No, I don’t think that’s the case here. I’ve been both right and now left in America over the years and she ran an objectively great campaign relative to the surrounding variables (short time, recovering economy and poor approval rating of Biden, and all the other things I mentioned that you ignored).
I mean, was she my ideal pick? Nah. But she was obviously better than Trump and ilk in every single way, if you ascended above the right-wing propaganda I mentioned.
To me it looked like the plan was to let cancer sick Biden run with Harris as Vice president who would later take the office due to Biden health issues.
I think that was her dogshit strategy. It didn’t work.
And campaign itself was bad too. One of biggest fails was not appearing on Joe Rogan show - Rogan asked both candidates for interview. Trump appeared and scored like 50million views. Kamala just dropped the ball on this.
Personally, I put a lot of blame on Biden. He could’ve committed to one term, but admitted he later changed his mind.
Joe Rogan had a huge part to play in that, by the way. He determined the schedule and refused to meet her half-way during the blitz of a campaign she had to do. Have you ever tried to schedule a meeting with someone who doesn’t actually want to meet with you? It’s easy to blow people off.
Yes, I think Harris made some errors, but really no major blunders relative to incessant scandals from Trump. It was one of the cleanest runs I’ve seen since Obama’s 2008 probably.
But that’s just it now, isn’t it? That Harris needed to run a FLAWLESS campaign and do EVERYTHING right, while Trump can just trip and stumble, lie, cheat, steal, rape his way just fine.
… All because the Republican propaganda machine is very, very strong.
Objectively great? She lost to the worst previous president we’d ever seen, who’d literally attempted a coup after losing re-election just a few years earlier. She had almost unlimited money, and instead of absolutely unloading on the POS, she ran a pretty typical, run-of-the-mill style campaign. She could have produced sooooo many supercut ads of nothing but the POS being a stupid crazy POS during his first time, with just a tagline of “More of this? Really?” or something, and that probably would have done it. I live in a swing state, and her “attack” ads were fucking pathetic. There was likely fuckery, too, but it never should have been close enough for that to swing it.
You’re telling me nothing I don’t already know but continue to miss the point.
The point isn’t how bad Trump was or how milquetoast or excellent Harris was; it was a matter of an uneven playing field. Fascists control what people see. That is all that matters, second to maybe Biden forcing her to run a blitz campaign.
Circular reasoning. You’ve yet to establish the relevance of the premise in the first place.
Yes, I think Harris made some errors, but really no major blunders relative to incessant scandals from Trump. It was one of the cleanest runs I’ve seen since Obama’s 2008 probably.
But that’s just it now, isn’t it? That Harris needed to run a FLAWLESS campaign and do EVERYTHING right, while Trump can just trip and stumble, lie, cheat, steal, rape his way just fine.
… All because the Republican propaganda machine is very, very strong.
All because the Republican propaganda machine is very, very strong.
No shit, that’s the entire point, and why combating that with everything you’ve got in the form of blistering and effective ads is paramount, which she absolutely, positively could have done, but didn’t for some reason. How is that circular reasoning, exactly?
Hindsight is 20/20; if perfection was easy, everyone would do it. Why they didn’t isn’t going to be figured out by a lemmy strategist. After all, it was her team who got Obama elected twice against a white war POW war hero and a rich white businessman. Not like they were traitors or some shit, lol.
Look, these are all objective facts:
Harris had one of the best campaigns possible given the short time she had and surrounding forces.
Trump had ENORMOUS advantages, counter to the implied claim from the original user, claiming “she spent $1b and lost”
On hindsight, Harris team could’ve maybe performed better.
But, importantly, it should’ve been more than enough.
So let’s stop blaming the candidate, acting like “if you would’ve thrown a few more pebbles at the tank, maybe you would’ve won the fight! Weak!”
Given all this, my compromise is this: Michelle Obama should run in 2028 because, like you said, we need all the advantages we can get. Democrats will not get a more perfect candidate.
