Love S.E Cupp except for her take on Kamala who I think would be the worst candidate the Dems could run not named Joe Biden. I am also struggling to understand why the Dems must run Kamala even though she was not a good candidate in 2020 and I see no reason why she would be a good candidate in 2024. We are told Dems must run her to avoid…
Love S.E Cupp except for her take on Kamala who I think would be the worst candidate the Dems could run not named Joe Biden. I am also struggling to understand why the Dems must run Kamala even though she was not a good candidate in 2020 and I see no reason why she would be a good candidate in 2024. We are told Dems must run her to avoid alienating black women despite the fact that black women did not vote for her in the 2020 primary. And I think it is insulting to black women to think they would insist on running a candidate more likely to lose to Trump, not because she is a black woman but because she is not a good candidate!!
Then we are told the Dems can’t have a Jewish VP candidate (Shapiro) because Shapiro is Jewish and it would aggravate the disagreement on Gaza?? So much for courting Nikki Haley voters because Trump is an existential threat.
I will vote for anyone over Trump but I think the Dems keep putting themselves in an electoral vice and do so needlessly.
I don't think you will vote for anyone over trump; b/c you are saying you won't vote for Harris.
White males are not good candidates when they first try to run for POTUS, why do they not get held to the same standard you want to hold Harris to?
I've seen this type of comment before "insulting to black women to think they would insist on running Harris" -- it's always a nice effort, but not truthful.
One of the signature accomplishments of the post enlightenment era of human civilization and the American Revolution specifically was to treat people as individuals rather than categories. It’s one reason the Founders got rid of titles of nobility. It’s not been a straight-line accomplishment of course and there is always more to do. One reason I maintain my belief in classical liberalism though is because it is rooted in this basic construct. It’s sad when I see folks on the progressive Left and on the nationalist Right returning to the reactionary approach of treating folks as categories instead of judging them on their individual merits.
I think its fantastic we have a mixed-race woman as VP. I think its fantastic we had a mixed-race man as President. The fact that Kamala is mixed race has nothing to do with my judgment of her as a politician. I don’t think she was a terribly compelling Senator. I don’t think she was a terribly compelling Presidential candidate in 2020, and I don’t think she has been a terribly compelling VP. This I can deduce by listening to her speak. Given the stakes are so high, I would like the Dems to choose someone else. If they don’t, then I likely will vote for her though I live in Oregon so I always have the option of a write-in knowing Oregon is going blue no matter who is on the ticket. If I was in Wisconsin or the like, I would vote for her.
As far as white men running for President the first time, I agree most are not good, though some are. I was too young to really experience it myself, but I think Reagan in ’76 was pretty compelling from the speeches I have seen and in ’80 as well. Bill Clinton I think was pretty compelling the first time he ran in 1992. Dwight Eisenhower from what I have heard and read, and I think John McCain in 2000 in a losing effort to win the Repub nomination. Of course, its sort of like beauty, its in the eyes of the beholder.
I do hope that someday, it becomes fashionable even on the far reaches of both Right and Left to treat folks as individuals and not as categories.
She was a lousy candidate in 2020. She’s done nothing since then to suggest she would be a better candidate in 2024. Sorry if you are having a difficult time seeing reality
Agreed! He was also a lousy candidate in 2020 saved by Covid (I voted for him anyway). He is a lousy candidate in 2024. I am not sure that this has to do with the fact that Harris is not the best option for the Dems to beat Trump.
So, where's this supposedly better candidate Joe Biden didn't beat in 2020, and who was too scared to run in 2024 that will manage to actually unify the party, including the large swaths who do think Kamala should be the nominee, because that's the whole point of a VP
Are you asking me who the nominee should be? I am not sure but I think that is what you are asking. If so, there are a number of people. Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro, Wes Moore, Andy Beshear. I am sure there are others. If partisan Dems really believe that Trump is an existential threat to the country (I do) then they will eschew their policy preferences for whomever can win. AZ and GA are almost certainly lost. The Dem candidate must win PA, WI and MI and the way Biden did that last time is to appeal to center right voters who normally vote R but can't stand Trump. So whomever can appeal to that swath of voters should get the nomination if the Dem coalition truly believes Trump is the threat they claim he is (and again, I agree with Trump being a threat).
