Kamala is young yet, politically speaking. She can use the time to step outside of the terrible information silo that surrounds her and get some gravitas.
True, but it is hard to imagine anything lies ahead for her politically. At the end of the day, the D party needs candidates who win. And what office would she run for? Back to the Senate? I just don't see it happening. I think we'll see a book and a speaking tour.
Kamala is a cipher to me (part of her problem), I can't tell what her potential is. If she has what it takes, she'll find another path than settling for a sinecure of bitter loserdom, which is what some of her political "allies" are undoubtedly offering her.
In the wider sense, it's still an open question as to whether the brain trust of the Democratic Party (or what passes for it) is up for doing an honest review of how poorly they prepared themselves for the 2024 election. They just staggered from one inertial response to another. An intelligent party with the wind at its back in 2021 would have demanded that Biden hold to his promise to be a one-term transition president. And then the party leadership needed to make it clear to Harris that she really needed to make clear that she had the fire ("in the belly"--old pol cliche) to commit to running in the 2024 primaries for the nomination, because she was convinced that she would be the best choice for President. And to be prepared to compete against other candidates in those primaries, because the nominating process is supposed to rely on democracy.
That isn't what happened. What happened is that Biden was clinging to chasing the re-election prize with the last remaining reserves of his ossified ego, and by the time he dropped out, with the primary season over and the election four months away, defaulting to Kamala Harris was the only practical resort. That situation isn't merely an example of poor strategy and tactics; it's an example of NO strategy and tactics. Biden's decrepitude and Harris' lack of executive and foreign policy experience wasn't even a matter of foresight, it was staring the people around them in the face. They had to go out of their way to ignore it. Which I suppose is what happens, when political appeal is held to center on identity politics rather than matters of motivation and competence. As if it was all about plugging in the "mixed-race black female" interchangeable widget, and the door to victory swings open.
The lessons that Kamala Harris needs to learn are nothing in comparison to what the Democratic Party needs to learn. But Kamala does need to reflect on the fact that there are other ways to play a productive role in American society than being elected to a four-year Presidential term.
Yeah, no doubt Kamala would have stood a better chance if she had a clean runway for campaigning. The Dems should have thought ahead. It must have been obvious to them that Biden wasn’t fit to run again. They waited until the 11th hour to pivot
oh, they were "thinking ahead". In that lackadaisical "gentlefolx of politics" way that led them to neglect the basics or electoral campaign strategy, while mustering all of their forces in a full-frontal assault on Donald Trump's personal character. Only to learn that the only people who bought into that gambit as a surefire strategy to weaken his candidacy were already gathered inside of the same information silo. To the rest of us, it reeked of desperation. The Democrats and their allies were literally trying to get Donald Trump declared ineligible to run in connection with a judicial verdict--and they put a lot of time and mental focus into assuring themselves that it would work, until they found out that it didn't. Meanwhile, the candidate that they were readying for re-election was showing obvious signs of cognitive decline at a steepening rate, but they weren't going to allow a minor impediment like that to stop them from continuing down the path of least resistance. Until, you know, panic mode, with the election four months away. If the November 2022 midterm election results (encouraging!) count as a starting point, the Democrats squandered 4/5 of that time--including the entire 2024 primary season--tailoring an invisible wardrobe for the incumbent to wear at his public appearances.
I'm no political scientist, so maybe that Harris did not become the candidate through the conventional process was super important or that she did not do enough podcasts. (I'd be delighted if all political campaigns coud begin in July.)
I voted for she because she has the least bad economic program: lower (though far too high) deficits the result of not enough increase in income taxes not a reduction, no deportation of long established residents (especially "dreamers"), less costly border control (and the suspicion that Trump does not want to actually DO border control just perform doing it), some(but not enough) increase in legal immigration of skilled, and talented people, less (though far too much) restriction of people's ability to do mutually beneficial transactions with foreigners, climate change is real and asking it inefficiently is better than saying that it is a hoax.
And trying to remain in power after loosing an election is more than just a character flaw ; it's a fundamental disdain for our system of government, not different in kind from Chavez or Orban or Putin or Erdogan who have been able to move their countries in profoundly illiberal ways.
