Given that Donald is pushing for his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, to be named to fill the U.S. Senate seat in Florida that Marco Rubio is vacating, I think Lara might be more likely. Ivanka seems to have willingly removed herself from the public stage since 2020.
Pardon me, I very much want to see a female President of USA but not another Trump please.
And she lost all of those swing states, which Biden had won four years earlier. She had her shot.
It helped to some extent but not the only factor imo. She had to fight the party establishment even back then in the 70s.
As I said earlier inflation and border issues to blame.
But that still doesn’t address the central issue; a female nominee does not necessarily lead to a female President.
And as I said a few posts ago, I think it’s likely that, if the Democrats are able to field a great candidate in 2028, it’ll be someone who isn’t widely-known today.
Female nominee is the first step to a female President.
I am far less invested and excited at the prospect of seeing a female president than I am concerned about losing yet another presidential election to the GOP.
Don’t get me wrong—I would be thrilled to see a woman get elected president, but it takes a distinct second place to being able to win a presidential election.
The bottom line is that we should pick the best possible candidate for president, and if that person happens to be a woman, then great. But we should not be picking the best possible woman for candidate.
And it should go without saying, but just because a politician is a woman doesn’t necessarily make them a desirable candidate. On the GOP side, look at Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, for example. The are no less loony because they are women.
Please tell me did you feel Kamala was not the “best possible candidate” and not just the “best possible female candidate” in 2024 ?
I feel the democrat party elders chose her as the best possible candidate rather than best possible female candidate.
In my opinion, as the incumbent vice-president, Kamala Harris was indeed the best possible candidate regardless of gender when the sitting president decided to drop out of the race four months before the general election.
It’s anyone’s guess if she would have been the best possible candidate if Biden had dropped out of the race a year earlier.
God no.
I’m not happy about this, but this country sadly isn’t ready for a woman president. Harris got 75 million votes and thats wonderful. But the democratic candidate needs 80+ million votes to win.
It doesn’t matter that 75 million of us were happy to vote for Harris. What matters is there are ~6 million swing voters not willing to vote for a woman.
Biden got 81 million votes in 2020, Harris got 75 million votes in 2024.
I feel the 6 million difference can be attributed to inflation + border issues rather than gender.
Thats possible. Researchers haven’t done enough investigation into the 2024 election yet. But Trump got 3 million more votes than he got in 2020 and Harris got 6 million fewer votes than Biden got in 2020. There are probably multiple reasons. But realistically, race and gender are some of the reasons.
The point is that in a close election year, a couple million people swinging to the other party can make the difference in an election.
She was the only possible candidate. Biden being forced out of the race (which I still insist was the wrong choice, because he probably would have won) happened far too late for any kind of primary process to take place.
I agree it was far too late.
Agree…hope some post election data comes out soon.
It seems like the sort of Democrats who are passionately committed to learning nothing are overrepresented in this thread.
She lost to Donald Fucking Trump. Whatever the bar is for “running a good campaign” is needs to be higher than that!
No, no one “has to” do anything.
The attitude that the presidential nomination should go to the person in the party whose “turn” it is or to the next demographic category on the checklist, rather than the person who has the best chance of winning the election, is detached from reality. It was in 2008 when Clinton threw a fit over the gall of Obama running against her when it was her “turn,” it was in 2016 when the first incarnation of “you have to vote for a woman or you’re a sexist” was tried, and it was in 2024 when the 2016 playbook was run again with the same result.
Kamala Harris was a bad candidate. The fact that she received almost no support in the 2020 primary reflects this. She had to be the candidate in 2024 because by law the only person who could claim Biden’s fundraising at that stage was his VP. They were stuck with her. But nothing about the reasons she was a bad candidate in 2020 had actually changed:
*As a California Democrat, Harris has never faced a competitive election with any electorate remotely resembling the people in Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, etc. who actually decided the 2024 race.
*She was tied to all sorts of deeply unpopular positions, including the “trans surgery for immigrant prisoners” thing which became such a valuable ad point for Trump due to her own poor political instincts (letting herself be recorded on video explicitly saying she endorsed it in clear language, then denying it later).
*She is not very intelligent or articulate. Most of what comes out of her mouth is rambling gibberish. She looks kind of OK compared to Biden and Trump, who are both half-senile and prone to their own form of windbag nonsense. But she doesn’t inspire anyone or come off as any kind of thinker or rhetorician the way Obama does. The fact that she’s clearly zonked out on benzos for 99% of her public appearances certainly doesn’t help.
*Her campaign conceded Trump’s biggest selling point by pretending inflation was a major concern and running commercials about “price gouging.” Other positive elements of the Biden era that she was associated with were ignored e.g. not a single ad mentioned moving from bodies stacked in streets under Trump to COVID now being a manageable flu that only elderly anti-vaxxers have to worry about. These were the fundamental poor decisions about the campaign and they were compounded by refusing to repudiate an array of extreme “progressive” ideas that median voters hate.
Every poll shows that voters viewed Harris as too far left. Some of the perception of what she stood for is accurate, some is due to baffling decisions made about how she presented herself. There is no basis to think that being more “progressive” or “populist” by almost any definition would have helped. Harris running on “open borders, trans access to every locker room, Israel can go fuck itself, nationalize the grocery store” would have become the first candidate to get 0 electoral votes (might have still won DC maybe?)
The people advocating dumping the grad students and “the groups” from advising Democratic campaigns are on the right track. “The party of sane, moderate adults” has its appeal and was a lot of what Biden ran on in 2020. You can’t be that and also be the party of every stupid idea that a blue-haired SLAC student in a tent is shrieking for.
She won the debate with Trump hands down.The Republicans invented the phrase “word salad” (politically) and it unfortunately stuck with her.
She ran primarily on the centre lane and was seen as a “sane, moderate adult”.
On the trans issue it was more like you are “damned if you speak in support, damned if you speak against”. She tried to avoid the issue as best as she could but the Republicans ran negative ads on this issue (Kamala is for they/them, Trump is for you).