Kamala Harris says she is not running for California governor

"I love this state, its people, and its promise. It is my home. But after deep reflection, I’ve decided that I will not run for governor in this election," Harris said in a statement. "For now, my leadership — and public service — will not be in elected office. I look forward to getting back out and listening to the American people, helping elect Democrats across the nation who will fight fearlessly, and sharing more details in the months ahead about my own plans."

Since her loss to President Trump in November, Harris, 60, has spent most of this year out of the public eye, settling back into life in Los Angeles and speaking with confidants about her options: run for president for a third time in 2028, launch a gubernatorial campaign or end a two-decade career in elected office and enter the private sector. She has reportedly written a memoir and considered starting a nonprofit focused on young voters and democracy or a political action committee to help Democrats.

Veteran Democratic strategist Sean Clegg, a long-time adviser to Harris, said the former vice president weighed the run but ultimately decided that her next chapter would be focused on other political pursuits outside of elected office.

“I think she listened to her gut … Obviously she saw a huge opportunity so she had to consider it, but at the end of the day she just didn’t feel called,” said Clegg, who has worked on Harris’ campaigns since 2008. “Until January of this year … she’s been in public office continuously for 22 years and has spent her entire career since she graduated law school in public service. I think she’s interested in exploring how she can have an impact from the outside for a while.”

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), among the Democrats she has spoken with in recent months as she weighed a run, said he knew it was a "difficult decision" for Harris. But he said he was hopeful Harris will be a key player in next year's midterm elections.

"I think she feels at this moment she needs to help Democrats win back Congress and help Democrats across the country. She feels a real responsibility about where the country is headed," said Garcia, who has known Harris for more than a decade. Harris swore him in when he was first elected mayor of Long Beach in 2014 before he became a member of Congress.

"A lot of us want to see her help us engage in the midterms and help the House, raise money [for candidates] and got to battleground districts," he said.

Serving as the governor of California, a bulwark in the anti-Trump movement, would have given Harris another shot at her political rival and an opportunity to rewrite the end of her political story after a barrier-breaking career.

Harris was the first woman to be elected district attorney of San Francisco, the first woman to be elected California attorney general, the first woman of color to be elected to the U.S. Senate from California, and the first woman elected vice president of the United States under President Biden.

Harris would have entered the race with significant advantages, including name recognition and a vast national network of donors. But she would also have run with an unusual amount of baggage for a gubernatorial candidate, including her loss to Trump, which dampened enthusiasm for her candidacy among some party loyalists and fundraisers.

Without Harris, the field of candidates for the governor's mansion will still lack a candidate with real star power. Though the list of Democrats running reads like a who's-who of political power in the Golden State, none are household names.

The Democrats running include Toni Atkins, a former Assembly speaker and Senate president pro tem; Xavier Becerra, former California attorney general and Biden Cabinet secretary; Stephen Cloobeck, a philanthropist and businessman; Eleni Kounalakis, the state's lieutenant governor; Katie Porter, a former congresswoman from Orange County; Tony Thurmond, the superintendent of public instruction; Antonio Villaraigosa, the former mayor of Los Angeles; and Betty Yee, the former state controller.

Does she seriously think she has a good shot in 2028?

Oh god she's going to run again, right?

[quote] Does she seriously think she has a good shot in 2028?

Even Hillary wasn't that delusional.

If she were to run and lose, it would end her political career. If she were to run and win, being incompetent as governor would end her political career.

It was a no-win situation.

She's much younger than Hilary was after her loss. She didn't lose massively, she only had 100 days to whip up a pretty decent campaign, under dire circumstances outside of her control. It's not her fault that Biden stayed put far beyond what was feasible, and lied about his state of health.

There's still goodwill for here, at least within the Dem rank-and-file. It's a long shot but not unheard of.

I'm as liberal/progressive as anyone but I would not under any circumstances support her for president. She ran a terrible campaign and stood for nothing other than I'm Not Trump.

There are so many better candidates in the mix.

Maybe she should run for dog catcher. Something that isn’t three grades above her skill set.

Biden should never have anointed her the Dem candidate.

Democrats really need a better answer to Trumpism than just "Let's keep doing the same thing we always do."

[quote] If she were to run and lose, it would end her political career.

Not necessarily.

[quote] Biden should never have anointed her the Dem candidate.

In July, one month shy of the convention, there was no realistic chance that, even without Biden's endorsement, the party would have selected someone other than the vice president, the first Black, the first female, to hold the position.

I didn’t think she was the best candidate, but she was the best chance under the circumstances. She cleaned Trump’s clock in the debate. For the one or two missteps and made in a short campaign, she did nothing as horrific as Trump’s Madison.Square Garden rally of the RNC.

America made a disgusting choice. Just because she wasn’t perfect doesn’t change the fact that the electorate opted for a piece of shit.

Biden should have announced he wasn't running immediately after the 2022 midterms so that voters would have a chance to make the choice through a primary contest. He did not, and he failed to prosecute Trump for January 6th, and those are the main two reasons why his legacy will remained tarnished forever.