I think (speculating) that the economy and immigration were excuses to vote for Trump, and Kamala didn’t give voters, from a human connection, authenticity standpoint, an excuse not to vote for Trump. She didn’t resonate, and it didn’t even seem like she was trying to
>>>I mean for fuck’s sake, the *Girl Boss* “I’m speaking,” campaign sent a man out to speak for Kamala on election night when she was expected to address her supporters.<<<
>>>Perhaps she could have courted the Catholic vote had she attended the Al Davis Dinner—she was absent yet again.<<<
>>>Kamala had every chance to court my vote—it was hers for the taking. But she shied away from long-form, unscripted conversations that might have shown us her real self.<<<
>>>Instead, the Kamala Harris we got to see was akin to a ChatGPT-written essay: smooth to the point of suspicion, overly polished, and entirely risk-averse. And like ChatGPT, her answers to the same question would vary based on the identity of the person asking the question.<<<
You are absolutely correct. I am shocked when people speak favorably of her-- can't they tell that she is not a person? There is no coherent "self" behind the avatar which is Kamala Harris. I really don't understand what people are connecting to-- to me, there is nothing there.
The entire campaign strategy was structured around hiding her. You don't mention it, but her refusal to do Joe Rogan was really the best example-- all she would have had to do is show up and be a normal person for a while. I never thought a candidate could make Hillary Clinton seem so human in comparison.
And I get it-- I understand voting AGAINST Trump, or voting FOR this sort of shadowy, governance-by-unelected-agency-experts administration (a genuinely viable governance method considering how complex the modern world is). But it is very difficult for me to understand simply seeing Kamala as a capable and genuine human being.
Exactly. They set out to run a campaign on vibes, and got exactly what they asked for. Kamala didn’t pass the eye test, and that’s saying a lot when evidently Trump DID.
While I agree with the general thesis that this election was a rebuke of "wokeism," most Harris voters would throw your criticisms of the Democratic party as "pro-war, pro-censorship, pro-lawfare, pro-establishment—" right at Trump and the GOP.
Trump has repeatedly called the media the "enemy of the people," for example, and pushed for changes to libel laws and section 230.
He has threatened members of his own party with military tribunals for crossing him.
Trump himself is, and never was, a man of the people, they see him as part of the "establishment." He dodged service in Vietnam, grew up rich, and used money and fame to get where he is today.
Fair. And agreed, many of those criticisms can go both ways. Except for the media part, in my view. It’s widely apparent that the legacy media outlets are, as a collective, heavily slanted to the left. And they run their coverage accordingly.
Not all legacy media. CNN and MSNBC are for sure. I lost complete trust in CNN in early 2021.
I remember in Jan/Feb 2021, just as the vaccines were being rolled out, they reported that the Trump administration had “no plan” for the vaccine rollout after the Biden admin took over.
Yet…I looked at the data, despite being geographically larger and having a higher population, the US was getting people vaccinated faster than all other Western nations. What bunk.
They diminished one of the best achievements of the Trump admin…I say this as someone who doesn’t like him at all.
If these networks could be fair and reasoned, they wouldn’t be so distrusted.
Yeah. Operation warpspeed was no small feat. And the Biden administration deserves credit for carrying that baton. But if you recall media coverage throughout, they swiftly shifted from stoking distrust in a vaccine solution to practically disavowing anyone brave enough to criticize the vaccine’s efficacy.
They must become more objective. Problem is, the Trump outrage beat is great for ratings. So let’s just say I’m not hopeful
“But Trump” is another reason they lost. They used it as an excuse to be 99.9% as bad as Trump, and practically destroyed any real difference between the two parties. If they had given us traditional liberal policy to vote *for* it may not have wound up a contest of vibes.
Amen to that.Trump is a flawed man, but a real man. And his heart is in the right place. It is not at all shameful to want America to be strong, sovereign and great.
So you guys are essentially the Taliban of America, silent sleeper agents who vote for candidates based on their unhinged rhetoric and vibes. Got it. Thank you for letting us know that you are a shameless degenerate who values unhinged authenticity over sober political correctness. Excellent. The Taliban of America.
I thought decent people would vote for exactly the opposite of what reminded them of their worst impulses, or what felt furthest or least relatable to their worst impulses.
This article is a euphemism for: we are not decent people, we are shameless, and we don't care.
