Presidential Race 2024

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Kamala said she raised 1.5 billion on a call with dnc fund raising. Her campaign ended in debt and is trying to still raise money after losing.

Trump raised 380-400 million.

Completely pathetic. TBH both amounts of money are absurdly disgusting and just validates that our country is for the rich and corporations and not us.

In regards to your last post I am not sure I get the hate on Walz I think the biggest flaw they did with him is really not focus on his progressive accomplishments that are incredibly popular regardless of voter registration.

Things like:

Increasing pre-k access, food for breakfast and lunch for students, increased funding for state police, red flag laws and back ground checks, paid leave and paid sick time for all workers and banning non compete agreements, decreased taxes on seniors and middle class and cut prescription drug prices.

All of those have bipartisan support and hugely popular but instead the Harris campaign muzzled him on these issues and he had to speak about Harris' pro corporate agenda which was an epic failure.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

Completely pathetic. TBH both amounts of money are absurdly disgusting and just validates that our country is for the rich and corporations and not us.

In regards to your last post I am not sure I get the hate on Walz I think the biggest flaw they did with him is really not focus on his progressive accomplishments that are incredibly popular regardless of voter registration.

Things like:

Increasing pre-k access, food for breakfast and lunch for students, increased funding for state police, red flag laws and back ground checks, paid leave and paid sick time for all workers and banning non compete agreements, decreased taxes on seniors and middle class and cut prescription drug prices.

All of those have bipartisan support and hugely popular but instead the Harris campaign muzzled him on these issues and he had to speak about Harris' pro corporate agenda which was an epic failure.

Baltimore I get that, but the insane positions will be the fodder highlighted to independents. Also the attempts to make him more masculine and to speak to men didn’t work and seemed unnatural/forced….his military service was a detriment. Plus his mannerisms made him appear gay.

The debate was a debacle vs Vance.

Also listen to James Carville here:

If I were running a 2028 campaign and I had some little snot-nosed 23-year-old saying, ‘I’m going to resign if you do this,’ not only would I fire that motherf---er on the spot, I would find out who hired them and fire that person on the spot!" he added. "I’m really not interested in your uninformed, stupid, jacka-- opinion as to whether to go on Joe Rogan or not."


I don’t get why the democrats put up with this nonsense? This happens on Capitol Hill as well with democrat staff.

Look, where I work, we don’t put up with this from 20 years olds. We don’t, you will not get hired or you will not advance period. The big thing we do is move them into spots if we can’t fire them outright

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

Completely pathetic. TBH both amounts of money are absurdly disgusting and just validates that our country is for the rich and corporations and not us.

In regards to your last post I am not sure I get the hate on Walz I think the biggest flaw they did with him is really not focus on his progressive accomplishments that are incredibly popular regardless of voter registration.

Things like:

Increasing pre-k access, food for breakfast and lunch for students, increased funding for state police, red flag laws and back ground checks, paid leave and paid sick time for all workers and banning non compete agreements, decreased taxes on seniors and middle class and cut prescription drug prices.

All of those have bipartisan support and hugely popular but instead the Harris campaign muzzled him on these issues and he had to speak about Harris' pro corporate agenda which was an epic failure.

Walz was a terrible pick and I said so and explained why at the time she picked him (I said if she loses the Walz pick would be one reason). There were three things she could have done anyone of which would likely have moved 2pts to her direction (which may have been enough). She should not have picked Walz as she already was perceived as being too progressive. Picking Walz, who was even more progressive than her was a slap in the face to the anti-Trump conservative voters, a percentage of which then returned to Trump or sat out. Not distancing herself from Biden and failing to slap down the extreme woke were the other two opportunities she squandered.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by nonniey

Walz was a terrible pick and I said so and explained why at the time she picked him (I said if she loses the Walz pick would be one reason). There were three things she could have done anyone of which would likely have 2pts to her direction (which may have been enough). She should not have picked Walz as she already was perceived as being too progressive. Picking Walz, who was even more progressive than her was a slap in the face to the anti-Trump conservative voters, a percentage of which then returned to Trump or sat out. Not distancing herself from Biden and failing to slap down the extreme woke were the other two opportunities she squandered.

Walz wasn't the reason she lost. She actually did well considering she ran for 12 week campaign against someone who had been running for 4 years. I wanted Kelly myself but Walz wasn't the reason she lost.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Baltimore I get that, but the insane positions will be the fodder highlighted to independents. Also the attempts to make him more masculine and to speak to men didn’t work and seemed unnatural/forced….his military service was a detriment. Plus his mannerisms made him appear gay.

The debate was a debacle vs Vance.

Also listen to James Carville here:

If I were running a 2028 campaign and I had some little snot-nosed 23-year-old saying, ‘I’m going to resign if you do this,’ not only would I fire that motherf---er on the spot, I would find out who hired them and fire that person on the spot!" he added. "I’m really not interested in your uninformed, stupid, jacka-- opinion as to whether to go on Joe Rogan or not."


I don’t get why the democrats put up with this nonsense? This happens on Capitol Hill as well with democrat staff.

