PART 1: Her (surprisingly honest) memoir should terrify Democrats. She worked hard, had money and media support, made decent tactical choices - and lost. She wasn't the problem. So what was?
Kamala, honey, let me help you. You didn't lose because we're not smart enough to understand your message. You lost precisely because we're smart enough to understand your message.
As a straight white male, I had zero reason to vote for Kamala, or any other Democrat candidate in any other race. That party has spent the last 15-20 years trying to convince us that straight white men are the cause of every problem in the world. Believe me, Kamala, I've heard your message, loud and clear. And if you thought that I (and millions of others just like me) was going to stay quiet on Election Day ... well, you did so at your own peril.
So true about NYC! Like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Apparently the people who made the movie “Escape from New York” in 1981 had a crystal ball.
One has to wonder if the rampant and insidious vilification of the white man in America in the last 30 years has produced the record depression, drug abuse and suicide numbers we are witnessing now.
I think so. And I think it's by design. That's why nobody states it.
One could not watch Biden giving speeches growling about "white supremacy" (a dog whistle by which he was referring to white men and accusing them all of being the most horrible racists) and not see the reality that his controllers were (1) trying to alienate white men, (2) trying to get the majority of the population to hate white men, and (3) fatally harm white men.
Nothing new. I have been getting to used to being call an evil old white guy for 15+ years. Astounding how all of us, who have paid the majority of the income taxes and built all the industry/income sources over the last 250 years are somehow what's wrong with society. Maybe one of the reasons so many of us have withdrawn from the traditional workforce to pursue another way to earn money that is less "visible".
I have a lot of contact with younger people, and whenever I hear the girls complaining about "the patriarchy" I embrace it and say "I AM the patriarchy, and without us, you'd be screwed." Usually that's the end of the discussion, but if they want to hear more, I'm prepared to defend my male privilege.
I’d add: why does the left always divide people by immutable characteristics: “first black, female president”. Of what relevance is that? As you say, her ideas were racist, sexist, authoritarian and anti-liberty and were rightly recognized as such.
It is and always has been the way of the progressive neo Marxist agenda. To divide by all tenets you mention (race, gender, equity, censoring, open borders etc). Fortunately, on Nov 5th America (WE THE PEOPLE) said ENOUGH with all 50 states shifting towards the RED. The neo Marxist DEMS since Nov 5th have only doubled and tripled down on all the reasons that led to Nov 5th occurring as it did. WHY they choose to stay "unaware" is a beautiful thing to watch ongoing...
Yes, it is very reminiscent of the Democratic party's one drop rule from slavery times. The more things change the more of the Democratic party's philosophy remains the same: divide people as we have been discussing and believe that their needs give them the right to force other people to pay for their choices with their lives. Pick my cotton or pay for my healthcare or some other such nonsense that they believe today.
The elites have no intention of embracing Marxism. Their ideal is a globalist oligarchy which protects their status from actual democracy (the peasantry) by maintaining strict control over governments, institutions, and information. The best analogy I can think of is some form of the crony capitalism allowed to exist China. Marxist in name only.
True on not embracing IT themselves as in staying higher than thou so to speak, but these same elites in many cases FUND a lot of the Marxist ideologies within many Universities settings the past decades as well as being big enablers within the K-12 public school systems. Mark Levins book American Marxism does a descent job in detailing the Marxist trend as it has been infecting America for far longer than people realize, but again thatnk GOD for Nov 5th 2024!
They fund it in order to facilitate tearing down Western Civilization, which is the biggest obstacle to their hegemony. They can kick the communists to the curb any time they want.
It concerns me that they are not shifting strategy though. The left is not stupid, why do they feel this is a winning message when it's polling so terribly and losing them elections? Makes you wonder..
As a fellow straight white dude who previously lived in Ohio and voted for Obama, you hit the nail on the head. As some have pointed out, the Dem party mainly consists of neurotic single cat ladies and gay men. Neither has a clue how to relate to straight white guys. When Kamala picked a running mate to help her with this demographic, she chose Tim "Jazz Hands" Walz. This alone shows how utterly detached from reality she is.
Thanks. But we both know that this opinion runs counter to the Accepted Truth (TM) of the mainstream media. That's OK. The more they push their narrative, the more I go to the ballot box, vote exactly the opposite of what they want, and silently give them a middle finger while doing so.
What’s even more deplorable, is that all these Republican/ conservative/ anti-left sites keep talking about what the lame scream propaganda machine is screaming, to continue to give it headlines and attention.