There are two sets of policies that Trump has come out in favor of that many say would be quite devastating to the economy. These are what kept many people who care about fiscal policy away from the guy.
One is the “across the board” Tariffs, the other is the mass deportations. Are you in the “he wouldn’t actually do it” camp, the “it’s not really that bad to do it” camp or the “actually, these are good ideas” camp for those proposals?
Across the board tariffs, irrespective of what Trump has said one time or another, will not happen (in my view. Not feasible, and certainly not favorable.
My hope (and belief) is that he and his admin will approach trade discussions with the threat of tariffs as leverage, even if not an outright threat (his campaign rhetoric established that narrative effectively). Pragmatism is my hope, and with Trump that hope isn’t unreasonable.
With Harris, it would have been unreasonable to hope for any change from the status quo. She’s a “steady hand” for establishment agenda just as much as Biden was.
Trump has been arguing for tariffs his whole public life. If you want to know what’s going to happen just look at the markets. The Mexican peso is way down and so are other emerging economy export markets. China has already readied their set of retaliatory tariff measures. I’m not sure why you so confidently assume it won’t happen. Everyone who has actual skin in the game outside the US is preparing for it to happen and Trump has a free hand here as opposed to other policies he might try. You say that Trump is “pragmatic.” What do you mean by that? Are you saying you’re think he’ll reconsider if the markets go down? But why threaten something in the first place that you’d reconsider if it worked against you? It doesn’t actually work as a threat. Trump is a great entertainer. He’s a great con man who is good at the first sale. But he has no real plan here. Once he’s in control of something he just improvises, trying to keep it running as long as he can and protecting himself from the negative fallout. He’s not trying to ensure American business competitiveness or shared prosperity for everyone. He’s in it for his own glory and pride. It’s been this way for a long time. When I was a kid I got interested in stocks and I remember looking his up. It was worth $4. I looked at the stock history chart and it was relentlessly down. That’s because ultimately the stock was a scam. It was a way to get retail investors to pay off his casino bankruptcy debts. Trump raided the public company for himself and left investors holding the debt. It was one of the greatest cons in history but it left everyone else holding the bag. That’s what will happen again here. Donald Trump is the Music Man.
Kamala is young yet, politically speaking. She can use the time to step outside of the terrible information silo that surrounds her and get some gravitas.
True, but it is hard to imagine anything lies ahead for her politically. At the end of the day, the D party needs candidates who win. And what office would she run for? Back to the Senate? I just don't see it happening. I think we'll see a book and a speaking tour.
Kamala is a cipher to me (part of her problem), I can't tell what her potential is. If she has what it takes, she'll find another path than settling for a sinecure of bitter loserdom, which is what some of her political "allies" are undoubtedly offering her.
In the wider sense, it's still an open question as to whether the brain trust of the Democratic Party (or what passes for it) is up for doing an honest review of how poorly they prepared themselves for the 2024 election. They just staggered from one inertial response to another. An intelligent party with the wind at its back in 2021 would have demanded that Biden hold to his promise to be a one-term transition president. And then the party leadership needed to make it clear to Harris that she really needed to make clear that she had the fire ("in the belly"--old pol cliche) to commit to running in the 2024 primaries for the nomination, because she was convinced that she would be the best choice for President. And to be prepared to compete against other candidates in those primaries, because the nominating process is supposed to rely on democracy.
That isn't what happened. What happened is that Biden was clinging to chasing the re-election prize with the last remaining reserves of his ossified ego, and by the time he dropped out, with the primary season over and the election four months away, defaulting to Kamala Harris was the only practical resort. That situation isn't merely an example of poor strategy and tactics; it's an example of NO strategy and tactics. Biden's decrepitude and Harris' lack of executive and foreign policy experience wasn't even a matter of foresight, it was staring the people around them in the face. They had to go out of their way to ignore it. Which I suppose is what happens, when political appeal is held to center on identity politics rather than matters of motivation and competence. As if it was all about plugging in the "mixed-race black female" interchangeable widget, and the door to victory swings open.
The lessons that Kamala Harris needs to learn are nothing in comparison to what the Democratic Party needs to learn. But Kamala does need to reflect on the fact that there are other ways to play a productive role in American society than being elected to a four-year Presidential term.
