Subj : American politics r/n To : FERMIN SANCHEZ From : Mike Powell Date : Sat Feb 08 2025 10:00:00 > PG> - Harris warned the american people (while in the campaign for > ... and there it is, the problem. Harris. The democrats are at least in part t > blame for Trump sitting in the White House. > Harris had FOUR years time to position herself to run in the next election. Exactly!!! Immediately after the election, there were several Democrat pundits that pointed this out. They have since been drown out by the folks who are upset that "not Trump" didn't win, that want to blame people for voting for Trump, and that don't understand why these people wouldn't vote for Harris (just because she is "not Trump"). Most people don't go into the polling places looking to vote for the "least bad" of two bad candidates, so just being "not Trump" was not enough this time to get Harris the win. If the economy had been great, and the Biden administration had bothered at all to work on the border issues (which, in the last minute, they did address), she probably could have won just being "not Trump." As things were, she could not do so. > Looking at Biden 4 years ago, it wouldn't have come as a total surprise if > she'd succeeded him before then. I think part of the reason Biden chose Harris specifically was so that no one would really want to push him aside and replace him with her. I was worried that he might pass on during those 4 years for sure. She spent most of her four years as VP looking completely overwhelmed. > But nothing of the sort happened. She appeared > insecure in the last four years. I mean - did she ever clearly state her > position to anything while she was VP? Not really, and she never did so during the brief time she was running for President, either. About the only thing, besides "not Trump," that she positioned herself as was pro-choice. The problem with using that as her only real issue was that the states she was likely to win were already pro-choice states, and the swing states she needed to win were also mostly pro-choice states. The only states she could pick up pro-choice votes in were the states that she was not likely to win. > Harris not being able to position > herself better could of course also be because of the Biden administration or > maybe she was being held back by the democratic party. Who knows. Biden of > course held on too long. The party should have built up more pressure to get > him to step back sooner or not even enter the race at all. That would also hav > given the Democrats time to do a proper evaluation. I don't think Kamala would > have been on the ticket if that had happened. Certainly not as President. Mayb > another 4 years as a VP to finally get her act together. Supposedly, the Democrats (i.e. their megadonors and people like former President Obama) didn't want Harris to run. They were hoping to hold the convention and get someone else nominated. There was a list of several people. However, as his parting gift to the Democrats (for forcing him aside), Biden endorsed Harris. This made it too difficult for the Democrats to nominate someone else. Megadonors have come out and admitted to this, as have some people who were involved in the Biden/Harris campaign. > Then there was the election campaign. Trump did what he did against Hillary. H > tailored his campaign to the opponent. The democrats of course wouldn't stoop > down to that level. I guess upholding one's own principles was more important > than to prevent Trump from gaining another term in office. Trump really didn't have much time to tailor his campaign, though. Harris entered the race pretty late. Trump had tailored it against Biden and then had to pivot. Trump honestly didn't initially adjust too well to the change. Trump did quite well keeping mostly on topic in the first debate against Biden, but he came off somewhat unhinged in the second debate against Harris, citing at least a couple of issues that were based on fake news. I honestly don't think the Democrats really upheld any principles here. It was pretty obvious, especially once Biden dropped out, that they were campaigning completely as "not Trump," just like they did in 2020. They didn't have to "stoop down to that level" because they were already there! Aside from "not Trump," the Democrats really did not offer anything new to the American people this time around. > In the end the Democrats need to have a long hard look in the mirror and ask > themselves this one question: How BAD does your candidate have to be to lose t > Trump? That is one for sure. They also need to learn the lesson that just being "not Trump" is not good enough. They are .333 when running on the "not Trump" platform. They need something else. Welcome to the echo, by the way. * SLMR 2.1a * Did you expect mere proof to sway my opinion? --- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105) .