All of this is Biden's fault, but that doesn't mean we need Kamala Harris to fix it. We need a complete do-over with new candidates.

[quote] Biden should have announced he wasn't running immediately after the 2022 midterms so that voters would have a chance to make the choice through a primary contest.

Hindsight is 20/20. but after the much better than expected performance by Democrats in the midterms, which was widely reported as a vindication of Biden, there was no great clamor then for Biden to bow out.

"Biden should never have anointed her the "border czar."

Fixed.

I have a feeling she doesn't want to deal with the last two years of a Trump administration and and even more unhinged POTUS. You know she'll become a focal point for his rage, and since she's a woman, he'll come at her with all guns blazing. It's hard enough to run the wealthiest, most important state in the Union without having a diseased, psycopathic maniac dogging you every step of the way.

If I were her I would forget about politics and go the Hollywood route like the Clintons and Obamas. Speak at the DNC and help candidates where you can but get the podcast and book deals and speaking engagements.

[quote] She's much younger than Hilary was after her loss. She didn't lose massively, she only had 100 days to whip up a pretty decent campaign, under dire circumstances outside of her control. It's not her fault that Biden stayed put far beyond what was feasible, and lied about his state of health.

There's still goodwill for here, at least within the Dem rank-and-file. It's a long shot but not unheard of.

I’ll also add the election was rigged by Elon Musk but we’re not ready for that conversation.

R16 he had the signs of dementia by that point. His inner circle knew it. Dementia doesn't happen overnight, the signs start early and they're unmistakable. He should have bowed out. Hindsight has nothing to do with it, it was on him and his family and closest advisors to make the right call for the good of the country. They chose to cling to power and prestige at all costs instead, and now we are all paying the price.

And there's no excusing his failure to prosecute Trump. None. He should have pulled out all the stops to make that happen and he chose the milquetoast route instead. Feckless, spineless, and completely useless. Ne reputation is ruined because of it.

Kamala is an absolute clown. I don't really understand why anyone thinks she was ever Presidential material. She barely makes any points when speaking (word salad worthy of the ridicule it has received) and isn't unlike some of the "out there" professors I had in college that made me wonder how they had gotten as far as they did. There are much better options.

[quote] he had the signs of dementia by that point. His inner circle knew it.

Everyone who had seen the videos of his public appearances during his term knew it. Unfortunately, there were many people, including on DL, who chose to lie for political reasons, denying that the irrefutable decline in his mental acuity was happening.

R17, you fixed nothing. Harris was not appointed as the border czar. This was a right-wing false characterization of Biden asking her to look at the causes of immigration in the countries of origin. But Americans, you apparently included, lap up falsehoods.

[quote]but after the much better than expected performance by Democrats in the midterms, which was widely reported as a vindication of Biden, there was no great clamor then for Biden to bow out.

Democratic voters didn't want him running for the last year and a half of his presidency. So, yes, there was some clamor. It was Pelosi and the party, along with the more democratic media that didn't want to hear it until it became completely unavoidable at the debate.

I think she should run again. She's very intelligent. What mistakes she made were from trying to be too centrist and tying herself to Biden's legacy 100%, which his team recommended she do. Biden did a terrible job of putting her in a good light as well.

And Kamala's only talked about the election once since she left office. Compare that with the Biden's, who have lamented Joe's being denied the nomination he thought he was entitled to on a monthly basis since the election.

[quote] I’ll also add the election was rigged by Elon Musk but we’re not ready for that conversation.

Funny, though, that he didn't rig the election for which he was most front & center, the Wisconsin Supreme Court race in April.

En español, por favor.

[quote] Democratic voters didn't want him running for the last year and a half of his presidency.

Link, please, to contemporaneous polling.

R22: At some VERY partisan sites, the delusion ran strong. When Biden finally withdrew after that debate fiasco there were cries of "They stabbed MY Joe in the back!" Some of them are currently hoping Trump and Vance will be "convicted" so that the rightful winner, Harris, will take office.

A cooking and lifestyle show on Netflix or Amazon Prime is next. Mama does the Indian fare, Kamala and her sister prep Soul and Caribbean food.

Her fan base would eat it up.

Feb 2023 poll

Dec 2023

The Democrats denied things we were all seeing with our own eyes and that's the biggest thing lost them the election. Biden wasn't in cognitive decline. Harris was an amazing leader and would make the greatest president. Men are women and can compete in women's sports, and women are men and also birthing people , etc. Sure, a lot of this was inflamed by propaganda from the other side but this is the image the Dems walked out of the last election with. Kamala Harris was a TERRIBLE option. I voted for her and I'm embarrassed for myself and anyone who drank the Kool-aid..

She and Meghan, Duchess of Montecito, should join forces and do a lifestyle show on Netflix. Think of the synergy!

[quote] he had the signs of dementia by that point.

Hasn't most of the reporting been that his cognitive decline came a good deal later?