Once we stop trusting the latest "narrative", we have eyes that let us see far beyond what MSM buffoons would have us believe, with their filtered pablum "fables" they call 'news'.
That someone like Harris could reach high office in our republic is proof positive of our sad decline as a nation. Perhaps Pete Buttigieg can lower the status further.
I sit here wondering why politics has gotten so crazy.
Is it that both parties are in bubbles (especially the Dems) - tell me again why we only have 2 parties?
Or is it because a great, secret cabal are controlling everything - I don’t think so, but you never know.
Wether they know it or not, the (D) party stands for wide open borders, the genital mutilation of kids, national bankruptcy, DEI, violent criminals, men in women’s sports & bathrooms, school indoctrination, activist judges, rich elites, and war - and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
The biggest question is why would anyone in their right mind want to be affiliated with the (D) party?
For the reasons you listed, I never vote Dem, always Republican.
That said, The Republican Party is on thin ice with me. They pretend to be for the right things. They put on a show in hearings, tearing a new asshole in Biden's nominee for a judgeship for example. But I know., when no one is looking, they're part of the uni-party.
I’m just curious G&F, as an Evangelical Christian, Conservative Constitutionalist who’s voted a straight Republican ticket for 40 years because the Republican Party for all its faults most closely hews to the principles of our founders — what bubble is it that you think I am in, perhaps actually am/are in?
In order: a narcissist; an antisocial; a histrionic; combinations, and certainly some avoidant personality types more found in the Republican side. But enough of a desire to have control and power.
I sit here wondering why and how politics has gotten so crazy.
Is it that both parties are in bubbles (especially the Dems) - tell me again why we only have 2 parties?
Or is it because some great, secret, cabal is controlling everything - I don’t think so, but you never know.
Wether they know it or not, the (D) party stands for wide open borders, the genital mutilation of kids, national bankruptcy, DEI, violent criminals, men in women’s sports & bathrooms, school indoctrination, activist judges, rich elites, and war - and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
The biggest question is why would anyone in their right mind want to be affiliated with the (D) party?
Alex— although Kamala performed decently in her debate against Trump, the public could not make sense of her word salads on the campaign trail. Ultimately, the electorate did not see her as presidential.
She had zero press conferences. Zero! Any candidate that can’t field questions from the press is fundamentally not qualified. Especially a dem with the lapdog leftist media!
To add to your she couldn't handle even easy questions. Remember how she struck out on one pitch on The View when asked what she would do differently than Biden. As someone who grew up in the 70s and 80s - she sounded like a space cadet- like someone who smoked too much pot and was always trying to sound smart and profound when she was saying essentially nothing. Telling kids they will see the craters on the moon with their own eyes someday soon (you can do that with a decent set of binoculars). The loving the yellow school bus schtick. The dopey giggling. The falling out of the coconut tree nonsense that made it seem like her own mother thought she was a moron when she was young (no matter Harris intended). Picking that psycho weirdo Tim Walz. What is sad is that election was as close as it was.
The polls were fake dude. The guys over at Rasmussen went over this post election. BS polling data propping up the cackler. They only moved toward Trump at the end so they wouldn't look stupid when he crushed her. Trusting the polls is about as smart as trusting the science. Still, thanks for reading that shit for us. Taking one for the team.
Absolutely - I have never met a single person who supported her or voted for her. Unanimously the comments about her are of the negative, dodged a bullet, she’s always drunk and incoherent variety. A good number of rally attendees were bused in and out and paid. (Our company set up a venue for one so I have first hand knowledge that this is true.) There was no chance at all she’d win.
Election polls always oversample unregistered voters until right before the election so that they can inflate the D candidate initially, but their final results are more predictive in hindsight.
The polling samples are pathetically small, sometimes 1200 or so people and taken in a carefully selected demographic area. No way is that really representative of the nation in any way. Polls should be taken with a grain of salt.
Good lord. We can only imagine what a disaster she would have been if she had won. Trump runs circles around anyone in the world trying to get things done on his list because he knows his time in office is limited. I can't wait to see what is on his list for next year.
You reminded me of how utterly wild the last few weeks of that campaign were: the long-form interviews on Rogan and Theo Von (JD, too!), the garbage truck, serving the McDonald’s drive through, the non-stop rallies, the SQUIRREL. Will we ever see another campaign quite like that?
The Squirrel! Not to mention a lone gay conservative registering persecuted raw milk drinking Amish — PA for the Win. Living through these times I often think, no way is the history of these days going to be retold accurately.
