Honestly there’s almost no way a sitting president gains popularity but considering his stance on Israel and stuff he sure as hell would lose some. I honestly don’t think it would have been better.
Maybe being more policy specific would have helped Kamala. But the Democrats just have so much PR damage they haven’t addressed over time, they are not doing themselves any favors. Humility can be an incredible thing but if you’re a politician being humble is the hardest thing to fake, so if you’re not, you’re not gonna try if you’re smart enough.
As a leftist (not in the US though) we just gotta take the L and that’s that. I’ll be waiting for the drop in support for Republicans after the fact and the following damage report from Rumpsteak’s presidency. Let’s just hope we get a competent cleaning crew to deal with the damage.
Also reminder that I’m on the hindsight 20/20 high horse so it’s very easy to criticize, but I genuinely thought Kamala had a chance and it was a good idea so it’s not like I make a good oracle lol.
I’m always confused by the need for the Democrats to be more policy specific, when they’re the only party that actually shares any policy.
I feel like people aren’t saying they’re unsure of the specifics of Kamala’s policy points, so they’re going to instead vote for the guy who rambles incoherently for an hour about evil Mexicans.
I think this shows a lot of potential Kamala voters chose not to vote, instead of going to the orange Julius. Democrats have to be more specific with policy because leftists demand it. The right (Trumps base) doesn’t care.
I’d be curious to know how many left the vote blank because of the gencodie, but they will never collect or report on such a statistic. Its forbidden, even now.
Most of the world are voting out standing governments cause times are hard all over. Don’t think they really could have done anything. It’s just part of the trend.
Honestly there’s almost no way a sitting president gains popularity but considering his stance on Israel and stuff he sure as hell would lose some. I honestly don’t think it would have been better.
Maybe being more policy specific would have helped Kamala. But the Democrats just have so much PR damage they haven’t addressed over time, they are not doing themselves any favors. Humility can be an incredible thing but if you’re a politician being humble is the hardest thing to fake, so if you’re not, you’re not gonna try if you’re smart enough.
As a leftist (not in the US though) we just gotta take the L and that’s that. I’ll be waiting for the drop in support for Republicans after the fact and the following damage report from Rumpsteak’s presidency. Let’s just hope we get a competent cleaning crew to deal with the damage.
Also reminder that I’m on the hindsight 20/20 high horse so it’s very easy to criticize, but I genuinely thought Kamala had a chance and it was a good idea so it’s not like I make a good oracle lol.
I’m always confused by the need for the Democrats to be more policy specific, when they’re the only party that actually shares any policy.
I feel like people aren’t saying they’re unsure of the specifics of Kamala’s policy points, so they’re going to instead vote for the guy who rambles incoherently for an hour about evil Mexicans.
I think this shows a lot of potential Kamala voters chose not to vote, instead of going to the orange Julius. Democrats have to be more specific with policy because leftists demand it. The right (Trumps base) doesn’t care.
It’s great to know theyre complete jackasses who would rather take trump than someone who represents 70% of what they want.
Very comforting, very logical.
I’d be curious to know how many left the vote blank because of the gencodie, but they will never collect or report on such a statistic. Its forbidden, even now.
It’s also hard to collate such data.
Most of the world are voting out standing governments cause times are hard all over. Don’t think they really could have done anything. It’s just part of the trend.