The Mighty joe Biden idiot is still alive and well I see. And posting obsessively about his infatuation, as always.

[quote]The Democrats denied things we were all seeing with our own eyes and that's the biggest thing lost them the election.

THIS. And the trolls asking for polling (which is easily findable) and questioning when dementia could have possibly started are doing the same, gaslighting us and trying to rewrite what we all saw 2022-2024.

HE SHOULD NOT HAVE RUN AND THEY KNEW IT.

The Democrats have become the party of Don't trust your eyes and The world is coming to an end and it's gonna hurt you.

Oh, yeah. It’s the Democrats who are saying to forget about Epstein, ignore the scorching heat, and not to worry about $5 trillion of debt. Shut the fuck up.

r23 -- In your huff of arrogant self-righteousness, you failed to notice that I put "border czar" in quotations. You're not an American and maybe not a native English speaker, so for your edification: the use of quotation marks is often used sarcastically and intended to undermine the meaning of the term, indicating it's bogus.

[QUOTE]Biden asking her to look at the causes of immigration in the countries of origin

Do you not see what a bullshit and useless pursuit this was? Poverty and lack of upward mobility or opportunity to make a living or a better living underpins migration. Fear of crime in some countries. Well, duh. It was ridiculous to have assigned her to this. It was undermining, IMO.

Dems will chose a white male presidential candidate and a female black or latino VP candidate.

Let's stop pretending otherwise

R41 And that's what's going to keep the Dems locked firmly behind because as was clearly established by the last elections, Americans don't give a fuck about skin color or gender when it comes to voting.

[quote] Dems will chose a white male presidential candidate

I hope so, but that's a decision ultimately in the hands of Democratic primary & caucus voters.

[quote] Americans don't give a fuck about skin color or gender when it comes to voting.

Define "Americans."

B-B-B-But Republicans are worse! At least Dems aren't like them! Dems aren't the WORST party, guys, there's still another one that's even WORSE! So shut the fuck up about Democrats and stop asking why we keep losing because at least we're second worst!

[quote]I hope so, but that's a decision ultimately in the hands of DNC backroom power brokers, aka "Superdelegates."

Fixed that typo for you, R44.

R9- She has lower middle class credentials. Something akin to being the warden of a women's prison.

R47, unless you are including the weirdness of 2024, when have superdelegates determined the Democratic nominee? We’ll wait for your answer.

[quote] I hope so, but that's a decision ultimately in the hands of DNC backroom power brokers, aka "Superdelegates."

[quote] Fixed that typo for you, R44.

AI's response, R47:

[quote] For the 2024 Democratic National Convention, superdelegates (also known as automatic delegates or Party Leader and Elected Official - PLEO - delegates) are expected to make up about 16.5% of the total delegates, representing roughly 749 out of a total of 4,521 delegates.

[quote] However, it's crucial to note that superdelegates' power was curtailed in 2018. Previously, they could vote on the first ballot at the convention, potentially influencing the outcome before primary results were fully considered. Now, they are generally barred from voting on the first ballot unless the nomination is contested, meaning no candidate has secured a majority of the pledged delegates (earned through primaries and caucuses). If the convention goes to a second or subsequent ballot, then superdelegates would be able to vote.

[quote] Therefore, while superdelegates still constitute a notable percentage of the overall delegate count, their ability to influence the nomination process on the initial ballot has been significantly reduced, reflecting changes aimed at strengthening the role of primary and caucus voters in the selection of the Democratic presidential nominee.

I am going to run for Governor of California in 2026.

I would make a great Governor!

She probably saw her poll numbers. They do thorough research before deciding such things.

I love Kamala, but I hope she does not run for president again. She is very qualified and would have far exceeded Trump. However, she lost. The country is not in the mood for a black female president. I wish it were, but it is not. And I want a winner. We cannot go through another Repig administration.

"The country is not in the mood for a black female president."

But apparently it is in the mood for a convicted felon/pathological liar/sexual deviant/child rapist/insurrectionist/traitor.

God, I hate this country and the morons who populate it.

R48 you're an idiot, but that was funny.

Who knew, MAGATS could be so elitist?

[quote]"The country is not in the mood for an Asian female president."

r54 Fixed that for you.

I'm in the minority, but I really like Kamala.

She seems nice.

In fact, I like her better than Obama, who always seemed disingenuous to me.

Kamala seems pretty sincere

She did a hell a job with the cards she was dealt but, please, no. I don’t want to see her humiliated. There are better candidates. Hope she takes a cushy job and bows out.

R57: except that she has lousy political skills. Yes, she won statewide in CA, and Clinton had wonderful numbers in dark blue New York. There are 48 other states.

R44 I wish Democrats wouldn't vote for anyone based on their ethnicity but on their abilities as a leader. Isn't it pretty obvious that picking your candidates using DEI isn't working?

Good riddance. Go screw up some private venture, lady.

Unburdened for life!

[QUOTE] a good honest Latina Democrat.

Shit, man! Loretta Sanchez? Tell us more.