"She prepped fiercely for her lone debate with Trump in September, and she handled him reasonably well. Trump refused to debate her again, though she pressed for a follow-up."
I don't recall this being true. I recall thinking, "he has no NEED to debate her again; she sucked, she's the one who needs another debate, which is why it makes sense for Trump NOT to give it to her". If she *had* "handled him reasonably well", HE would've been clamoring for another debate.
Well, Trumps position is that he did two presidential debates as agreed upon- do I remember that correctly ? Just because the democrats went and changed candidates didn’t mean that Trump didn’t hold up his end of the bargain.
Of COURSE the rules changed when the Dems swapped out their candidate! THEY changed the rules. It was implied that the candidate would be Biden when Trump said "I'll do two presidential debates."
So you're arguing that THEY can change the rules, but HE can't, in response to THEIR changing the rules? Who are you, Saul Alinsky??
Good grief.
And anyway, my POINT was that Alex was incorrect in saying that Harris did well against Trump. How 'bout you address THAT one?
I sure don't agree that she did well. She came across as the pathetic, rehearsed lightweight intellect that she is. And why would Trump bother to waste his time on another "debate". Her performance was embarrassing for a presidential candidate. I kept thinking "How could this clueless woman think she is qualified to be president?"
"Just because the democrats went and changed candidates didn’t mean that Trump didn’t hold up his end of the bargain."
Did you really write that and not realize what you're saying? That HE didn't hold up HIS end of the bargain, which was after THEY didn't hold up THEIR end of the bargain?
And I think my recollection is correct, because I also recall everyone on the Left saying that Trump was afraid to debate her again. But that makes no sense if she truly did handle him reasonably well; he'd WANT another debate in order to undo whatever alleged damage she did to him in the first debate.
But if she didn't land any blows (another unfortunate use of that metaphor family...), then he'd have nothing to gain, and SHE'D be the one itching for another debate. If SHE had done well, her side - knowing how stupid and awful she was - would never have wanted a second opportunity for her to fail spectacularly.
I remember Trump doing rather poorly in the debate against Harris, although much better than against Biden in 2020. She baited him by saying everyone leaves his rallies early, and he reminded everyone how childish he is by taking the bait and saying everyone stays at his rallies until the end. He didn’t really have good responses on many of the topics. Her performance wasn’t great either. I thought he made a mistake by refusing to debate her again, although that would depend on whether he would’ve choked in the second debate or would’ve done better than the first. There’s no way to know. Anyway her policies were so horrendous, the debate obviously didn’t help her enough.
Yeah, I'm not saying he did *well* against her. I've been saying that she DIDN'T do "reasonably well" against him, contra Alex's recollection, and that he didn't need to do another debate *because* she didn't land any body blows that he might've needed to try to recover from in a second debate.
Every one of them underestimated the quiet Trump supporters. We were afraid of being called out, or worse, being doxxed and our properties being vandalized. We showed restraint- still do- and spoke at the polls. HUsband and I went on the very first day of early voting, something we've never done, and the placed was mobbed. People were angry and saw through the ruse.
Kamala was burdened by what had been, namely the Biden-Harris presidency. When we disastrously pulled out of Afghanistan, Joe's approval ratings dropped. His terrible debate in June showed the Democrats were willing to run a senile old man. Kamala couldn't think of anything she would have done differently. Her cackle turned people off. She picked Governor Goofy Glad Hands as her back up. She was afraid of long-form podcasts like Joe Rogan's show. And picking the campaign theme of "Joy" showed she was out of step with the voters. I've heard that her book should have been titled "107 Excuses". But if she really wants to know why she lost, she should simply look in a mirror.
Am I the only one on earth who thinks she's actually stupid? She makes no sense, she can't speak properly, she has no evidence of intelligent thought, and it amazes me that she has risen as far as she has in the world. I can only believe she's been a DEI hire through college, law school, and every job since then, including VP to Pres. Biden.
That was a strange point in the election, too, when all the gay rumors started coming out about Doug because he said he was in a West Hollywood gym when he heard about K moving up the ticket - the rumors went away overnight because the Daily Mail or one of them released a story about him #MeToo'ing his nanny and forcing her to get an abortion.
Alex - you're actually saying the problem wasn't Harris? I agree the party has gone crazy, but she is the symptom as well. She was the least popular candidate for president, not getting any support (not 1 delegate) and dropping out - because most people don't like her. The party installed her as VP, where she floundered for four years showing herself to be a vindictive lightweight. What was it, 92% staff turnover for her? Again, nobody likes this woman. Then her party emergency-ejected the Sniffer, and installed their least popular member as their new candidate.
