Current Events > Kamala Harris has a book she wants to sell

(+) Yeah! (+)

LightSnake posted...

She won the people who were actually engaged and hearing that. It's people who were googling if Biden dropped out a week before the election that were the issue.

The initial lead was illusory.

I really can't agree, the lead held long enough that it wasn't illusory. The shift in messaging is when her polls started to seriously dip.

Enclave posted...

I really can't agree, the lead held long enough that it wasn't illusory. The shift in messaging is when her polls started to seriously dip.

It was an illusion, likely a response bias. We see the same thing during the conventions. The partisans become more energized and more likely to talk to a pollster. Before Biden dropped out she was polling as badly as he was.

There's been exhaustive studying of "what went wrong" and the answer is largely sexism & racism. To do things differently, and win, you'd have to have Biden drop out in 2022 and have a real primary election.

Strider102 posted...

Well said, stupidity and Trump was the enemy here, not Democrats.

Which is why I hate our electorate and put 2024 entirely on it. There was such a clear distinction between Trump and Harris.

Our side is supposedly more educated but can be easily convinced to not vote or throw away their vote unlike Republicans. Those fools will gladly vote Republican.

MuscleRobo posted...

The funny thing is how no one actually reads these things? Are they money laundering? Was it Stacey Abrams who said in her book she was magic and could cure a disease her grandma had or something but no one actually said "Um, what?" until years later.

Not money laundering but usually some political organization or in the case of Trump the RNC itself will buy millions of copies and give them away. So any sales numbers are bullshit.

Tyranthraxus posted...

There's been exhaustive studying of "what went wrong" and the answer is largely sexism & racism. To do things differently, and win, you'd have to have Biden drop out in 2022 and have a real primary election.

Harris would win the primary and then we'd have like a year and a half of Gaza being the chief issue.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I agree. I think the Democratic party needs to go in an entirely different direction, and while Zohran Mamdani's victory in the NYC Democratic primary is a good sign, we're still a ways away from that. The biggest issues troubling Americans today are the high costs of housing and healthcare, and the Democrats need a national unifying message to tackle these issues. Problem is...they're nowhere close.

I don't think Harris was ever as widely supported as the polls suggested. I seem to recall reading that a lot of the Democrats' internal polling showed that they themselves knew they were fucked

LightSnake posted...

Harris would win the primary and then we'd have like a year and a half of Gaza being the chief issue.

It's not a given she would win the primary.

SSj4Wingzero posted...

I agree. I think the Democratic party needs to go in an entirely different direction, and while Zohran Mamdani's victory in the NYC Democratic primary is a good sign, we're still a ways away from that. The biggest issues troubling Americans today are the high costs of housing and healthcare, and the Democrats need a national unifying message to tackle these issues. Problem is...they're nowhere close.

I don't think Harris was ever as widely supported as the polls suggested. I seem to recall reading that a lot of the Democrats' internal polling showed that they themselves knew they were fucked

Harris and other Democrats did run on that. Non voters, third party voters chose to not listen. Grifters and saboteurs chose to misinform and disinform.

LightSnake posted...

Harris would win the primary and then we'd have like a year and a half of Gaza being the chief issue.

Or some other issues would have surfaced in the primary and festered with the aid of the mainstream media and Republican ratfuckers (but I repeat myself).

I think the bottom line is really simple -- the fuckwits that are supposedly "in the middle" and usually decide elections are actually leaning GOP to a significant degree.

So much so that the only time they vote against the GOP is when there is a clear and present GOP-run disaster to look at (2008, 2020).

Technically they are swing voters, since they aren't 100% locked into voting GOP like the true believers of the GOP base.

EPR-radar posted...

Or some other issues would have surfaced in the primary and festered with the aid of the mainstream media and Republican ratfuckers (but I repeat myself).

I think the bottom line is really simple -- the fuckwits that are supposedly "in the middle" and usually decide elections are actually leaning GOP to a significant degree.

So much so that the only time they vote against the GOP is when there is a clear and present GOP-run disaster to look at (2008, 2020).

Technically they are swing voters, since they aren't 100% locked into voting GOP like the true believers of the GOP base.

That's why our "centrists" spend all of their time attacking Democrats just to turn around and defend Republicans.

SSj4Wingzero posted...

I agree. I think the Democratic party needs to go in an entirely different direction, and while Zohran Mamdani's victory in the NYC Democratic primary is a good sign, we're still a ways away from that. The biggest issues troubling Americans today are the high costs of housing and healthcare, and the Democrats need a national unifying message to tackle these issues. Problem is...they're nowhere close.