I don't think she'll run for president again. There's too much risk of being humiliated in the primary again. She'd be smart to position herself to be a future secretary of state under the next democrat president.

Has r23 clocked back yet with more erroneous, unenlightening self-righteousness?

[quote]Americans don't give a fuck about skin color or gender when it comes to voting.

Holy fuck. Are you being serious R42? Or just making a joke?

I'm in CA and thought she would be good for the State. For the nation, this time she will not be nominated.

And, I am not a Newsom fan but I am starting to warm to his presidential nom.....however, I think Andy Beshear would be the perfect fit - he is a moderate and can bring in more votes I would love a Beshear/Buttigieg ticket. I think that would be a for sure winner.

Boring candidates lose. Beshear doesn’t have what it takes.

She'll never be President but the act of running multiple times isn't out of the question. Reagan ran for President four times.

I think she’s hoping to be Attorney General in the next Dem Administration. That’s the job she really wanted anyway.

[quote] I think she’s hoping to be Attorney General in the next Dem Administration

Isn't that a step down from Vice-President?

Come to think of it, so is being a Governor.

The only logical next steps for Kamala would be either President, or a Supreme Court Justice.

Anything else is like taking a step backwards, for her.

[quote] She'll never be President but the act of running multiple times isn't out of the question. Reagan ran for President four times.

No Democrat has been the nominee and lost and then been the nominee again since Stevenson. No Republican has done that since Nixon. Reagan won both times he was the nominee.

I’ll add that Trump is a special case because he both won and lost as the nominee before becoming the nominee again.

good, the press and online community have been too harsh on her. let her keep her privacy

[quote] ‘She had reasonable doubt:’ Why Kamala Harris isn't running for governor

Six months ago, Kamala Harris took a break from packing up the vice president’s residence to attend a quiet meeting on Capitol Hill with a group of Black congresswomen. She had advice for them on how to steel themselves for a second Trump administration.

“She said, ‘Make sure you are being authentic to yourself, and don’t do anything because someone is asking you to do that,’" recalled Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove, a Democrat from Harris’ home state of California. “‘You do it because that’s what you want to do and that’s the right thing to do.’”

On Wednesday, Harris took her own advice.

“At the end of the day, when she did her own gut check — to put it in the prosecutorial parlance — she had reasonable doubt,” said Sean Clegg, one of her longest-serving political advisers.

Those words in January ultimately proved prescient, when she announced she would not seek the top post in her home state. But since that meeting on the Hill, a Harris gubernatorial bid had become almost a foregone conclusion in California political circles. Her deliberations froze the 2026 contest to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom in a state of paralysis. Public polling consistently showed Harris would start the race as the prohibitive favorite.

Ultimately, however, Harris’ heart wasn’t in it.

Her interest in the post waxed and waned in the months since she left Washington. She returned home to a pile-up of crises: historic wildfires that encroached on her neighborhood, a hostile Trump administration that threatened to upend the state’s finances, an unprecedented clash over immigration enforcement.

The former vice president was choosy on when to put herself back in the public eye. She made a pair of visits to affected fire zones and put out sporadic statements denouncing Trump’s actions. But her intermittent appearances were just as often in front of national groups or audiences outside of California. Her decision not to attend the California Democratic Party’s political convention in May led party activists to wonder if the gubernatorial bid was simply a back-up plan.

At the beginning of the summer, Harris and her team in earnest ran through what it would take to mount a campaign for governor. She would have to raise roughly $40-50 million for the primary, maybe $75 million or more in total. They looked at the political math: With her universal name identification and fundraising chops, she would almost certainly be among the top-two finishers in the June primary. But if a second Democrat advanced past the primary, under California’s jungle-primary rules, she would not necessarily have a glide path in November; Republican voters could rally behind Harris’ challenger.

Still, her team was confident she could mount a winning governor’s campaign, and she was hearing encouragement from national Democrats who wanted to avoid a messy intra-party feud in a blue state.

Another faction of Democratic politicians and donors was less enthusiastic, though few voiced their misgivings directly to Harris. Some members of her party spoke of a prolonged hangover from her presidential loss. Even if they did not blame her for losing to Trump in a truncated campaign, they did not want to be reminded of what transpired.

Among Harris’ most ardent backers, the mood was decidedly mixed. Some remembered how she had initially eyed the governorship a decade ago, only to run for U.S. Senate instead. Others questioned if she truly was interested in spending time in Sacramento, hundreds of miles from her Los Angeles home, slogging through grueling budget negotiations and contending with state legislators.

Many conveyed they’d be with her either way — but they wanted to be sure it was the best decision Harris could make for herself.

Kamlager-Dove, meeting again with Harris in June as the speculation around the governor’s race was hitting its peak, urged the former vice president to make a decision “that was going to sit right with her heart.”

“As a woman, I know what it's like to feel like someone might be pressuring you to do something that you don't necessarily want to do,” Kamlager-Dove said. “So I remember being very vocal about making sure that she was leaning into her own agency. She put her hand on her heart and thanked me for saying that and for sharing that, and I could tell that she was taking all of this very seriously.”

