Because the Democratic spin doctors could not put anything he did in a positive light. He could have cured AIDS and his press secretary would have messed up the message.
True. And DJT makes Dubs look brilliant in hindsight. Though bad off-the-cuff speaker vs. crazy talk should also have been an easy match, as mentioned before this is not a rational audience.
Now I know you are being hyperbolic but it was never going to be anything but a “normal” win either way. As stated here and elsewhere, the input premises and information fed into half of the voter group by media and the algorithms are in opposition to the expectation what’s an “obvious” result. GIGO.
Yes and no. I really struggle how anyone could vote for Trump unless they are truly a malignant individual. Of course, a 60/40 “landslide” would have been fine, but I would have wondered who the heck was in the 40%.
It’s hard to understand Trump supporters like this:
She has been taken away from her husband and kids, locked up, is in the removal process, and yet she still supports Trump and thinks he’ll do the right thing. That’s the kind of voters Trump has. She’s not the only one. Many of his supporters are from groups that he disdains yet they passionately give him their support. It’s hard to understand how anyone who isn’t a white Christian supports Trump since it’s just a matter of time before he stabs them in the back.
They’ve bought the line that somebody else, the Ds, are an existential threat to the USA. Trump the savior will save the country. All else is details they don’t understand.
But they’ve been fed that mantra every minute for the last 20 years and they repeat it to themselves in their sleep.
No, only about half of them
Right
It is possible to be an ignorant idiot and accidentally vote for the right person.
LMFAO. Wish you were wrong.
Waaaay back earlier in the thread I was more positive about Kamala running again, but now I am not. At the same time, there is no Democrat that I particularly love as a 2028 presidential candidate (maybe AOC–more on that in a sec), but I think that Kamala is disqualified at this point.
The reason is simple: she hasn’t been a leader–at all–since then. She’s working from the old template: shucks, I lost the election, better keep my head down a bit–I lost, after all–but we’ll git ya at the next election! Nixon did it, so can I. Oh, and book tour, whoo hoo!!!
Umm, nope! Kamala’s only chance was to become, despite her loss, the leader in this crisis. If not the leader, at least a leader. At the very least… a presence?!
In contrast, the aforementioned AOC has been as big a fighter as any. I don’t find what she’s done amazing or transcendent, but it’s at least something. AOC is also interesting as a politician, and she is not anti-entertaining (repulsive?) in the way that Newsom is. Pritzker is… fine, I guess. He’s said some things against Trump that are good, but at the same time they would seem to me to be what any Democrat should be saying, i.e., the baseline, so it’s hard to be inspired.
But all three of these are better than Kamala, who just isn’t there at all. Barring some unexpected transformation (which I don’t expect!), she’s done and has no chance.
Then who have been the fighters, in your opinion, beside Newsome? Certainly not Jeffries or Schumer. No governors spring to mind except maybe Pritzker. AGs filing lawsuits against Trump? Who would vote for Phil Weiser? The progressives (you mention AOC) have been relatively silent.
The way I see it, many Dems, both Liberals and Progressives, just did not and still do not have an effective contingency plan for all what’s going on right now and so are quiet because if challenged would have to admit “I got nuthin’”.
Not any harder than it is to understand how anyone who is a Christian believes that Trump is one.
Tribalism. To a lot of people “Christian” is shorthand for “on my side”; not for any particular adherence to Christianity.