I don't think Harris was ever as widely supported as the polls suggested. I seem to recall reading that a lot of the Democrats' internal polling showed that they themselves knew they were fucked

IMO the high cost of living issues are because the US is a plutocracy and the ruling class (jfc, we shouldn't even have such a ruling class) is taking way too much. Naturally, the D donor class isn't going to be interested in doing anything about that.

Tyranthraxus posted...

It's not a given she would win the primary.

Who's beating a sitting VP?

I would buy it

LightSnake posted...

Who's beating a sitting VP?

We'll never know because basically nobody ran.

The problem is the idea there's some hidden candidate out there. The people who could have run are known.

LightSnake posted...

The problem is the idea there's some hidden candidate out there. The people who could have run are known.

I mean it's unknown if they could win, not that it's unknown who they are.

Even if it was Kamala again, having a proper primary election cycle would have dramatically improved things.

IMO, she benefited more from less media scrutiny and not protesters calling her a genocidaire for another year and a half

Pitbuller_26 posted...

Harris and other Democrats did run on that. Non voters, third party voters chose to not listen. Grifters and saboteurs chose to misinform and disinform.

I think they run on those, but I think they fell short of a national unifying message on those things. Harris obviously would have been a better President than Trump (a horse's ass would have been better), but I am skeptical that anything the Democrats proposed would have truly addressed the exorbitant costs of healthcare and housing. We just don't have the political will to fix those things.

EPR-radar posted...

IMO the high cost of living issues are because the US is a plutocracy and the ruling class (jfc, we shouldn't even have such a ruling class) is taking way too much. Naturally, the D donor class isn't going to be interested in doing anything about that.

That's exactly the issue. You're seeing it in NYC - the big donors to the Democratic party are the ones who love to campaign on various social issues because those don't affect their bottom line - the moment you get a candidate like Zohran Mamdani who actually says that rich people should pay some more money in taxes to fund better services for all Americans, you have those same donors funneling their money to a sex pest and a corrupt piece of shit in order to preserve their bottom line. It is sad.

Tyranthraxus posted...

I mean it's unknown if they could win, not that it's unknown who they are.

Even if it was Kamala again, having a proper primary election cycle would have dramatically improved things.

Out of every single candidate that ran in a democratic presidential primary since the 2016 election is there a single person that wouldn't be abandoned if they were to run again today?

LightSnake posted...

IMO, she benefited more from less media scrutiny and not protesters calling her a genocidaire for another year and a half

There were literally people googling after election Day "did joe Biden drop out" and you're seriously saying she benefited from less media coverage?

I dunno, this seems to me like it could be an interesting book.

The circumstances around which how she came to be the nominee, and the incredibly short campaign period she had as the nominee, are all unique in American political history, at least regarding presidential candidates. It seems like there ought to be an engaging story in all of that.

I could see myself checking it out from the library.

VectorAgent posted...

I dunno, this seems to me like it could be an interesting book.

The circumstances around which how she came to be the nominee, and the incredibly short campaign period she had as the nominee, are all unique in American political history, at least regarding presidential candidates. It seems like there ought to be an engaging story in all of that.

I could see myself checking it out from the library.

It will be great if she names the assholes who told her not to go against Biden on anything and Gaza in particular.

I do recall reading that one of the main campaigners who told her to turn down the divisive rhetoric was someone from Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. I'd be interested in reading an account of that.

A_Good_Boy posted...

Out of every single candidate that ran in a democratic presidential primary since the 2016 election is there a single person that wouldn't be abandoned if they were to run again today?

This is kind of a crappy list seeing as 2016 and 2024's candidates were Biden, Clinton, Harris, Sanders, and a few whack jobs like Marianne Williamson that nobody takes seriously.

Really this is just asking "could someone who lost in 2020 primary win today" and the answer is maybe. Harris was literally the first candidate to drop out in 2020.

Tyranthraxus posted...

This is kind of a crappy list seeing as 2016 and 2024's candidates were Biden, Clinton, Harris, Sanders, and a few whack jobs like Marianne Williamson that nobody takes seriously.

Really this is just asking "could someone who lost in 2020 primary win today" and the answer is maybe. Harris was literally the first candidate to drop out in 2020.

Fair enough. I'm just unaware of anyone with presidential contentions currently. Guess it just makes more sense to wait closer to 2028.