Last week, Harris traveled to England to attend the wedding of Eve Jobs, daughter of Steve Jobs and Laurene Powell Jobs, a close friend of Harris’. The Cotswolds event, which included a number of attendees from her long-ago San Francisco days, was a clarifying change of routine that, according to several people close to her, helped solidify her decision. She began to inform her inner circle of her decision when she returned on Sunday.

Among those who got an advance heads-up were Newsom and Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, a gubernatorial candidate who had planned to leave the race if Harris ran. People who spoke to her prior to the public announcement said she was upbeat and quick to laugh, showing some relief in making her decision.

Her allies say she still sees a national role for herself and is not closing the door on a 2028 presidential run, although that was not a predominant factor in her decision.

“There's a lot of work that has to be done here in California specifically, but there's a lot of work that has to be done in the country,” said Todd Hawkins, a Los Angeles-based bundler who has supported Harris for years. “And I think she sees her voice as a national voice as well, not limiting that to California.”

I’m also not running for governor of California, but no one is making a big deal of it.

[quote]She's much younger than Hilary was after her loss. She didn't lose massively, she only had 100 days to whip up a pretty decent campaign, under dire circumstances outside of her control. It's not her fault that Biden stayed put far beyond what was feasible, and lied about his state of health.

The only reason she didn't lose massively is because her competition was trump and only trump. Don't for one fucking second think she'd win a primary. She did absolutely NOTHING as a vice president. Which is good, because she's an idiot. She was in charge of the border. Kamala and Joe's idea of handling the border was to leave it wide open. She REFUSED to go down to the border and had to be SHAMED into it. And even then she was PATHETIC

Her laughing, cackling and the word salad nonsense. Americans have had enough of her

I guess weekends begin early in Pittsburgh, r78.

Meanwhile, when will your child raping president release the Epstein files?

Kamala Harris won't run for California governor.

Why that's bad news for Joe Biden.

It was announced today that her book 107 Days about her run for the presidency is being published on 9/23.

Please Democrats, please come up with someone better than Kamala next time. She might be a solid candidate but she's not a homerun. We need a homerun.

AOC 2028!

Why do losers always feel the need to release books on their campaigns?

I'm delighted to hear that Harris is still "quick to laugh"!

She had ardent backers?

She wasn’t anybody’s preferred candidate. She was forced on everyone.

$$$$$$$$, R84.

[quote] Her laughing, cackling and the word salad nonsense. Americans have had enough of her

MAGA Talking Points at R78!

I will always support The Kamala. Fuck the haters!

[quote] The only reason she didn't lose massively is because her competition was trump and only trump.

Couldn't disagree more. Although it pains us to acknowledge, Trump has the special sauce that attracts voters unavailable to other politicians. That Trump became the first republican presidential candidate to win the popular vote since George W. Bush, running for reelection in the aftermath of 9/11, should tell us that Harris's only chance of winning was if her competition was someone other than Trump.

[QUOTE]She was in charge of the border.

R78 - Please explain how, as Vice President (an office vested with no powers other than breaking a Senate tie), she could have effected any policy change on the border? I will remind you of bicameral GOP dominance that would have stymied any recommendations, such as, James Lankford's, one of your very own MAGAts. Do you remember him?

Sincere question, r78. Could you also please explain why a Republican Congress shot down a bill negotiated and co-authored by MAGAt Representative James Lankford (R-OK)? What was so awful about it?

Look at R79, he can't accept the TRUTH. So, he's going to call me names and accuse me of being a republican.

He did the same shit 2 and 3 years ago when others and myself posted that, "Biden is too old to run again". And "Biden needs to have trump prosecuted for the insurrection". Looking back, we were 100% CORRECT.

R79 called anyone who criticizes the precious democrats, Boris or republicans. Which is stupid. We HATE the republicans and we know the democrats are USELESS as a party. We know that they haven't had any type of strategy in over 25 years. We know their entire plan is to just cross their fingers and hope there's a bigger voter turn out than ever before and that the majority votes for the democrats. We told you the democrats were going to lose. You stupidly, and ridiculously called us republicans.

Only a God damned fool would have refused to prosecute trump. But that's what Biden is. Biden even said, "if trump wins, he will destroy democracy" and then he did NOTHING to stop trump from running again. What a stupid, idiot. The dumbass democratic politicians did NOTHING to stop trump from running.

The democrats once again, devoted 100% to immigrants and the trans agenda. It's like they want to lose. Honestly. At this point they are nothing but organized opposition. Only the stupidest, laziest losers could lose to donald trump, TWICE

No one deserves the republicans. But America deserves so MUCH BETTER than the democratic party.

What has America done to deserve so MUCH BETTER than the Democratic Party? On the contrary, and without giving any ground to Democrats, Americans have gotten far better than what they deserve after voting for Reagan, the Bushes, and Trump. The bill is coming due.

