Bucknutz
Well-Known Member
Yep, you and I said this at the time.
Kamala Harris for Pres
- Thread starter The Thriller
- Start date
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
Liberals/Democrats just outspent Republicans by nearly a 2-to-1 margin. You didn't lose because you didn't have enough money. You lost because your ideas are bad and your candidate was worse.
Safetydan
Well-Known Member
None of them win if they run on the same messaging that Kamala-Walz did.
Safetydan
Well-Known Member
That's his point. If billionaires are supporting us, we're doing it wrong.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
If that is what you think then you've learned nothing from the electoral beat down.
What if it was free to run for public office, how would that change U.S. politics? What if you didn't need to be a billionaire or have access to billions of dollars from donors?
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Don't forget Russian propaganda in social media. Had a big influence.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
A lot of people did. It was acknowledged very early on what a terrible choice Harris was to begin with.
IDK if that is true, but yes, the democratic party is too in bed with billionaires.
Liberals/Democrats just spend it on outdated means. The Repubicans spend more. It's not all accounted for.
What I think? It's a factual statement.
I think any of them would have. The biggest problem was that Kamala couldn't go off script. It was actually shocking how bad she was at just casually speaking. We knew it and It hindered her massively. We heard about her rallies but how often did she just engage the public off-script or sit down for interviews? I think Whitmer would have been a great choice. She's known for doing surprisingly well in her campaigns.
I also think not nearly enough was made of Trump ducking a second debate. They should have gone full offense painting him as a coward.
I don't want to get lost in the impracticality of this idea (I know it's not currently practical), but this is how I would love to have campaigns run:
- Candidates who would like to run for office submit qualifications to a committee of citizens (Kind of like a resume)
- Top 5 candidates are selected to run for office.
- Each candidate is given an equal platform (TV ads, websites, debate time, etc.). Costs are funded by government and candidates are disqualified if they break rules.
- Citizens are mailed an information packet with information on each candidate. There could be a QR code with a link to the candidates website for additional information.
- Candidates who would like to run for office submit qualifications to a committee of citizens (Kind of like a resume)
- Top 5 candidates are selected to run for office.
- Each candidate is given an equal platform (TV ads, websites, debate time, etc.). Costs are funded by government and candidates are disqualified if they break rules.
- Citizens are mailed an information packet with information on each candidate. There could be a QR code with a link to the candidates website for additional information.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
It is totally practical, but it doesn't have the outcome I think you have pictured.
The system you describe is the system they use in Iran. The "committee of citizens" in Iran is called the Guardian Council. They pick all the candidates, fund the costs of the campaign, and disqualify any who break the rules of Islam as interpreted by the Guardian Council. The people then get to vote on the options presented to them by the Guardian Council. They call it democracy with elected officials representing the will of the people but in practice it is a totalitarian government run by the Guardian Council.
The Guardian Council isn't what I meant. Agreed you would have to find a way to avoid corruption at that point. Mabye the citizens could be chosen at random like Jury Duty.
Safetydan
Well-Known Member
I'm a big backer of a system of publically funded campaigns.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
And banning individual/outside donations to candidates. Make all donations only allowed through a central point in the government to be equally distributed to all candidates.
Safetydan
Well-Known Member
She definitely was not the person for the campaign they tried to run. If they're going to try to appeal to conflicted republicans and run to the center, the last person you need is somebody like Kamala Harris. Josh Shapiro would have been perfect. He's good on his feet and would do a better job at the whole tip toe, walk the line, balancing act they tried to shoehorn Kamala into. He should have been the VP pick probably.
The Tim Walz choice made zero sense in hindsight. They chose a progressive darling and then abandoned everything that would have made him effective or interesting.
Last edited:
I think people underestimate how much calling people idiots, racist, homophobic, etc for supporting a politician has the opposite effect of what they think doing that will.
Sardines
Well-Known Member
The effect I want it to have is for them to know how I feel about them.
You can't reason someone out of a point of view they didn't reason themself into. Being a Trump fart sniffer isn't something you can save someone else from.