Love S.E Cupp except for her take on Kamala who I think would be the worst candidate the Dems could run not named Joe Biden. I am also struggling to understand why the Dems must run Kamala even though she was not a good candidate in 2020 and I see no reason why she would be a good candidate in 2024. We are told Dems must run her to avoid alienating black women despite the fact that black women did not vote for her in the 2020 primary. And I think it is insulting to black women to think they would insist on running a candidate more likely to lose to Trump, not because she is a black woman but because she is not a good candidate!!
Then we are told the Dems can’t have a Jewish VP candidate (Shapiro) because Shapiro is Jewish and it would aggravate the disagreement on Gaza?? So much for courting Nikki Haley voters because Trump is an existential threat.
I will vote for anyone over Trump but I think the Dems keep putting themselves in an electoral vice and do so needlessly.
I don't think you will vote for anyone over trump; b/c you are saying you won't vote for Harris.
White males are not good candidates when they first try to run for POTUS, why do they not get held to the same standard you want to hold Harris to?
I've seen this type of comment before "insulting to black women to think they would insist on running Harris" -- it's always a nice effort, but not truthful.
One of the signature accomplishments of the post enlightenment era of human civilization and the American Revolution specifically was to treat people as individuals rather than categories. It’s one reason the Founders got rid of titles of nobility. It’s not been a straight-line accomplishment of course and there is always more to do. One reason I maintain my belief in classical liberalism though is because it is rooted in this basic construct. It’s sad when I see folks on the progressive Left and on the nationalist Right returning to the reactionary approach of treating folks as categories instead of judging them on their individual merits.
I think its fantastic we have a mixed-race woman as VP. I think its fantastic we had a mixed-race man as President. The fact that Kamala is mixed race has nothing to do with my judgment of her as a politician. I don’t think she was a terribly compelling Senator. I don’t think she was a terribly compelling Presidential candidate in 2020, and I don’t think she has been a terribly compelling VP. This I can deduce by listening to her speak. Given the stakes are so high, I would like the Dems to choose someone else. If they don’t, then I likely will vote for her though I live in Oregon so I always have the option of a write-in knowing Oregon is going blue no matter who is on the ticket. If I was in Wisconsin or the like, I would vote for her.
As far as white men running for President the first time, I agree most are not good, though some are. I was too young to really experience it myself, but I think Reagan in ’76 was pretty compelling from the speeches I have seen and in ’80 as well. Bill Clinton I think was pretty compelling the first time he ran in 1992. Dwight Eisenhower from what I have heard and read, and I think John McCain in 2000 in a losing effort to win the Repub nomination. Of course, its sort of like beauty, its in the eyes of the beholder.
I do hope that someday, it becomes fashionable even on the far reaches of both Right and Left to treat folks as individuals and not as categories.
please give deeper thought to your statements re Vice President Harris going forward before spewing them forth.
She was a lousy candidate in 2020. She’s done nothing since then to suggest she would be a better candidate in 2024. Sorry if you are having a difficult time seeing reality
Joe Biden was a lousy candidate in 2008.
Agreed! He was also a lousy candidate in 2020 saved by Covid (I voted for him anyway). He is a lousy candidate in 2024. I am not sure that this has to do with the fact that Harris is not the best option for the Dems to beat Trump.
So, where's this supposedly better candidate Joe Biden didn't beat in 2020, and who was too scared to run in 2024 that will manage to actually unify the party, including the large swaths who do think Kamala should be the nominee, because that's the whole point of a VP
Are you asking me who the nominee should be? I am not sure but I think that is what you are asking. If so, there are a number of people. Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro, Wes Moore, Andy Beshear. I am sure there are others. If partisan Dems really believe that Trump is an existential threat to the country (I do) then they will eschew their policy preferences for whomever can win. AZ and GA are almost certainly lost. The Dem candidate must win PA, WI and MI and the way Biden did that last time is to appeal to center right voters who normally vote R but can't stand Trump. So whomever can appeal to that swath of voters should get the nomination if the Dem coalition truly believes Trump is the threat they claim he is (and again, I agree with Trump being a threat).