Because debunking disinformation with facts is such an easy and effective thing to do. Especially with a population of 100s of millions being spoon fed it all day on Fox News, Twitter and Facebook
IMO she did a pretty good job.of squaring the circle of not kowtowing to the anti-immigration craziness but at the same time appearing “strong” on immigration for average middle American who been terrified into insensibilty by all the misinformation out there. Especially given she had 100 days to do it.
Sigh, looks like you ignored my request that you reread my OP, so I will ask you to do it again. Please read my OP again and in particular read the last paragraph. I haven’t even decided yet where I would rank Harris vs previous presidential candidates. I know she is better than a Mondale or Dukakis….. or do I….. They at least won a Democratic primary. Alright never mind, I am undecided where I would rank Harris.
If your goal is to convince me that she is a better than average D candidate, argue that she was a better candidate than Al Gore. I agree that this thread has become something of a scotsman and that would be a better way of getting to my goal.
You appear to have forgotten the Biden tightened the restrictions at the border in late 2023-2024. She wouldn’t have been separating herself from Biden she would just be claiming they should have done this sooner.
We are almost NEVER trying to win votes from Republicans. That is a silly idea. We are trying to win over independants and undecided voters. If you want to say this line of attack wouldn’t work I won’t argue with that as it is unproveable. But the idea of trying to win republican votes instead of going after moderates and independents is an idea that needs to be DEAD DEAD DEAD on arrival.
But how would that have won a single vote? It separating her from the successful economic record of Biden (and made it obvious that she was not in fact involved in that In any meaningful policy making sense) but done zip, bupkiss, nada to attract any
Harris lost mainly due to the deep racism and misogyny that still plagues this country, but it didn’t help that she has the charisma of a damp washcloth.
She lost out big time in the debates. When Trump handed her an opportunity to go for the throat when he began that rant about ‘They’re eating the dogs; They’re eating the cats.’, she chose to just stand by and smile indulgently.
That could have been Trump’s Howard Dean scream. But no, she and all the rest of the Democrats had to take the high road and not emphasize that voting for Donald was voting for a lying incompetent moron. At least she would’ve looked like she had some fight in her.
Please google sister soulja moment. It will illustrate what I am talking about.
Also how is saying she would have implemented a Biden’s border policy change sooner separating herself from Biden’s economic agenda? That doesn’t make sense.
That right there is why she actually did a damn good job in the 2024 election (which she was thrown into with 100 days to go) all things considered.
There were two diametrically opposed tasks she had to achieve. Keep the base onside and inspired to go to the polls, and attract enough of undecided middle america to get a majority in the swing states. She actually did a damn job of trying to make that happen.
She failed ultimately but I don’t think anyone else would have made any better calls or had better messaging than she did. Other than being a white man in the face of an electorate that had been whipped into a racist and misogynist fervour by Trump
Her response was to say that is why Jim Mattis (Trump’s former defense secretary and the most widely respected* non-partisan figure in the Trump administration) said “America would not survive another Trump administration”. I cannot think of better response to that. Screaming “voting for Donald was voting for a lying incompetent moron” would certainly not be.
‘*’ - who as with everyone who joined either Trump administration is an amoral scumbag who knew exactly what he was getting into. But he was widely respected as a “war hero” and his words hold a lot of weight among ordinary America.
I would argue for the middle ground between people would never consider voting for someone who said that hideous racist statement (or not voting for their opponent) and the people who would actively insist on voting for someone because they said that, it’s a pretty good name drop. to quote Trump’s own defense secretary (who happens to be a well known general) saying America would not survive another Trump term.
And again what would be a better thing to say? What could you say, to people who are not swayed either way by Trump making that comment about Haitians, that would win more votes?
Basically, his feeling is that voters tended to view Harris as ultra-liberal, partially due to the known fact that voters generally think minority and/or female candidates are more liberal than they actually are, but also due to her very “woke” stances during her brief Presidential run. He feels Harris’ efforts to shed this label were too weak to change the minds of conservative and moderate voters, but strong enough that the progressives identified her as Not One Of Us.
He thinks she should have found some issue to quarrel with the Left over (ie the Sister Souljah move), and also should have done more to distance herself from her very unpopular boss. Alternately, she could have embraced the progressive brand and tried to win with base turnout (which also would have distanced her from Biden). Instead, she chose to run a “unity” campaign that didn’t criticize or offend any elements of the Democratic coalition, but also didn’t particularly excite the progressive base. He specifically identifies campaigning with Liz Cheney as an example of a strategy that wasn’t going to convince anyone she was a moderate – except for the people who didn’t want her to be a moderate! I would also add to that her decision to basically ignore the stream of transphobic attack ads. Either throwing the trans folks under the bus or mounting a full-throated, principled defense of trans rights probably would have worked better for her.
Maybe stare at him incredulously and say “Did you just say that Haitian immigrants are eating dogs and cats? Is that something you actually believe is happening?” Get him to keep digging the hole deeper, and make the fact check the big story the next morning.
I agree that name-checking Jim Mattis was completely ineffectual. Anyone who pays enough attention to know who Jim Mattis is is almost certainly not an undecided voter.
Because, despite the statistics, voters didn’t think the economy was doing well, and he had a 40% approval rating. If you can’t think of a single thing you’d do differently than the guy with the 40% approval rating, you probably deserve to lose.
What makes you think that would win a single vote? If you arent swayed by that original hideous racist statement? Why would you possibly be swayed by Harris saying “Is that something you actually believe is happening?” That’s an incredibly naive thing to say.
He actually referred to him as “your former defense secretary”. Whether or not you know who that is. “That is a why your former defense secretary says ‘America won’t survive another Trump term’”. Is a far better response, that might actually win over some voters. It works both as a name check for those who know who he is (which is a lot of people outside liberal Twitter circles) but also as a way to emphasize how terrible the statement was.
They make this story sound like a good thing. I think it’s pretty sad. Poll says if we had a do-over '24 election, instead of Trump winning by 1.5 points, Harris would win by 8 points. ONLY 8!
Your notion is that, prior to that zinger from Harris, nobody had had any idea that there were former Trump cabinet members who now opposed him? Talk about naive.
But this is a dumb argument, since apparently we both agree that a slightly better debate performance wouldn’t have changed the fundamental dynamics of the election.
When you make a long list of why Harris was a bad candidate- with nothing to give the other side, one last line doesnt count for much.
Many studies show it was Inflation.
And folks, if you look at my cite, it makes clear of the reasons WHY a candidate might “put their hat into the ring” without any real intention of actually running. Some pundits claim Harris’s real goal was either Veep or AG, and if so, she was very successful.
Sure, but instead of saying what Biden did wrong or what you would do differently, emphasize your new program you devised during that time.
I think that is the more important point. Harris’s problem wasn’t what she said or didn‘t say in the debate. It was her campaign still thought debates were important. Harris seemed to never show a great understanding that the way people consume information has changed, particularly low information voters and young people. She ran a great traditional campaign, and if it was 40 years ago she might well have won, but in 2024 people aren’t watching much network TV or want someone knocking on their door or sending them junk mail.
This discussion has occurred frequently on this board and it feels like it is just isn’t a good place to understand why Harris was unpopular. People pretty consistently answer this question as to what they think of Harris and not what the persuadable voter thinks or acted on. And it turns out on a board with mostly older traditional Democrats, running a traditionally Democrat campaign is pretty popular. Some even goes as far as saying it is voters who are the problem because everyone should have the same life experiences and opinions as us. You go to a place like Reddit you will get way different answers to this question.
