But why did Kamala Harris ‘ campaign suffer a blatant defeat on Tuesday? Well, the talking points have gone out, and whatever you do, do n’t blame Kamala Harris! The media has already dried-swallowed sufficient valium to settle on a different reason for her loss, as best demonstrated by this USA Today journalist:
Also, alrighty then. Even the more pleasant way to deal with allocating blame is to beg, what, if anything, may include Harris done better?
Well, even “flawless” seems like rhetoric, but there’s an emerging discussion:
Hmmm. Someone’s opinion on this might be more logical?
And these are the more pleasant reasoning. A group of archives would be required to begin documenting the number of people who disingenously absolve Kamala Harris ‘ failure as a result of prejudice and/or sexism.
But I think you get the place. The Democratic Industrial Complex has surpassed North Korean levels of sycophancy, only worse than North Korea, where people consistently praise their Dear Leader only when they are threatened if they do n’t if they do n’t. And it’s unintelligible when you consider that” sycophant” has long been the preferred attack for Trump supporters as they count toward a century.
Now that I do n’t believe in ever sucking up to politicians, for any reason, I think you should. But if that’s your thing, at least you have the respect to appoint a leader for success. And now Trump has won two national elections, losing in one of the most insane years in history, when the election laws were all thrown out and rewritten on the spot, and emerging with a wholly decisive victory and a popular mandate.
However, Kamala is n’t a failure solely because she gave it the old college try and did n’t win. She was a remarkably bad prospect who made Michael Dukakis look like Pericles in terms of social ability. Let’s just start with the bare minimum of what one expects: She could n’t string a sentence together. Her optimum performance was when the engine was set to “refrigerator poetry”, as opposed to “forgot to plan for the dental presentation”, and neither was appropriate. The candidate, it turns out, could n’t speak at all when she announced” I’m speaking” to interrupting mansplainers.
Let’s be clear, she positively did not, so much so that anyone could argue that she ran a campaign without major errors because her handlers simply trusted her to speak up to the most welcoming recruiters. There’s a great opportunity “60 Minutes” is not disclosing the complete transcript of her famous interview because they let her redo her first embarrassing responses, which is good for Democrats and includes the highest echelons of National journalism.
Yet those allowances were unable to protect her from herself, though. She went on” The View”, about as socially onanistic a place as one can find, and generally ended her plan. She was asked,” If anything, would you have done something differently than President Biden during the past four years” ? ,
Harris responded,” there is not a thing that comes to mind” . , The Trump campaign immediately turned the answer into a very effective ad.
That was n’t a one-time event, though. A few times, Harris was asked this question, and every time she did, she was able to create a completely novel and inventive way to answer it poorly. Her ability to perform a simple meeting without orally pratfalling all over the place has to some degree reflect her general knowledge.
Speaking of gags, I think the best they can hope for is more comic than cringe when the truth about what transpired in this strategy is revealed. Kamala Harris ‘ tenure at the Naval Observatory was frequently compared to the fictional comedy” Veep” when she assumed office for a second time. The show’s father, who is typically extremely humorous, took to The New York Times to refute the comparison and claim that Trump had made an attempt to sway audiences with his own death try.
Well, then what the hell did the authors ‘ place at” Veep” produce of this story from Harris ‘ political plan? The Harris battle made arrangements for an appointment with a well-known and well-known Muslim web influencer, informed him in advance that she would not discuss Gaza, and she rather showed up:
The interview with Harris had n’t gone as planned.
What happened was a dispute over Harris’s taking. Rahma claimed that Rahma had been informed that the vice president may be protesting removing boots from airplanes. When they sat down, but, Harris had surprised him with a unique get:” Bacon is a pepper”. ( Two top campaign officials claimed that this issue had been raised in advance. Rahma and his boss disagree about this.
Rahma, who does n’t eat pork for religious reasons, was taken aback. ” I do n’t know”, he says, in an unpublished video recording of the interview, his voice rising to an unusually high pitch. According to Harris, pieces of fried ham can be used to season a meal similarly to other seasonings. ” Think about it, it’s natural flavour”, she says. …
The plan offered an apology and suggested a new movie. However, Rahma ultimately decided against moving forward after the Walz discussion was published.
To put it simply, she wo n’t discuss a pressing issue that is significant to Muslim Americans. But she’s eager to talk to Muslims about … ham? It’s impossible to movie people who cannot speak to anyone in such a manner that does n’t attack their brains, when she’s not insulting them outright.
And to the extent the campaign kept her under wraps because of this liability, it’s not like people did n’t notice the contrast between the relative silence and Trump’s lengthy rallies, press conferences, and three-hour podcasts.
Anyway, I do n’t honestly care if the Democrat Party wants free advice. However, I had at least insist on being truthful, and Kamala Harris was a bad choice. ( Although Tim Walz, the utterly mendacious spaz who tweeted about running” a mean pick 6,” which is arguably the most eminently heartland football coach who mandated tampon dispensers boys ‘ locker rooms, was also at the time. )
Because Democrats are a cult of identity politics, she was directly and unjustly elevated to evil president. It is ridiculous to say she lost in spite of a “flawless” campaign, when influencers, normally desperate to land such a major interview, are spiking interviews with her because they ca n’t make her not sound offensive and dumb.
She lost because she was unable to speak up the way that officials are supposed to. Five seconds after opening her mouth, on the rare occasions her own strategy deigned to allow her to talk, she lost because she was an fake light that the regular Spanish roofer in Reading, Pennsylvania could show was a nonviable leader.
It’s no longer complicated than that.