Tyranthraxus posted...

There were literally people googling after election Day "did joe Biden drop out" and you're seriously saying she benefited from less media coverage?

Harris wins people who are engaged. She loses the people who aren't. I'm not sure how a 18 month "Harris is destroying Gaza" campaign is gonna help

SSj4Wingzero posted...

That's exactly the issue. You're seeing it in NYC - the big donors to the Democratic party are the ones who love to campaign on various social issues because those don't affect their bottom line - the moment you get a candidate like Zohran Mamdani who actually says that rich people should pay some more money in taxes to fund better services for all Americans, you have those same donors funneling their money to a sex pest and a corrupt piece of shit in order to preserve their bottom line. It is sad.

This strategy is doomed to failure, and I think the election of 2024 proves it. Morons in the middle who are under economic pressure (because of plutocrat/Republican greed) are going to vote for whoever tells them what they want to hear on economic issues (even obvious Republicans lies), and could not possibly care less about being decent people, voting for rule of law, not being bigots and the like.

A_Good_Boy posted...

Fair enough. I'm just unaware of anyone with presidential contentions currently. Guess it just makes more sense to wait closer to 2028.

I'm thinking J.B. Pritzker is a potentially strong pick. He did everything Newsom did right without doing any of the stupid bullshit.

It would be nice if the Democratic Party prioritized our needs.

IMO it is silly to say the Democratic Party is making a mistake by not making the decisions we want & IMO it is ludicrous to say it post after post, year after year. IMO it is even more egotistical than it is ludicrous.

Here is what works

• Money from a large organization
• A voting block from a large organization
• Forming or joining a large organization

Tip| CE is not a large organization

hey A Good Boy I have seen you both throw the stats on moderate dems staying home in 2024 in the face of liberals on this board and now in this topic you're like "lol using stats" and blaming the abandon harris crowd while i have literally seen you doing the exact thing you're lol-ing at in this topic.

What are your actual beliefs?

El_Dustino posted...

hey A Good Boy I have seen you both throw the stats on moderate dems staying home in 2024 in the face of liberals on this board and now in this topic you're like "lol using stats" and blaming the abandon harris crowd while i have literally seen you doing the exact thing you're lol-ing at in this topic.

What are your actual beliefs?

I don't remember doing the former since I tend to dislike weaponized statistics. I have thrown literacy statistics around though, cause that shit's just too funny.

A_Good_Boy posted...

I don't remember doing the former since I tend to dislike weaponized statistics. I have thrown literacy statistics around though, cause that shit's just too funny.

Your name is very recognizable I am certain it was you doing the exact same thing you're criticizing in this topic.

During the topic when it the stats came out on the moderates staying home and we a lot of users rushing in to say it was still the fault the leftists and abandon harris folks I remember you clowning on them.

El_Dustino posted...

Your name is very recognizable I am certain it was you doing the exact same thing you're criticizing in this topic.

During the topic when it the stats came out on the moderates staying home and we a lot of users rushing in to say it was still the fault the leftists and abandon harris folks I remember you clowning on them.

I'd have to see the topic cause I really don't remember doing that. As long as I can remember I've been firmly anti-"abandon CEmen using stats to avoid personal accountability for their posts in the lead up to the election". If at any point I flipped my stance on that then I genuinely do apologize for being seemingly inconsistent, but I think my stance on the matter has been pretty consistent and clear for the longest time so I think it's OK to judge me more on my current shit posts and not my previous ones.

Topic dead that was months ago, I know there's evidently an archive somewhere but I wouldn't know where to find it.

Either way, noted.

El_Dustino posted...

Topic dead that was months ago, I know there's evidently an archive somewhere but I wouldn't know where to find it.

Either way, noted.

You might be thinking of me, I would post the polls showing gaza didn't impact the election but moderates staying home did.

Polling has since shifted heavily, hopefully that'll get more Dems on the right side of history. I may have told people to vote for the lesser evil but at the same time I still think Kamala was playing with fire in Michigan not taking a stronger stance on the genocide.

MuscleRobo posted...

The funny thing is how no one actually reads these things? Are they money laundering? Was it Stacey Abrams who said in her book she was magic and could cure a disease her grandma had or something but no one actually said "Um, what?" until years later.

My favorite twist was that Stacey Abrams books when she started writing them were romance novels.

divot1338 posted...

My favorite twist was that Stacey Abrams books when she started writing them were romance novels.