The more she talks, the more people don't like her. Not hard to figure that out sir, so I respectfully disagree with the premise of your entire piece (only this one).
Not to mention, she did not raise 81 million dollars. The Democratic machine raised that money. Kamala can read from a script and say her lines. Trump veers away from the same . She was out of her depth and we all knew it. Trumps strength is his simple , no nonsense speak.
So true ! It took me a while to appreciate it because I wanted him to be more ‘normal’, but I’ve come to give up on that and just appreciate the wild ride.
Given the vast amount of money donated by wealthy Democrats, my guess has been that they didn't care what an idiot Harris was, they thought she would be easy to direct and manipulate (like Biden).
Well, Biden said he would nominate a "woman of color". That's a pretty lame set of qualifications for such a high position. So the problem was to find such a person no matter how idiotic or unqualified that person may be. Harris fit the bill more or less, although as a Californian, I was aware of her vaguely and she never seemed black to me. Mixed something or other, but who cares? I think the Democrats way overestimated how many people thought that being black and female was the prime qualification to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Harris' demeanor, obnoxious cackling and her lack depth or even knowledge on any subject clearly revealed from the very beginning that she was unqualified for any political office, much less this one. Fortunately, enough people realized what a lightweight intellect she is.
I'm always puzzled to this day by Democrats who are seemingly intelligent people who still think she was great. Say what? Most of us never saw that. If a person is great, intelligent and has good ideas you see it immediately. You don't need the Democrat party or the media to tell you to ignore the vacuousness you see with your own eyes.
People with Stage IV-V TDS and terminal woke-mind-virus, are beyond being saved. Think of people who swim out too far into the ocean and there are no lifeguards - absent of the ability to reason, think analytically or critically. Dems want teleprompter-readers to be their leaders.
Kamala, honey, let me help you. You didn't lose because we're not smart enough to understand your message. You lost precisely because we're smart enough to understand your message.
As a straight white male, I had zero reason to vote for Kamala, or any other Democrat candidate in any other race. That party has spent the last 15-20 years trying to convince us that straight white men are the cause of every problem in the world. Believe me, Kamala, I've heard your message, loud and clear. And if you thought that I (and millions of others just like me) was going to stay quiet on Election Day ... well, you did so at your own peril.
Well said Dude. People usually don’t want to vote for people who HATE them.
Except NYC which is about to do just that. Vote for a man who hates everyone who votes for him. Including those who pretend to be Muslims
“But, but, but FrEE sTuFf!!!!!”
And that is why the folks in NYC will vote for a man who will destroy their city.
So true about NYC! Like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Apparently the people who made the movie “Escape from New York” in 1981 had a crystal ball.
No one ever lost money underestimating the ignorance of the American people. H.L.Mencken
Those who elect this fraud in NY obviously have to find out the hard way....again.
One has to wonder if the rampant and insidious vilification of the white man in America in the last 30 years has produced the record depression, drug abuse and suicide numbers we are witnessing now.
I think so. And I think it's by design. That's why nobody states it.
One could not watch Biden giving speeches growling about "white supremacy" (a dog whistle by which he was referring to white men and accusing them all of being the most horrible racists) and not see the reality that his controllers were (1) trying to alienate white men, (2) trying to get the majority of the population to hate white men, and (3) fatally harm white men.
Nothing new. I have been getting to used to being call an evil old white guy for 15+ years. Astounding how all of us, who have paid the majority of the income taxes and built all the industry/income sources over the last 250 years are somehow what's wrong with society. Maybe one of the reasons so many of us have withdrawn from the traditional workforce to pursue another way to earn money that is less "visible".
I have a lot of contact with younger people, and whenever I hear the girls complaining about "the patriarchy" I embrace it and say "I AM the patriarchy, and without us, you'd be screwed." Usually that's the end of the discussion, but if they want to hear more, I'm prepared to defend my male privilege.
And I would be right alongside you, defending you and men in general. Note...men.
More than one has. Women thrive in the patriarchy, and your contributions are essential to it.
Wonder? Oh hell no, it's writ large.
^^^^ Ding ding ding. (Somehow I got Hector Salamanca in my head while typing that, but that's really not the vibe I was going for.)
@Dude- HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
😂
I’d add: why does the left always divide people by immutable characteristics: “first black, female president”. Of what relevance is that? As you say, her ideas were racist, sexist, authoritarian and anti-liberty and were rightly recognized as such.