[quote] I don't think she'll run for president again. There's too much risk of being humiliated in the primary again. She'd be smart to position herself to be a future secretary of state under the next democrat president.

She engendered enormous goodwill within the Democratic party. I honestly believe she is immune to humiliation. As Democrats, we cannot count anyone out. Harris is our MOST viable candidate. If she can hold onto and activate the base that gave her 75 million popular votes plus pull over the numbskulls that didn't listen or pay attention in 2024, she can beat any non-Trump candidate.

Colbert interview

Donald Trump took several digs at Kamala Harris after the former vice president announced that she would not run for governor of California and would instead be traveling the country to talk to Americans and releasing a book about her historic 107-day presidential campaign.

“She can’t speak, she can’t talk, she can’t do an interview,” Trump said on Thursday at the White House when asked by a reporter about what he thought about Harris’s political future.

Reflecting on running against Harris in the 2024 election after former President Joe Biden dropped out of the race, Trump said, “I thought it was a very strange campaign that we had. But, you know, I had two of them.” He continued, “We were up by this massive number of points on Biden, and they said, ‘Let’s change to Kamala.’ Nobody knew who Kamala was.”

Trump said he “thought she was a terrible candidate” and that she “didn’t run a great campaign.” He added, “We beat Biden.”

Harris ran a historically short presidential campaign in just over three months, securing the Democratic nomination in four weeks and raising a record $1 billion in just one quarter. However, it wasn’t enough to clinch the presidency against Trump, who hammered away at core messages on the economy, public safety, and immigration.

Trump acknowledged that Harris enjoyed a “six-week honeymoon” and polled well when she first announced her campaign; however, he asserted, “Once they got to know her…she dropped out very shortly after she started.”

Trump, who faced Harris in only one presidential debate, added, “I wouldn’t call her a skilled politician, would you?”

When asked if he planned on buying Harris’s upcoming new memoir “107 Days,” Trump jokingly said, “I think I’m going to buy it. I’d love to see it–no.” He continued, “I find everything in politics interesting. I sort of enjoy politics.”

Trump repeated his assessment that Harris “wasn’t a skilled person,” adding, “You have skilled politicians, really skilled politicians, and then you have some that aren’t.” However, he admitted Harris was “put in a very tough position” having to inherit Biden’s campaign just a few months before Election Day.

“They said, ‘Let’s take him out and put somebody else in. Didn’t seem fair to me at the time,” said Trump. He added, “But where are we? We’re in the White House. So, I mean, you know, so it worked out.”

[quote]Please explain how, as Vice President (an office vested with no powers other than breaking a Senate tie), she could have effected any policy change on the border?

She could have done anything that Biden delegated to her to work on.

Can you explain how that would have/should have worked, r98? It sounds like magical thinking on your part, a very Trumpian quality.

R99…Biden came up with the idea, so why don’t you direct your request for an explanation to him?

[quote]She was in charge of the border. Kamala and Joe's idea of handling the border was to leave it wide open. She REFUSED to go down to the border and had to be SHAMED into it. And even then she was PATHETIC

R78, She was “in charge of the border” the same way a ribbon-cutter is in charge of the building. It was a symbolic appointment meant to signal diplomacy with Central America, not to unilaterally rewrite immigration law.

But let’s play pretend. Even if she had sweeping power (she didn’t), what policy exactly was she supposed to implement? The Lankford bill? The one Republicans co-wrote and then nuked because Trump told them to?

You can’t say she failed at policy while also cheering on the party that refuses to pass any.

Pick a lane.

R98 is the one who is convinced Harris was powerful enough in her own right to effect all sorts of policy change. I'd prefer to hear the explanation from him since he brought up her vice presidential omnipotence, that "she could have done anything."

[quote][R98] is the one who is convinced Harris was powerful enough in her own right to effect all sorts of policy change

Trump and JD Vance both asked during debates why Harris didn’t “do anything” about the border. And then they won. Seems like she failed to convince voters that she didn’t have any power.

Anyone else find Biden the problem? I thought he might abdicate at least a year early to make her the first female POC president? Instead, they had to use the infamous "vaudeville hook" to get him off the (shuffling in, couldn't complete sentences) stage. We would have seen how she handled being president!

[quote] Trump and JD Vance both asked during debates why Harris didn’t “do anything” about the border. And then they won. Seems like she failed to convince voters that she didn’t have any power.

It was a challenge to convince voters that something they knew to be true, that she had been given an important role by President Biden regarding illegal immigration at the border, was something that everyone had only imagined. She was okay at the time with voters seeing Biden putting a lot of trust in her, but when she was the nominee for president and she knew that everyone could see that she had produced no positive results regarding her role, her people decided the best course was to attempt historical revisionism.

Washington "insider" reports if she tries to blame the Bidens for her failure, they will divulge information that would be so embarrassing, she'd be forced to drop political aspirations.

[quote] Anyone else find Biden the problem? I thought he might abdicate at least a year early to make her the first female POC president?

