Good lord
82-year-old Brandon collected his thoughts before admitting that he "wasn't surprised" by Harris' loss to Trump.
"Not because I didn't think the Vice President was qualified to be President," he clarified. "She is, she's qualified to be President of the United States of America. I was surprised because they went the sexist route, the whole route. 'This is a woman,' she's this, she's that, really, I've never seen as successful and consistent [of a] campaign undercutting the notion that a woman couldn't lead the country — and a woman of mixed race."
News
oh Brandon, you’ve done it again.
President Biden has simply revealed the truth. If you deny that, then which of the two of you is having thinking capability trouble?
The Democrats are digging themselves a deeper hole every time they make this claim that her loss was due to sexism and/or racism. Democrat voters (as well as moderates & indepedents) who sat out the election out of candidate apathy are being told they're these horrible, bigoted people. Why would they want to vote for a party in the next election that has so much contempt for them? Shouldn't Democrats be focused on building up inspiration for their party, instead of recklessly insulting them?
Kamala Harris was just a weak candidate. She avoided the press, wouldn't answer direct questions, was slow (or non-existent) to declare her policy positions, had the most extreme liberal voting record (a bad place to be if you want to capture the all important moderate and independent voters) as a Senator, and was contradictory on her positions. Now that the election is over, many in her own party have been exposed as not wanting her to be the candidate, including and especially President Obama:
I mostly agree with your comments. She just wasn’t comfortable talking about economics. She avoided difficult issues. Israel really hurt her also. I 100% support Israel, but Netanyahu fucked the dems bad. That deflated some on the left. She ran a horrible campaign. She is a little too left. And yet she only lost by 1.25%. This is important. He dosn’t have a mandate. But he’s ruling like he has a mandate. He and the republicans are overstepping dramatically. People aren’t going to forget that while Trump screwed the countries with his tariffs, that Republicans sat on their ass and did nothing. The republicans are going to get their asses handed to them in 26. And we’ve got a great shot in 28 if we can elect a moderate with broad appeal and common sense economic principles. At least that is my hope!
I have seen this 1.25% loss margin brought up fairly often, but I'll admit I haven't looked into it. How is that being measured? Certainly not by comparing EC votes, and not the popular vote, as that is not the metric we use to elect our presidents. At any rate, I think its too early to predict that the R's are going to get their asses handed to them in '26. The economy is still holding together, the stock market has bounced back substantially, Trump got the border under control very quickly, has been working on peace deals (India & Pakistan skirmish just got settled with US help), etc. But, yeah, there is a lot of chaos with more to come, but everyone kind of knows that's been his M.O. all along.
I like what you said about a Democrat moderate in 28 with broad appeal and common sense economic principles. I'm all in, if one shows up. But, where is he/she?
Those are definitely two to look into, assuming they will even be running. I would defintely choose either of them over Greasy Gavin even without knowing their postions on issues!