Let's just combine backstories and say they started as Twilight fanfiction.

Enclave posted...

So yes, I want her to just fuck off, she's more of a liability than an asset for the Dems right now.

So Sayeth the Raven to the Crow.

Sandalorn posted...

So Sayeth the Raven to the Crow.

You think the left is a liability right now? What? Do we need more Chucky Schumers with his strongly worded letters to Trump?

Enclave posted...

You might be thinking of me, I would post the polls showing gaza didn't impact the election but moderates staying home did.

Polling has since shifted heavily, hopefully that'll get more Dems on the right side of history. I may have told people to vote for the lesser evil but at the same time I still think Kamala was playing with fire in Michigan not taking a stronger stance on the genocide.

I actually was, a kind user showed me where to find the topic and you two were both posting and it looks like my memory conflated the two since I only responded to AGB in that topic.

My apologies for insinuating you were inconsistent AGB.

Enclave posted...

You think the left is a liability right now? What? Do we need more Chucky Schumers with his strongly worded letters to Trump?

That post wasn't aimed generically.

Sandalorn posted...

That post wasn't aimed generically.

And exactly how am I personally a liability?

Enclave posted...

And exactly how am I personally a liability?

Because there is not one human being on the planet the Dems could choose that you wouldn't immediately do everything you could to trash. You're no fucking ally. You're the guy that exists to complain, whine and bitch about everything and everyone. You are the "Abandon Harris" mentality to a T.

Sandalorn posted...

Because there is not one human being on the planet the Dems could choose that you wouldn't immediately do everything you could to trash. You're no fucking ally.

I don't do that but okay, believe whatever BS you want. Easy enough to tag and dismiss your future opinions.

MuscleRobo posted...

The funny thing is how no one actually reads these things? Are they money laundering? Was it Stacey Abrams who said in her book she was magic and could cure a disease her grandma had or something but no one actually said "Um, what?" until years later.

More or less yea. Maybe not strictly money laundering but political parties and PACs and shit buy these things in bulk and give them away at events and stuff. It's free money.

Republicans also do this, basically zero people have read Trump Jr's various books (definitely not the man himself), but the Republican party and various foundations buys copies of them by the truckload just for them to eventually end up donated or in a landfill. So why wouldn't he keep publishing them?

bIuerain posted...

More or less yea. Maybe not strictly money laundering but political parties and PACs and shit buy these things in bulk and give them away at events and stuff. It's free money.

Republicans also do this, basically zero people have read Trump Jr's various books (definitely not the man himself), but the Republican party and various foundations buys copies of them by the truckload just for them to eventually end up donated or in a landfill. So why wouldn't he keep publishing them?

The Republicans do this on a FAR grander scale than the Democrats.

You can look at the New York Times Best Seller list to tell what books this was done with. They are noted with a dagger symbol.

Enclave posted...

You might be thinking of me, I would post the polls showing gaza didn't impact the election but moderates staying home did.

Polling has since shifted heavily, hopefully that'll get more Dems on the right side of history. I may have told people to vote for the lesser evil but at the same time I still think Kamala was playing with fire in Michigan not taking a stronger stance on the genocide.

Moderates were mostly leaning towards Trump. They just were unsure if they should. Deep down they knew they were going too.

Most the data says we were doomed no matter what.

LightSnake posted...

Harris wins people who are engaged. She loses the people who aren't. I'm not sure how a 18 month "Harris is destroying Gaza" campaign is gonna help

We're also assuming the average american remotely cares about this. I doubt many even know where it is located. They just know Israel=good, hating Israel=bad.

why is there always a book

who is writing these

just make a video, you'd get way more people actually seeing your "message" and make a continual source of money through it instead of just a few thousand purchases of your shitty book before it dies in obscurity

She was on Colbert to help sell her book.

She said a few things I found interesting...
- When Colbert asked how long until she turned on the news again after the election went down, she said, "months". Probably hyperbole, but sounds like she emotionally checked out for a while. Just like most of the rest of us really.
- She said that she doesn't think she can change things from inside the system, because it's too broken, so she doesn't want to run for office anymore. Though she intends to do what she can from outside of it.
- When she was running she openly predicted a lot of what Trump would do... but she also believed, at some level, that the country and government wouldn't fold to his insanity as quickly as it did.

I know it's risky to like a politician, but... dang it, I just liked her.
But that was just a bonus compared to the stakes of that election.