Bidens, plural. We know now that it was Hunter and Jill who decided they wanted another four years in power and prevented Joe from leaving even a minute before his term officially expired.

“ Kamala is an absolute clown. I don't really understand why anyone thinks she was ever Presidential material. She barely makes any points when speaking (word salad worthy of the ridicule it has received) and isn't unlike some of the "out there" professors I had in college that made me wonder how they had gotten as far as they did. There are much better options.”

Maybe you’re stupid? I mean, you’re just regurgitating the whole Fox News “word salad” talking point so that very well could be the case. Just a thought.

ll you MAGAt supporting trolls who are trashing Kamala, may I remind you that we all SAW the debate...no, not that one...the debate between Harris and Trump. So please spare me your childish tantrums. She is brilliant . I saw her on Colbert last night. She said the system is broken. She doesn't want to play inside the broken system and just run for another office. She wants to go out and meet people and listen to them and find out from the people how we can all work to fix this broken system. She doesn't want it to be transactional. Where she asks for their vote. She just wants them to talk about what is on their minds. I love her for being on the right side at this moment. And I will support her no matter what.

Thank you, r109. This thread is full of MAGAts and/or posters suffering amnesia. Dump would like you to think she wasn't smart or skilled because she handed him his ass in their only televised debate. He refused to debate her again because she humiliated him. He couldn't stand more humiliation from a woman who was also Black. Many of those who voted for Dump are also offended by smart, accomplished women and people of color.

R110, FACTS! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

Who wants to see Harris’s stepdaughter anywhere near the limelight ever again?

Gavin Newsom’s thirsty quest for the presidency just went down a notch.

His 2nd Spouse is now drawing up those divorce papers.

I will not tolerate any criticism of Kamala. She has been an outstanding ally for the Gay community. She has always been on our side. She didn't have to "come around to it" like Obama or any of the other straight guys who called themselves political leaders. As far as I'm concerned Hillary and Kamala are Goddesses .

Yeah, R114, but in deep blue California it didn’t take too much courage to be an ally.

She'll undoubtedly run again in 2028 and divide the party. MAGAts are hoping for her return, because they can once again pull out all of the Biden crap. Go gentle into that good night, Kamala.

"All that Biden crap?" Like...Inflation? Like Immigration? Like the economy? Like Education? Like Science and Healthcare? These assholes will have a record in 2028. And please know that Trump doesn't give a flying fuck about his red states. Right now, as we speak, he is shitting all over his own people. Here in Georgia, our spineless governor (GOP) has urged all state departments to adopt austerity measures and tighten their belts because we are losing so much funding across ever segment of our government. This will affect first responders, government agencies that deal directly with local communities. Unsafe drinking water and really bad air quality. Wildfires popping up all over the place not just California. And NO FEMA RESPONSE to storms and floods and other environmental messes. And there's a possibility t hat some of the marginal folks will have learned something? Possible. And then there's the fouling of the nest: The environment. Young people are real pissed off. And they will show up. As far as I am concerned Biden did a very good job as POTUS. His two big sins were his failure to promote his VP as his successor after ONE TERM. And his failure t o prosecute Trump and his election deniers for the insurrection. I also think his foreign policy was tone deaf as regards Israel.

[quote]She'll undoubtedly run again in 2028 and divide the party.

I'll just be happy to have a primary without some old name in it that has already been President.

Gavin Newsom will take her out.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....this bish??? She was a terrible candidate. I have had toenails smarter than this bish. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You know the media is not on our side. Yu know that. I know that. But still we, as voters continue to play the media game of focusing on personalities and superficial bullshit instead of turning off the corporate Media and focusing on policies. I will never vote for a Republican. There is absolutely nothing that will change my mind. All of them have capitulated. Vile POS bastards. I will vote for any A Democrat who secures the nomination. In general, I know what the Dems stand for and what the GOP stands for. We have to rebuild our government after Trump leaves and instead of simply attempting to put the old Humpty Dumpty back together, we need to make it better.

Why be a two-time loser OP

Possibly fear of another election being fixed not in her favor.

R117, I wish what you say is true, but it will have no effect. Trump will run again in 2028 and fix the election so he will win. Anyone who thinks he won't be nominated is living in a Pollyanna world.

[quote]Trump will run again in 2028 and fix the election so he will win. Anyone who thinks he won't be nominated is living in a Pollyanna world.

He will be 82 in 2028. He's not immortal. He will not run again.

[Quote] Her fan base would eat it up.

Does she actually have a fan base; is anybody going to be buying her book?

I'd say she has a very small group of highly partisan Dems, who feel she deserves another chance after being "robbed because of 'cheating' " - mostly older white women.

R85 If only the way she does it wasn't as obnoxious and fake.

The woman who can’t answer a single question, who bought Jussie’s story hook, line, and sinker. She’s never going to be anything.

[quote]Gavin Newsom will take her out.

She’s married. Or do you mean bar-hopping?

[quote] Gavin Newsom will take her out.