Look, where I work, we don’t put up with this from 20 years olds. We don’t, you will not get hired or you will not advance period. The big thing we do is move them into spots if we can’t fire them outright

oh boy, if we were playing who's the gay guy Vance would win 10 out of 10 times vs Walz and what does it matter anyway

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by MTK

oh boy, if we were playing who's the gay guy Vance would win 10 out of 10 times vs Walz and what does it matter anyway

lol

But seriously…and im 100% honest I got a non prompted remark from one of the kids…I think the boy…during a televised Walz speaking segment during the campaign

“Is he gay?”

I’m 100% honest. I said no he’s married. And like a minute later I added, well you never know.


I think this was an issue…I don’t think Walz was a guy who connected with young Latino, black and white bro guys.

[hail2commanders]

Trump's sweep of the battlegrounds pretty much makes the Walz pick irrelevant. If it had come down to PA, the whole "should she have picked Shapiro" thing would've been more widely argued.

Bottom line is that Harris was too much of an unknown quantity, while Trump, despite his obvious personal flaws, held the job before and people in general were satisfied with his performance from 2017-2019 until he couldn't handle covid from a PR perspective. And all the covid spending by both administrations led to the inflation which was a big factor behind the Dems loss.

If Joe had either in 2023 announced (a) that he was resigning at the end of his term and such would've resulted in a primary or (b) stepped down and handed the reins to Harris for a couple years, things many have turned out differently.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

lol

But seriously…and im 100% honest I got a non prompted remark from one of the kids…I think the boy…during a televised Walz speaking segment during the campaign

“Is he gay?”

I’m 100% honest. I said no he’s married. And like a minute later I added, well you never know.


I think this was an issue…I don’t think Walz was a guy who connected with young Latino, black and white bro guys.

Hard to imagine Vance did either, the guy is as schmuky as they get

I think the importance of the VP thing is way overblown, neither Walz or Vance moved the needle in a significant way to help or hurt

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by MTK

Hard to imagine Vance did either, the guy is as schmuky as they get

I think the importance of the VP thing is way overblown, neither Walz or Vance moved the needle in a significant way to help or hurt

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by nonniey

Walz was a terrible pick and I said so and explained why at the time she picked him (I said if she loses the Walz pick would be one reason). There were three things she could have done anyone of which would likely have 2pts to her direction (which may have been enough). She should not have picked Walz as she already was perceived as being too progressive. Picking Walz, who was even more progressive than her was a slap in the face to the anti-Trump conservative voters, a percentage of which then returned to Trump or sat out. Not distancing herself from Biden and failing to slap down the extreme woke were the other two opportunities she squandered.

If she is progressive then Nancy Mace is a conservative

[Chico23231]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/vice-pres...194007828.html

Vice President Kamala Harris’ Viral Message To Dejected Dems Sparks Conversation



Just wow, Kamala appears to be drunk while giving this psa…G1 come get your girl! Gotta say we “doge” a bullet

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

If she is progressive then Nancy Mace is a conservative

I said she is perceived as too progressive (you may dispute that she actually is a progressive (I wouldn't) but would you dispute the perception?)

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by nonniey

I said she is perceived as too progressive (you may dispute that she actually is a progressive (I wouldn't) but would you dispute the perception?)

I am sure there are people that do consider her a progressive however her refusing to prosecute OneWest Bank for foreclosure fraud, support of genocide, and being against workers ability to unionize. I know she has said progressive things but without authenticity and clarity of message. As SD has said she will say what she needs to get votes but in the end she always supports her donors: OneWest Bank, AIPAC, Silicon Valley. Those are neocon ideologies not progressive

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

Completely pathetic. TBH both amounts of money are absurdly disgusting and just validates that our country is for the rich and corporations and not us.

In regards to your last post I am not sure I get the hate on Walz I think the biggest flaw they did with him is really not focus on his progressive accomplishments that are incredibly popular regardless of voter registration.

Things like:

Increasing pre-k access, food for breakfast and lunch for students, increased funding for state police, red flag laws and back ground checks, paid leave and paid sick time for all workers and banning non compete agreements, decreased taxes on seniors and middle class and cut prescription drug prices.

All of those have bipartisan support and hugely popular but instead the Harris campaign muzzled him on these issues and he had to speak about Harris' pro corporate agenda which was an epic failure.

Asking your opinion, what do you think trump;s cabinet will do with those issues?

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Asking your opinion, what do you think trump;s cabinet will do with those issues?

I think regarding education the federal funding will still be there it will just be pushed to the states. That said for some reason that I don't understand there is a part of the population that is vehemently opposed to universal pre-k despite the societal and economic benefits it provides longitudinally and therefore we won't see it adopted nationally nor will we see universal breakfast and lunch. I think you will see gun laws pushed more to the states so more of the same patchwork we have. I like the secretary of labor if she can be the advocate I think she can and battle the billionaires in his cabinet we could see some positives for workers but I am going to guess Trump will not be pro worker. I could see RFK working on cutting prescription prices