It is and always has been the way of the progressive neo Marxist agenda. To divide by all tenets you mention (race, gender, equity, censoring, open borders etc). Fortunately, on Nov 5th America (WE THE PEOPLE) said ENOUGH with all 50 states shifting towards the RED. The neo Marxist DEMS since Nov 5th have only doubled and tripled down on all the reasons that led to Nov 5th occurring as it did. WHY they choose to stay "unaware" is a beautiful thing to watch ongoing...
Yes, it is very reminiscent of the Democratic party's one drop rule from slavery times. The more things change the more of the Democratic party's philosophy remains the same: divide people as we have been discussing and believe that their needs give them the right to force other people to pay for their choices with their lives. Pick my cotton or pay for my healthcare or some other such nonsense that they believe today.
Yes...well said!
Unfortunately, many if not most of the Democrat party's loyal voters know less than nothing about the party's history.
👍, don’t forget “reparations”
The elites have no intention of embracing Marxism. Their ideal is a globalist oligarchy which protects their status from actual democracy (the peasantry) by maintaining strict control over governments, institutions, and information. The best analogy I can think of is some form of the crony capitalism allowed to exist China. Marxist in name only.
True on not embracing IT themselves as in staying higher than thou so to speak, but these same elites in many cases FUND a lot of the Marxist ideologies within many Universities settings the past decades as well as being big enablers within the K-12 public school systems. Mark Levins book American Marxism does a descent job in detailing the Marxist trend as it has been infecting America for far longer than people realize, but again thatnk GOD for Nov 5th 2024!
They fund it in order to facilitate tearing down Western Civilization, which is the biggest obstacle to their hegemony. They can kick the communists to the curb any time they want.
Right!
Feudalism. We are the serfs to do their bidding.
It concerns me that they are not shifting strategy though. The left is not stupid, why do they feel this is a winning message when it's polling so terribly and losing them elections? Makes you wonder..
A rabid devotion to their ideology is blinding and they can't see past it.
I hope that's all it is.
"more likeable than Hillary Clinton — or Biden." That is a very low bar! lol. It's like saying "cooler than the surface of the sun."
🤣
As a fellow straight white dude who previously lived in Ohio and voted for Obama, you hit the nail on the head. As some have pointed out, the Dem party mainly consists of neurotic single cat ladies and gay men. Neither has a clue how to relate to straight white guys. When Kamala picked a running mate to help her with this demographic, she chose Tim "Jazz Hands" Walz. This alone shows how utterly detached from reality she is.
Kamala was smart enough to know that anyone but “jazz hands” Walz would outshine her
The sun shines on even a dog's ass every once in awhile.
This comment should be aired by every "news service" in the country, brother!
Thanks. But we both know that this opinion runs counter to the Accepted Truth (TM) of the mainstream media. That's OK. The more they push their narrative, the more I go to the ballot box, vote exactly the opposite of what they want, and silently give them a middle finger while doing so.
What’s even more deplorable, is that all these Republican/ conservative/ anti-left sites keep talking about what the lame scream propaganda machine is screaming, to continue to give it headlines and attention.
Once we stop trusting the latest "narrative", we have eyes that let us see far beyond what MSM buffoons would have us believe, with their filtered pablum "fables" they call 'news'.
Straight white Judeo-Christian background men
Standing O!
That someone like Harris could reach high office in our republic is proof positive of our sad decline as a nation. Perhaps Pete Buttigieg can lower the status further.
I sit here wondering why politics has gotten so crazy.
Is it that both parties are in bubbles (especially the Dems) - tell me again why we only have 2 parties?
Or is it because a great, secret cabal are controlling everything - I don’t think so, but you never know.
Wether they know it or not, the (D) party stands for wide open borders, the genital mutilation of kids, national bankruptcy, DEI, violent criminals, men in women’s sports & bathrooms, school indoctrination, activist judges, rich elites, and war - and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
The biggest question is why would anyone in their right mind want to be affiliated with the (D) party?
For the reasons you listed, I never vote Dem, always Republican.
That said, The Republican Party is on thin ice with me. They pretend to be for the right things. They put on a show in hearings, tearing a new asshole in Biden's nominee for a judgeship for example. But I know., when no one is looking, they're part of the uni-party.
You’re right. Also abortion.
I’m just curious G&F, as an Evangelical Christian, Conservative Constitutionalist who’s voted a straight Republican ticket for 40 years because the Republican Party for all its faults most closely hews to the principles of our founders — what bubble is it that you think I am in, perhaps actually am/are in?
100% PLACED into most all her positions. Never earned!