Yeah, no doubt Kamala would have stood a better chance if she had a clean runway for campaigning. The Dems should have thought ahead. It must have been obvious to them that Biden wasn’t fit to run again. They waited until the 11th hour to pivot
oh, they were "thinking ahead". In that lackadaisical "gentlefolx of politics" way that led them to neglect the basics or electoral campaign strategy, while mustering all of their forces in a full-frontal assault on Donald Trump's personal character. Only to learn that the only people who bought into that gambit as a surefire strategy to weaken his candidacy were already gathered inside of the same information silo. To the rest of us, it reeked of desperation. The Democrats and their allies were literally trying to get Donald Trump declared ineligible to run in connection with a judicial verdict--and they put a lot of time and mental focus into assuring themselves that it would work, until they found out that it didn't. Meanwhile, the candidate that they were readying for re-election was showing obvious signs of cognitive decline at a steepening rate, but they weren't going to allow a minor impediment like that to stop them from continuing down the path of least resistance. Until, you know, panic mode, with the election four months away. If the November 2022 midterm election results (encouraging!) count as a starting point, the Democrats squandered 4/5 of that time--including the entire 2024 primary season--tailoring an invisible wardrobe for the incumbent to wear at his public appearances.
I'm no political scientist, so maybe that Harris did not become the candidate through the conventional process was super important or that she did not do enough podcasts. (I'd be delighted if all political campaigns coud begin in July.)
I voted for she because she has the least bad economic program: lower (though far too high) deficits the result of not enough increase in income taxes not a reduction, no deportation of long established residents (especially "dreamers"), less costly border control (and the suspicion that Trump does not want to actually DO border control just perform doing it), some(but not enough) increase in legal immigration of skilled, and talented people, less (though far too much) restriction of people's ability to do mutually beneficial transactions with foreigners, climate change is real and asking it inefficiently is better than saying that it is a hoax.
And trying to remain in power after loosing an election is more than just a character flaw ; it's a fundamental disdain for our system of government, not different in kind from Chavez or Orban or Putin or Erdogan who have been able to move their countries in profoundly illiberal ways.
I think (speculating) that the economy and immigration were excuses to vote for Trump, and Kamala didn’t give voters, from a human connection, authenticity standpoint, an excuse not to vote for Trump. She didn’t resonate, and it didn’t even seem like she was trying to
Great article, thank you for sharing it.
>>>I mean for fuck’s sake, the *Girl Boss* “I’m speaking,” campaign sent a man out to speak for Kamala on election night when she was expected to address her supporters.<<<
>>>Perhaps she could have courted the Catholic vote had she attended the Al Davis Dinner—she was absent yet again.<<<
>>>Kamala had every chance to court my vote—it was hers for the taking. But she shied away from long-form, unscripted conversations that might have shown us her real self.<<<
>>>Instead, the Kamala Harris we got to see was akin to a ChatGPT-written essay: smooth to the point of suspicion, overly polished, and entirely risk-averse. And like ChatGPT, her answers to the same question would vary based on the identity of the person asking the question.<<<
You are absolutely correct. I am shocked when people speak favorably of her-- can't they tell that she is not a person? There is no coherent "self" behind the avatar which is Kamala Harris. I really don't understand what people are connecting to-- to me, there is nothing there.
The entire campaign strategy was structured around hiding her. You don't mention it, but her refusal to do Joe Rogan was really the best example-- all she would have had to do is show up and be a normal person for a while. I never thought a candidate could make Hillary Clinton seem so human in comparison.
And I get it-- I understand voting AGAINST Trump, or voting FOR this sort of shadowy, governance-by-unelected-agency-experts administration (a genuinely viable governance method considering how complex the modern world is). But it is very difficult for me to understand simply seeing Kamala as a capable and genuine human being.
Exactly. They set out to run a campaign on vibes, and got exactly what they asked for. Kamala didn’t pass the eye test, and that’s saying a lot when evidently Trump DID.
While I agree with the general thesis that this election was a rebuke of "wokeism," most Harris voters would throw your criticisms of the Democratic party as "pro-war, pro-censorship, pro-lawfare, pro-establishment—" right at Trump and the GOP.
Trump has repeatedly called the media the "enemy of the people," for example, and pushed for changes to libel laws and section 230.
He has threatened members of his own party with military tribunals for crossing him.
