2024 US Presidential Election

[degrassi.knoll]

someday people will figure out that women voters want real candidates

[SGR]

someday people will figure out that women voters want real candidates

What do you mean by 'real candidates'?

[degrassi.knoll]

Candidates that stand on policy rather than trying to make a historical moment happen.

We're going to continue seeing  token women presidential candidates gain momentum to ultimately lose. That's the thing with tokens, they're meant to be spent.

In many ways Trump was the better candidate. Kamala's campaign was "keep everything the same but with a woman's touch." Huge mistake.

Women don't just want a woman. We want a president.

[degrassi.knoll]

Kamala, like Hillary, thought she'd surely be a shoo-in. That arrogance is what makes them not real candidates. 

[degrassi.knoll]

The first woman president will be trans

[degrassi.knoll]

And Pelosi needs to fucking retire

Sotomayor too

[Trollheart]

Candidates that stand on policy rather than trying to make a historical moment happen.

We're going to continue seeing  token women presidential candidates gain momentum to ultimately lose. That's the thing with tokens, they're meant to be spent.

In many ways Trump was the better candidate. Kamala's campaign was "keep everything the same but with a woman's touch." Huge mistake.

Women don't just want a woman. We want a president.

This is a great quote.

[Psy-Fi]

I didn't know what to expect, but the scale of Trump's win is genuinely surprising.  Especially the amount he grew with particular demos like Hispanics, considering that one of the main bullet points of his campaign is mass deportation.

I'm not surprised that he gained support with the Hispanic vote. My experience from working and dating among that demographic, is that most of them tend to be conservative in their views and the ones who are here legally tend to resent the ones who are here illegally. Most of them also tend to be Catholics and actually attend church services regularly. I think the Democrats are profoundly foolish to assume they can count on the Hispanic vote and take it for granted like they've counted on the black vote and taken it for granted for so long.

[Psy-Fi]

This is a great quote.

It made me smile.

[degrassi.knoll]

I'm not surprised that he gained support with the Hispanic vote. My experience from working and dating among that demographic, is that most of them tend to be conservative in their views and the ones who are here legally tend to resent the ones who are here illegally. Most of them also tend to be Catholics and actually attend church services regularly. I think the Democrats are profoundly foolish to assume they can count on the Hispanic vote and take it for granted like they've counted on the black vote and taken it for granted for so long.

Case in point, re: token commerce

[SGR]

Kamala, like Hillary, thought she'd surely be a shoo-in. That arrogance is what makes them not real candidates. 

I think Hillary definitely thought she'd be a shoo-in and there was a definite arrogance there, but I'm not so sure Kamala thought she'd be a shoo-in. To Kamala's credit, she definitely did not (unlike Hillary) lean into the "first woman president" thing. We'll get the whole story eventually, I'm sure, but my theory is that Obama/Pelosi and some others wanted to do some kind of blitz primary to select a new nominee (because they had little faith in Kamala), but Biden was so pissed at how his party shivved him in the back, that he very quickly and publicly endorsed Kamala to put them between a rock and a hard place. It didn't escape my notice that when Kamala had a big event or important speech to give as nominee, somehow Biden always seemed to create noise and distractions right on cue (talking about how good of a job DeSantis was doing with the hurricanes after Kamala made a fuss about him not taking her calls, putting on the Trump hat in PA, talking about how Kamala was there helping him with every decision, calling Trump supporters "garbage", etc.). I really don't think either Joe or Jill wanted Kamala to win (Jill even wore a red suit on election day) - I think they had a serious pettiness and grudge after how Joe was treated, and I think it shows in the pics of Trump and Biden together post-election. Or maybe I'm crazy and Biden is just happy not to be dealing with all this shit any more.



To your primary point though, I concur. Running a woman candidate is not enough to win the vote of women by default, and it's insulting to women to assume it would be. Crazy idea, but maybe the next time a party nominates a woman as their candidate, they should try nominating one who is likeable and charismatic and doesn't come off like they've been created in the bowels of a political consulting firm.

[Lisnaholic]

I'm not surprised that he gained support with the Hispanic vote. My experience from working and dating among that demographic, is that most of them tend to be conservative in their views and the ones who are here legally tend to resent the ones who are here illegally. Most of them also tend to be Catholics and actually attend church services regularly. I think the Democrats are profoundly foolish to assume they can count on the Hispanic vote and take it for granted like they've counted on the black vote and taken it for granted for so long.

Yep, I can totally see the how that dynamic works with Latinos: the legal ones don't want illegal immigrants giving Latinos in general a bad name. It's also my guess that many Latinos (both men and women) prefer to have a guy in charge as it conforms to what they were brought up to expect.

In all the election campaigning, I didn't hear much Spanish spoken, and yet I bet there are a bunch of Latinos who use Spanish language news sources.  Can anyone see the day when a Presidential candidate will give a speech in Spanish to win over the Latino vote?
___________________________________

Yes that's a great line from degrassi about tokens being spent, but I´m not so sure about these statements:-

In many ways Trump was the better candidate. Kamala's campaign was "keep everything the same but with a woman's touch." Huge mistake.

Women don't just want a woman. We want a president.