In at least one case she slept her way upwards.
The left promotes sociopathy, Republicans promote cowardice.
Personality disorder rules, regardless of what cluster B type it belongs in.
As echoed here:
https://thefederalist.com/2025/10/24/if-you-care-more-about-policing-the-right-than-fighting-the-left-youre-part-of-the-problem/
Cowards cheering on sociopaths, yeah, the one party system of Republocrats slithers on and on…
A certain "type" of person generally gets into politics. Not a good type, either.
In order: a narcissist; an antisocial; a histrionic; combinations, and certainly some avoidant personality types more found in the Republican side. But enough of a desire to have control and power.
I sit here wondering why and how politics has gotten so crazy.
Is it that both parties are in bubbles (especially the Dems) - tell me again why we only have 2 parties?
Or is it because some great, secret, cabal is controlling everything - I don’t think so, but you never know.
Wether they know it or not, the (D) party stands for wide open borders, the genital mutilation of kids, national bankruptcy, DEI, violent criminals, men in women’s sports & bathrooms, school indoctrination, activist judges, rich elites, and war - and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
The biggest question is why would anyone in their right mind want to be affiliated with the (D) party?
- unless there’s money in it.
The passionate left (IOW the crazies) determines who gets Democrat nominations. The candidates HAVE to pander to them.
There was a time when they could pivot back to the center after the primaries. That time is past.
Even lower than Pete would be the talentless, brainless idiot Gavin Newsom, who is clearly revving up to the the next Dem nominee in 2028.
This is so delicious and the closest I will ever get to reading her memoir. Thank you, Alex, for reading it so we don't have to.
I can't imagine spending a dollar on that thing.
hopefully he has a library card!
Agree!!!
I agree Gigi. I hope Alex gets to deduct the cost of that horrible book as a business expense. Blech.
Alex— although Kamala performed decently in her debate against Trump, the public could not make sense of her word salads on the campaign trail. Ultimately, the electorate did not see her as presidential.
She had zero press conferences. Zero! Any candidate that can’t field questions from the press is fundamentally not qualified. Especially a dem with the lapdog leftist media!
To add to your she couldn't handle even easy questions. Remember how she struck out on one pitch on The View when asked what she would do differently than Biden. As someone who grew up in the 70s and 80s - she sounded like a space cadet- like someone who smoked too much pot and was always trying to sound smart and profound when she was saying essentially nothing. Telling kids they will see the craters on the moon with their own eyes someday soon (you can do that with a decent set of binoculars). The loving the yellow school bus schtick. The dopey giggling. The falling out of the coconut tree nonsense that made it seem like her own mother thought she was a moron when she was young (no matter Harris intended). Picking that psycho weirdo Tim Walz. What is sad is that election was as close as it was.
she had an ear bud and was reading from a script
Bingo!
And who knows what kind of prep went in to that debate performance. A lot I imagine, probably including a fair inkling of what the questions would be.
But remember she had an earpiece feeding her answers!!!!
The polls were fake dude. The guys over at Rasmussen went over this post election. BS polling data propping up the cackler. They only moved toward Trump at the end so they wouldn't look stupid when he crushed her. Trusting the polls is about as smart as trusting the science. Still, thanks for reading that shit for us. Taking one for the team.
Absolutely - I have never met a single person who supported her or voted for her. Unanimously the comments about her are of the negative, dodged a bullet, she’s always drunk and incoherent variety. A good number of rally attendees were bused in and out and paid. (Our company set up a venue for one so I have first hand knowledge that this is true.) There was no chance at all she’d win.
Election polls always oversample unregistered voters until right before the election so that they can inflate the D candidate initially, but their final results are more predictive in hindsight.
The polling samples are pathetically small, sometimes 1200 or so people and taken in a carefully selected demographic area. No way is that really representative of the nation in any way. Polls should be taken with a grain of salt.
Good lord. We can only imagine what a disaster she would have been if she had won. Trump runs circles around anyone in the world trying to get things done on his list because he knows his time in office is limited. I can't wait to see what is on his list for next year.
I've noticed, especially in the last month, more and more people (friends, family, podcasters) have mused, "Can you imagine if Kamala had won?"
But do they say that as if they think it would've been bad if she won? Or good? I guess it depends how bad the TDS is with them.
Trump makes every day a joy on what havoc he will bring.
Yep....it's always "What will he do today?" Dana Perino on The Five once said that Trump aimed for 24 headlines a day.
I often remind myself of that alternative universe had she been placed into the WH! Imagine the border alone and ZERO ICE activity since...