Trump himself is, and never was, a man of the people, they see him as part of the "establishment." He dodged service in Vietnam, grew up rich, and used money and fame to get where he is today.
Fair. And agreed, many of those criticisms can go both ways. Except for the media part, in my view. It’s widely apparent that the legacy media outlets are, as a collective, heavily slanted to the left. And they run their coverage accordingly.
Not all legacy media. CNN and MSNBC are for sure. I lost complete trust in CNN in early 2021.
I remember in Jan/Feb 2021, just as the vaccines were being rolled out, they reported that the Trump administration had “no plan” for the vaccine rollout after the Biden admin took over.
Yet…I looked at the data, despite being geographically larger and having a higher population, the US was getting people vaccinated faster than all other Western nations. What bunk.
They diminished one of the best achievements of the Trump admin…I say this as someone who doesn’t like him at all.
If these networks could be fair and reasoned, they wouldn’t be so distrusted.
Yeah. Operation warpspeed was no small feat. And the Biden administration deserves credit for carrying that baton. But if you recall media coverage throughout, they swiftly shifted from stoking distrust in a vaccine solution to practically disavowing anyone brave enough to criticize the vaccine’s efficacy.
They must become more objective. Problem is, the Trump outrage beat is great for ratings. So let’s just say I’m not hopeful
“But Trump” is another reason they lost. They used it as an excuse to be 99.9% as bad as Trump, and practically destroyed any real difference between the two parties. If they had given us traditional liberal policy to vote *for* it may not have wound up a contest of vibes.
Amen to that.Trump is a flawed man, but a real man. And his heart is in the right place. It is not at all shameful to want America to be strong, sovereign and great.
So you guys are essentially the Taliban of America, silent sleeper agents who vote for candidates based on their unhinged rhetoric and vibes. Got it. Thank you for letting us know that you are a shameless degenerate who values unhinged authenticity over sober political correctness. Excellent. The Taliban of America.
I thought decent people would vote for exactly the opposite of what reminded them of their worst impulses, or what felt furthest or least relatable to their worst impulses.
This article is a euphemism for: we are not decent people, we are shameless, and we don't care.
There are two sets of policies that Trump has come out in favor of that many say would be quite devastating to the economy. These are what kept many people who care about fiscal policy away from the guy.
One is the “across the board” Tariffs, the other is the mass deportations. Are you in the “he wouldn’t actually do it” camp, the “it’s not really that bad to do it” camp or the “actually, these are good ideas” camp for those proposals?
Across the board tariffs, irrespective of what Trump has said one time or another, will not happen (in my view. Not feasible, and certainly not favorable.
My hope (and belief) is that he and his admin will approach trade discussions with the threat of tariffs as leverage, even if not an outright threat (his campaign rhetoric established that narrative effectively). Pragmatism is my hope, and with Trump that hope isn’t unreasonable.
With Harris, it would have been unreasonable to hope for any change from the status quo. She’s a “steady hand” for establishment agenda just as much as Biden was.
Trump has been arguing for tariffs his whole public life. If you want to know what’s going to happen just look at the markets. The Mexican peso is way down and so are other emerging economy export markets. China has already readied their set of retaliatory tariff measures. I’m not sure why you so confidently assume it won’t happen. Everyone who has actual skin in the game outside the US is preparing for it to happen and Trump has a free hand here as opposed to other policies he might try. You say that Trump is “pragmatic.” What do you mean by that? Are you saying you’re think he’ll reconsider if the markets go down? But why threaten something in the first place that you’d reconsider if it worked against you? It doesn’t actually work as a threat. Trump is a great entertainer. He’s a great con man who is good at the first sale. But he has no real plan here. Once he’s in control of something he just improvises, trying to keep it running as long as he can and protecting himself from the negative fallout. He’s not trying to ensure American business competitiveness or shared prosperity for everyone. He’s in it for his own glory and pride. It’s been this way for a long time. When I was a kid I got interested in stocks and I remember looking his up. It was worth $4. I looked at the stock history chart and it was relentlessly down. That’s because ultimately the stock was a scam. It was a way to get retail investors to pay off his casino bankruptcy debts. Trump raided the public company for himself and left investors holding the debt. It was one of the greatest cons in history but it left everyone else holding the bag. That’s what will happen again here. Donald Trump is the Music Man.
My vibe is online.