^ Of course she lost the election, so anything Kamala did can be labelled "huge mistake" in hindsight. But in fact, given that her opponent was running on a policy of introducing a vindictive autocracy with a discredited economic plan, "keeping things the same" wasn't necessarily a bad proposal imo. If your country is going off a cliff, surely "let's stay on top of the cliff" makes sense ?
Also, imo, Kamala is/was perfectly capable of being a good president, if she had been given the chance. Right now she would be chosing staff, and I bet it wouldn't be a gallery of kiddie sex traffikers, vaccine denialists, Fox tv celebs,etc. (One nomination still to come from Trump: a flat-earther to run NASA.)

Kamala, like Hillary, thought she'd surely be a shoo-in. That arrogance is what makes them not real candidates. 

^ Sorry degrassi, but that's not how I see the way Hillary and Kamala failed when running against Trump. Yes, HC appeared to be arrogant and unsympathetic as a person, and she relied too much on two things: (i) her famous surname and (ii) her trust in old-school political standards, by which Trump had so many disqualifying characteristics.

I personally saw Kamala as a very different character, taking a very different approach. She was much better at appearing to be friendly, went across the country begging for votes all the way and warning people that the Dems needed all the votes they could get. That's not my notion of political arrogance at all.

[degrassi.knoll]

I think the bottom line is that most people don't turn out to vote anymore. We keep trying to recapture the rock the vote vibe, with celebrity endorsements, and woke marketing tactics. There is a hesitancy within the establishment to address the fact that in general people feel their vote and/or participation in the process don't matter, let alone to acknowledge that they're correct. At best, people completely disengage from from anything political, because "politics" in the abstract because it translates to "conflict," and why would you invite conflict into your life when it makes very little difference in the logistics of impoverished survival.

We're being conditioned choose not to care - to reject the scaremongering by rejecting participation itself. There are too many immediate concerns for your average voter - bills to be paid, problems to be solved, dreams to grieve - to muster faith in the process, again and again.

In our modern world there is an immeasurable lack of incentive to subscribe to hope.

[degrassi.knoll]

Yes that's a great line from degrassi about tokens being spent, but I´m not so sure about these statements:-

^ Of course she lost the election, so anything Kamala did can be labelled "huge mistake" in hindsight. But in fact, given that her opponent was running on a policy of introducing a vindictive autocracy with a discredited economic plan, "keeping things the same" wasn't necessarily a bad proposal imo. If your country is going off a cliff, surely "let's stay on top of the cliff" makes sense ?

To be fair to myself, (lol) these were positions I held throughout her campaign, and not in hindsight. I think a mistake the left continues to make is to run on sanctimonious performative virtue - I think that as a result of this both Hillary and Harris presumed that Trump would lose his run for himself. In 2008 that might have been a legitimate outcome, but it continues to be the case that most American voters don't want more of the same. They keep telling us this, but nothing about the approach changes. Voters don't care if it means playing dirty, most people just want dramatic change - when the president under which you serve has a less than favorable approval rating, what makes them think promising no change at all would be a strong position? 

Also, imo, Kamala is/was perfectly capable of being a good president, if she had been given the chance. Right now she would be chosing staff, and I bet it wouldn't be a gallery of kiddie sex traffikers, vaccine denialists, Fox tv celebs,etc. (One nomination still to come from Trump: a flat-earther to run NASA.)

I don't disagree, but most American voters simply don't care about this.

^ Sorry degrassi, but that's not how I see the way Hillary and Kamala failed when running against Trump. Yes, HC appeared to be arrogant and unsympathetic as a person, and she relied too much on two things: (i) her famous surname and (ii) her trust in old-school political standards, by which Trump had so many disqualifying characteristics.

I personally saw Kamala as a very different character, taking a very different approach. She was much better at appearing to be friendly, went across the country begging for votes all the way and warning people that the Dems needed all the votes they could get. That's not my notion of political arrogance at all.

Running on the idea that "I'm the best of the options you have" doesn't inspire much confidence. My point is largely that this assertion is not enough for modern voters. They want to support their candidate, not settle on one. Whether it's the right or wrong way to approach politics, we have to understand where voters are if we hope to engage them.

[Lisnaholic]

I think the bottom line is that most people don't turn out to vote anymore. We keep trying to recapture the rock the vote vibe, with celebrity endorsements, and woke marketing tactics. There is a hesitancy within the establishment to address the fact that in general people feel their vote and/or participation in the process don't matter, let alone to acknowledge that they're correct. At best, people completely disengage from from anything political, because "politics" in the abstract because it translates to "conflict," and why would you invite conflict into your life when it makes very little difference in the logistics of impoverished survival.

We're being conditioned choose not to care - to reject the scaremongering by rejecting participation itself. There are too many immediate concerns for your average voter - bills to be paid, problems to be solved, dreams to grieve - to muster faith in the process, again and again.

In our modern world there is an immeasurable lack of incentive to subscribe to hope.

I'm sure you're right, degrassi, and I remember some people on MB expressing a similar attitude. In fact, when I was young, I used to think that politics was boring and I geninely didn't notice any changes in my life from one Prime Minister to the next: my college, my job, my friends etc all went on in the same way regardless. That's partly down to the politics of the time, with not much to choose between the parties.

Online, it looks like just over half the population in the US turn out to vote, which actually isn't so bad by international standards:-



EDIT: thanks for your latest response, degrassi, but I'm a bit tired now, and will respond tomorrow I hope.