“Press 1 for Spanish”
there was once a fake website literally dedicated to creating a fictional alternative world where hillary won to help people cope with factual loss.
i spent more time than i should have contemplating creating one of these where kamala wins & producing dystopian fiction
You reminded me of how utterly wild the last few weeks of that campaign were: the long-form interviews on Rogan and Theo Von (JD, too!), the garbage truck, serving the McDonald’s drive through, the non-stop rallies, the SQUIRREL. Will we ever see another campaign quite like that?
The Squirrel! Not to mention a lone gay conservative registering persecuted raw milk drinking Amish — PA for the Win. Living through these times I often think, no way is the history of these days going to be retold accurately.
"She prepped fiercely for her lone debate with Trump in September, and she handled him reasonably well. Trump refused to debate her again, though she pressed for a follow-up."
I don't recall this being true. I recall thinking, "he has no NEED to debate her again; she sucked, she's the one who needs another debate, which is why it makes sense for Trump NOT to give it to her". If she *had* "handled him reasonably well", HE would've been clamoring for another debate.
Is my memory wrong?
Well, Trumps position is that he did two presidential debates as agreed upon- do I remember that correctly ? Just because the democrats went and changed candidates didn’t mean that Trump didn’t hold up his end of the bargain.
Of COURSE the rules changed when the Dems swapped out their candidate! THEY changed the rules. It was implied that the candidate would be Biden when Trump said "I'll do two presidential debates."
So you're arguing that THEY can change the rules, but HE can't, in response to THEIR changing the rules? Who are you, Saul Alinsky??
Good grief.
And anyway, my POINT was that Alex was incorrect in saying that Harris did well against Trump. How 'bout you address THAT one?
I sure don't agree that she did well. She came across as the pathetic, rehearsed lightweight intellect that she is. And why would Trump bother to waste his time on another "debate". Her performance was embarrassing for a presidential candidate. I kept thinking "How could this clueless woman think she is qualified to be president?"
"Just because the democrats went and changed candidates didn’t mean that Trump didn’t hold up his end of the bargain."
Did you really write that and not realize what you're saying? That HE didn't hold up HIS end of the bargain, which was after THEY didn't hold up THEIR end of the bargain?
And you fault TRUMP, and ONLY Trump?
Man, the TDS is strong with this one.
Maybe read that agin. Are you referring to me ? I’m for Trump because he’s for America. Maybe be a little less defensive.
she was repeating what was coming in on her ear bud - speaking on her own never brought forth anything resembling a sentence
Because she didn't screw up, it was deemed a success.
And I think my recollection is correct, because I also recall everyone on the Left saying that Trump was afraid to debate her again. But that makes no sense if she truly did handle him reasonably well; he'd WANT another debate in order to undo whatever alleged damage she did to him in the first debate.
But if she didn't land any blows (another unfortunate use of that metaphor family...), then he'd have nothing to gain, and SHE'D be the one itching for another debate. If SHE had done well, her side - knowing how stupid and awful she was - would never have wanted a second opportunity for her to fail spectacularly.
I remember Trump doing rather poorly in the debate against Harris, although much better than against Biden in 2020. She baited him by saying everyone leaves his rallies early, and he reminded everyone how childish he is by taking the bait and saying everyone stays at his rallies until the end. He didn’t really have good responses on many of the topics. Her performance wasn’t great either. I thought he made a mistake by refusing to debate her again, although that would depend on whether he would’ve choked in the second debate or would’ve done better than the first. There’s no way to know. Anyway her policies were so horrendous, the debate obviously didn’t help her enough.
Yeah, I'm not saying he did *well* against her. I've been saying that she DIDN'T do "reasonably well" against him, contra Alex's recollection, and that he didn't need to do another debate *because* she didn't land any body blows that he might've needed to try to recover from in a second debate.
That’s the way I remember it, too.
Every one of them underestimated the quiet Trump supporters. We were afraid of being called out, or worse, being doxxed and our properties being vandalized. We showed restraint- still do- and spoke at the polls. HUsband and I went on the very first day of early voting, something we've never done, and the placed was mobbed. People were angry and saw through the ruse.
My daughter warned me, Don’t let anyone know you’re voting for Trump.
Your Democrat leanings are still obvious in your article.
Egads, reading that book, talk about taking one for the team.
