not trust him, though Kamala did. I'll refrain from providing examples since I'm sure you can think of plenty for yourself.
"The Dems lost me when I realized I was voting against everything I believed in. Like a social net for everyone. And a color blind society. And peace."
If this is really true that is an amazing statement. There will be no "social net for everyone" under MAGA. And it is truly astounding to me that the open and proud racism is so lost on you that you could mention a color blind society.
And the thought process that gets you to think about middle east wars when you talk about Dick Cheney etc. endorsing Kamala--I mean I sort of get it but it still boggles my mind. I mean Biden and Kamala are the ones who got us out of Afghanistan. The only peace Trump wants is to give all the world's worst actors a free hand to do what they want so he can keep the US military at home to go after his perceived enemies, something he has said many times he plans to do. And his vision of peace in Ukraine is for Ukraine to just surrender already.
Anyway I do wonder how many people share your perspective. I mean to me you just seem very willing to give Trump a pass on just about everything and are holding Dems to a higher standard. But if I thought MAGA was the party of peace, social safety nets, and racial harmony, I'd sign up to. But that is so far from how I see it I'm just running out of words.
Ask him if he takes his pay in Rubles or Yuan.
Yeah, he’s either lying or dumber than a fence post.
they pushed for the Iraq war and every other war in the Middle East. That's what the Dems have become.
Kamala Harris, whom you may note is not the same person as Joe Biden, vowed to put maximum pressure as president on the Israeli government to stop the war in Gaza.
Trump, on the other hand, was reportedly supported 98-2 by Israeli settlers in the West Bank. I wonder why that might be?
Not only will you not get the change you want, you helped throw away the only realistic chance for pushback against Netanyahu for the next four years. Oh, and in the bargain, you helped bring in a lunatic who will fuck over your own country in addition to millions of Palestinians. If you're lucky, he may even ban Muslims from entering again.
The joke's on you, friend.
My answer: America watched a feeble old man say and do absoutely crazy things, break laws, steal secrets, incite riots, and tell whopping lies. And then they said: Yeah, let's have more of that.
Haha, if you can ignore the cultural damage he does, it can be entertaining. It sure gives Colbert a lot of good material.
Too get away from the facile suggestions, my framing is as follows:
1) Trump got 73m votes in 2024 and 74m votes in 2020. Harris got 68m votes in 2024 and Biden got 81m votes in 2022. Trump turned out basically all of his supporters, and Harris didn't. (And there are something like an additional 75m eligible voters who didn't participate in either election.)
2) A large percentage of voters are "low information" voters. They don't know what critical race theory is, they don't know what the current inflation rate is, they don't know what January 6th was, they won't read a published policy document such as was published on Harris website. (Even I wouldn't read the 2025 Heritage Foundation doc.)
3) Trump does a hugely good job of reaching his audience and telling them what to think. He's a con man so he knows the mark is low information and needs to be told what to think. He knows how to create brands and co-market brands and re-market existing brands. He knows how to advertise his message through multiple communication channels. He understands that poltics is a form of entertainment, especially in terms of reaching low information voters.
Conclusion: Democrats are not marketing well enough. Kevin wrote up a good list of the things that Democrats have done for the working class: increased oil and gas production to keep energy prices low ; increased ev sales and electrified homes both for climate change and because it is a cheaper form of energy ; onshored manufacturing via the CHIPs act and IRA and BIL; got us out of Afghanistan. But Democrats failed to deliver this message to the low information voters, and failed to couple that message with "if you turn out to vote for us, this is what you will win".
Corallary: black men, latino men, women, young people, (insert your favorite demographic group here) did not turn toward Trump. The Harris voters failed to turnout. The percentage of each demographic that supports Trump is the same as it ever was, but Trump fully turned out his supporters, and the Democrats failed to turn out their supporters.
Corallary: working class people are not "not buying what Democrats are selling". Democrats are failing to advertise what they are selling to the working class. We should not retreat from DEI, health care, reproductive rights, expanded access to education, expanded access to home ownership, climate change solutions, minimum wage, prisoner rights, etc. We should market them more effectively to low information voters.
1) Trump got 73m votes in 2024 and 74m votes in 2020. Harris got 68m votes in 2024 and Biden got 81m votes in 2022. Trump turned out basically all of his supporters, and Harris didn't.
False. California (and Washington and Oregon, I think) hasn't reported in all its ballots. The rest of your mistaken premise flows from this initial error.
Trump won because he's not a Democrat. His voters are not going to vote for a pro-immigration, pro-abortion, pro-LBGTQ candidate unless they are suffering real pain economic or otherwise. They can afford to indulge their feelings because the government is running pretty well. Ironic.
One name only
MERRICK FUCKING GARLAND!
Any analysis other than this is just jacking off, people are just pissed off in general and voting out the incumbent, everywhere, Dems actually did better than most incumbent parties.
https://x.com/dkthomp/status/1854498882438181265?s=61&t=T-aAp84lKkJa8wlZ34lzYA
Dems actually did better than most incumbent parties.
Yep, and congressional Republicans faired worse than Trump.
Once the West Coast vote is in, we're going to see that Trump got just about 50% of the vote, and Harris about 48% of the vote. A painful loss. And possibly even a tragic one if worst case scenarios come to pass. But that's not a foregone conclusion, and meanwhile we're still a 50-50 nation. This cycle a modest sliver switched to Orange Man because of nine dollar Happy Meals.
We're likely to see strong thermostatic effects help Democrats in 2026.
Appreciate your optimism, but the damage a second Trump administration can do by 2026 will be significant and last for generations. Demolition of the civil service, appointment of mediocre ideologues to the federal bench, wrecking international relationships with key allies in NATO and elsewhere, abandonment of any climate change remediation efforts...
And I think it's fair to say that the "transition" team is already thinking about illegal actions the new president can take for which he is presumptively exempt from prosecution (thanks to the pre-packed Supreme Court), so who knows what fascist things he might try, which will then be written into precedent forever?
I think it's because she wasn't in the news every gorram day, hour by hour. Sure, Trump got non-stop bad press... but he got press, didn't he?
The WSJ editorial page, while also bemoaning the lack of mercury in toothpaste and calling for unaccompanied young ladies to be banned from streetcars, says Harris lost because academics use the term "Latinx."
That explains it!
lol!
She should of run on the accomplishments of the Biden/Harris administration.
Infrastructure. Chips act. Investments in America's future.
Trump ran on a dystopian America. Democrats have to run on reality.