Or maybe, just maybe, Harris campaign was shit and she lost to the jackass due to her sheer incompetence?
No, I don’t think that’s the case here. I’ve been both right and now left in America over the years and she ran an objectively great campaign relative to the surrounding variables (short time, recovering economy and poor approval rating of Biden, and all the other things I mentioned that you ignored).
I mean, was she my ideal pick? Nah. But she was obviously better than Trump and ilk in every single way, if you ascended above the right-wing propaganda I mentioned.
To me it looked like the plan was to let cancer sick Biden run with Harris as Vice president who would later take the office due to Biden health issues.
I think that was her dogshit strategy. It didn’t work.
And campaign itself was bad too. One of biggest fails was not appearing on Joe Rogan show - Rogan asked both candidates for interview. Trump appeared and scored like 50million views. Kamala just dropped the ball on this.
Why do you assume that was her strategy?
Personally, I put a lot of blame on Biden. He could’ve committed to one term, but admitted he later changed his mind.
Joe Rogan had a huge part to play in that, by the way. He determined the schedule and refused to meet her half-way during the blitz of a campaign she had to do. Have you ever tried to schedule a meeting with someone who doesn’t actually want to meet with you? It’s easy to blow people off.
Yes, I think Harris made some errors, but really no major blunders relative to incessant scandals from Trump. It was one of the cleanest runs I’ve seen since Obama’s 2008 probably.
But that’s just it now, isn’t it? That Harris needed to run a FLAWLESS campaign and do EVERYTHING right, while Trump can just trip and stumble, lie, cheat, steal, rape his way just fine.
… All because the Republican propaganda machine is very, very strong.
Objectively great? She lost to the worst previous president we’d ever seen, who’d literally attempted a coup after losing re-election just a few years earlier. She had almost unlimited money, and instead of absolutely unloading on the POS, she ran a pretty typical, run-of-the-mill style campaign. She could have produced sooooo many supercut ads of nothing but the POS being a stupid crazy POS during his first time, with just a tagline of “More of this? Really?” or something, and that probably would have done it. I live in a swing state, and her “attack” ads were fucking pathetic. There was likely fuckery, too, but it never should have been close enough for that to swing it.
You’re telling me nothing I don’t already know but continue to miss the point.
The point isn’t how bad Trump was or how milquetoast or excellent Harris was; it was a matter of an uneven playing field. Fascists control what people see. That is all that matters, second to maybe Biden forcing her to run a blitz campaign.
Oh, fascists somehow controlled Harris’ ad content and ad buys? Guess I did miss that point, would love to hear more.
Circular reasoning. You’ve yet to establish the relevance of the premise in the first place.
Yes, I think Harris made some errors, but really no major blunders relative to incessant scandals from Trump. It was one of the cleanest runs I’ve seen since Obama’s 2008 probably.
But that’s just it now, isn’t it? That Harris needed to run a FLAWLESS campaign and do EVERYTHING right, while Trump can just trip and stumble, lie, cheat, steal, rape his way just fine.
… All because the Republican propaganda machine is very, very strong.
No shit, that’s the entire point, and why combating that with everything you’ve got in the form of blistering and effective ads is paramount, which she absolutely, positively could have done, but didn’t for some reason. How is that circular reasoning, exactly?
Hindsight is 20/20; if perfection was easy, everyone would do it. Why they didn’t isn’t going to be figured out by a lemmy strategist. After all, it was her team who got Obama elected twice against a white war POW war hero and a rich white businessman. Not like they were traitors or some shit, lol.
Look, these are all objective facts:
So let’s stop blaming the candidate, acting like “if you would’ve thrown a few more pebbles at the tank, maybe you would’ve won the fight! Weak!”
Given all this, my compromise is this: Michelle Obama should run in 2028 because, like you said, we need all the advantages we can get. Democrats will not get a more perfect candidate.