Kamala was burdened by what had been, namely the Biden-Harris presidency. When we disastrously pulled out of Afghanistan, Joe's approval ratings dropped. His terrible debate in June showed the Democrats were willing to run a senile old man. Kamala couldn't think of anything she would have done differently. Her cackle turned people off. She picked Governor Goofy Glad Hands as her back up. She was afraid of long-form podcasts like Joe Rogan's show. And picking the campaign theme of "Joy" showed she was out of step with the voters. I've heard that her book should have been titled "107 Excuses". But if she really wants to know why she lost, she should simply look in a mirror.
Am I the only one on earth who thinks she's actually stupid? She makes no sense, she can't speak properly, she has no evidence of intelligent thought, and it amazes me that she has risen as far as she has in the world. I can only believe she's been a DEI hire through college, law school, and every job since then, including VP to Pres. Biden.
You are definitely not alone. She's a moron.
She's not bright and if she wrote this book, I'll eat all the unsold copies.
thank you and I won't say out loud how she got into politics in the first place
If I was on Jeopardy, my answer would be “Who is Willie Brown?”
love it - best kind of funny
There is a reason she lasted so long. It is not discussed in "polite" society. It is a talent likely embraced by all political parasites.
Surprisingly stupid
you nailed it except for the DEI part - she was rewarded by her - um - 'mentor'
PS scroll down to Kim Perry's tasteful explanation
As a woman, I agree 100%. You summarized her perfectly.
well done
The biggest insult is that Doug would rather watch a baseball game than see his wife in the nude fresh out of the shower. Talk about rejection!
Does anyone really believe these two have a marriage? Their "relationship" is a fine example of "convenience."
Did Harris really expect roses, chocolates, and champagne?
Maybe--after all, she expected to become president.
That was a strange point in the election, too, when all the gay rumors started coming out about Doug because he said he was in a West Hollywood gym when he heard about K moving up the ticket - the rumors went away overnight because the Daily Mail or one of them released a story about him #MeToo'ing his nanny and forcing her to get an abortion.
Maybe she's like Hillary....who doesn't have a marriage either.
She could have called the Mayor to join her in celebrating.
Alex - you're actually saying the problem wasn't Harris? I agree the party has gone crazy, but she is the symptom as well. She was the least popular candidate for president, not getting any support (not 1 delegate) and dropping out - because most people don't like her. The party installed her as VP, where she floundered for four years showing herself to be a vindictive lightweight. What was it, 92% staff turnover for her? Again, nobody likes this woman. Then her party emergency-ejected the Sniffer, and installed their least popular member as their new candidate.
The more she talks, the more people don't like her. Not hard to figure that out sir, so I respectfully disagree with the premise of your entire piece (only this one).
Thank you, keep up your fantastic reporting!
Not to mention, she did not raise 81 million dollars. The Democratic machine raised that money. Kamala can read from a script and say her lines. Trump veers away from the same . She was out of her depth and we all knew it. Trumps strength is his simple , no nonsense speak.
I agree. His other strength is his sense of humor.
So true ! It took me a while to appreciate it because I wanted him to be more ‘normal’, but I’ve come to give up on that and just appreciate the wild ride.
Given the vast amount of money donated by wealthy Democrats, my guess has been that they didn't care what an idiot Harris was, they thought she would be easy to direct and manipulate (like Biden).
she was the least popular vp in history!
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/kamala-harris-notches-lowest-net-approval-rating-of-any-vice-president-in-nbc-news-polling-history/
Well, Biden said he would nominate a "woman of color". That's a pretty lame set of qualifications for such a high position. So the problem was to find such a person no matter how idiotic or unqualified that person may be. Harris fit the bill more or less, although as a Californian, I was aware of her vaguely and she never seemed black to me. Mixed something or other, but who cares? I think the Democrats way overestimated how many people thought that being black and female was the prime qualification to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Harris' demeanor, obnoxious cackling and her lack depth or even knowledge on any subject clearly revealed from the very beginning that she was unqualified for any political office, much less this one. Fortunately, enough people realized what a lightweight intellect she is.
I'm always puzzled to this day by Democrats who are seemingly intelligent people who still think she was great. Say what? Most of us never saw that. If a person is great, intelligent and has good ideas you see it immediately. You don't need the Democrat party or the media to tell you to ignore the vacuousness you see with your own eyes.
I understood from the context, but there’s a typo here: "..her remained generally unpopular,..."
People with Stage IV-V TDS and terminal woke-mind-virus, are beyond being saved. Think of people who swim out too far into the ocean and there are no lifeguards - absent of the ability to reason, think analytically or critically. Dems want teleprompter-readers to be their leaders.
I think a great many are nearing what might be characterized as Terminal TDS.