What's new
By:

Kamala Harris for Pres

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
Saint Cy of JFC said:
The shift in numbers for Gen Z men is insane.

Got to think a lot of it is how heavily the right wing funds social media influencers.

Honestly dont even know the answer for it. The Right just has more money to fund this kind of stuff. The young generation will have to feel the pain of right wing politics before they wise up.
Click to expand...
Don't forget Russian propaganda in social media. Had a big influence.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
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.
Click to expand...
Liberals/Democrats just spend it on outdated means. The Repubicans spend more. It's not all accounted for.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Possibly, but Im not sure any of them beat Trump.
Click to expand...

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.
 
SoberasHotRod said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
I'm a big backer of a system of publically funded campaigns.
Click to expand...
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.
 
str8line said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Elizah Huge said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Safetydan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Disagree. Josh Shapiro would have outshined Kamala. Josh Shapiro is a bright guy who is a solid communicator. He couldn't be the VP pick. He should have been the pick to top the ticket.
 
str8line said:
It was a beyond bad choice. There was plenty of time to gauge public sentiment and choose a different candidate. No way Kamala would have beat out Mayor Pete or Whitmer or Newsom or Shapiro.
Click to expand...
I remember hearing something about if Kamala was not the choice then the person chosen would have to start from scratch with no money in the campaign coffers or something. So the mayor pete, whitmer, newsome, shapiro or whoever would have to start from scratch and would have little money and time to get ad and air time to get themselves known to the public.
Kamala being the choice meant that the money that had been raised for biden could be transferred to her I think. Maybe because she was the VP or something. IDK.
 
SoberasHotRod said:
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?
Click to expand...
Is it not free to run for public office? I have a friend whose name was on the ballot for state house seat (she won) and she broke as hell like me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top