True, but she will probably still use her “that little girl was me” card against Newsom and suggest he’s a racist like she did to Biden.

I’m always side-eyeing the level of hate this very capable and accomplished woman gets. Haters will say what the fuck they will but Kamala Harris would’ve been a great president. At the very least, she would’ve been better and protect democracy better than the piece of shit and his shit ass minions we’re dealing with now.

[quote] The woman who can’t answer a single question, who bought Jussie’s story hook, line, and sinker. She’s never going to be anything.

Were you otherwise occupied the night of the debate?

R132: once inaugurated, she would have been capable of a four-year, fully functioning administration. However ... she has lousy political skills, no real base beyond loyal, partisan Democrats.

[quote] It was a challenge to convince voters that something they knew to be true, that she had been given an important role by President Biden regarding illegal immigration

She was given an important role on an issue she had no power to influence. That’s an indictment of Biden’s stupidity and incompetence, not hers.

[quote] Hindsight is 20/20. but after the much better than expected performance by Democrats in the midterms, which was widely reported as a vindication of Biden, there was no great clamor then for Biden to bow out.

Hindsight was required to know Biden would be past 85 by the time his second term ended? I’m totally baffled.

[quote] She was given an important role on an issue she had no power to influence. That’s an indictment of Biden’s stupidity and incompetence, not hers.

[quote] Joe Biden’s allies are prepared to “escalate” and reveal unflattering stories about Kamala Harris should the former vice president decide to talk about the former president’s cognitive decline, according to a veteran political journalist.

[quote]“I will tell you, and this has never been reported, barely at all: if the Biden people decide that Kamala is coming after Joe Biden, wait till you hear the ‘Palinesque’ stories about how much they tried to help her be prepared to be vice president and be in a position to run. And how much they decided, ‘Not happening. She’s not up to this,’” Halperin said on “The Morning Meeting” show.

[quote] “If the Biden people feel threatened, you will hear stories about Kamala Harris as vice president that will not make her look good,” Halperin said.

The Biden people need to come clean to disabuse people of the belief that Harris was competent as vice-president.

Yeah., it’s clear Harris was as deeply stupid and incompetent as Palin. Their debate performances, for example, were virtually identical. Thanks for reminding us of that obvious fact. You have much to share!!

And , by the way, do you think we have forgotten what a bizarre and pitiable campaigner Biden was in 2020 and in his previous shambolic presidential campaigns! He won because of Covid, aided incrementally by his status as an old white guy.

The idea Harris needed any guidance from Biden in how to campaign is laughable. What would he advise her to say? Muse about children listening to record players in 2020? Lie about her law school ranking? Appropriate a British politician’s family history.? One could go on and on…

[quote] Hindsight was required to know Biden would be past 85 by the time his second term ended? I’m totally baffled.

The party coalesced around Biden in the spring of 2020,believing he would be their best candidate. He then defeated an incumbent president Trump in 2020. His party far exceeded expectations in the 2022 midterms. Before it was effectively too late to change horses, Democrats had every reason to believe Biden was their best hope to again slay the dragon Trump. Beyond seeking to avert the immediate existential threat, I doubt many of us bothered to think beyond that.

R140. Hmmm. Speak for yourself. Most people were alarmed by the idea of a second term and hoping he wouldn’t run.

Just a reminder to the people trying to say Harris was too stupid to be president. Below is a list of people who were recently nominated by the two major parties for the office.

1. Donald Trump (3 times). 2. George W. Bush (2 times) 3. John McCain 4. George HW Bush (2 times) 5 John McCain

[quote] Most people were alarmed by the idea of a second term and hoping he wouldn’t run.

Most?! Only if you're including MAGAts. Sure there were some Democrats, but if was "most" clearly we would have more candidates running for the nomination than just Phillips & RFK, Jr.

I forgot to include Biden in the list.

Reagan belongs on that list, too.

Yes. Sorry. I thought I had put it but see that I put McCain twice instead.

[quote]Most?! Only if you're including MAGAts. Sure there were some Democrats, but if was "most" clearly we would have more candidates running for the nomination than just Phillips & RFK, Jr.

Hmm. You really can't be unaware of how difficult it is to run against an incumbent for his party's nomination, can you? Seriously? You think the limited number of same-party challengers is a sign everyone was quite comfortable with Biden's age?

And you think no one outside of Trump supporters was concerned about having a president in his late 80s? Seriously? You are part of the minority of people who contributed to our being in the predicament we were in in 2024.

To counter R143 's reinterpretative idiocy absolving Biden.

"In the summer of 2022, a New York Times–Siena College poll found that 61% of Democratic voters wanted someone other than Biden to be the 2024 presidential nominee, citing his age as the main concern. Biden's aides dismissed age-related concerns as politically motivated attacks by Republicans"

Interesting, R148, that you chose a poll from BEFORE the midterms, an election universally thought to herald an early renunciation of the Biden administration. But that didn't happen, leaving most Democrats optimistic about winning - with Biden - in 2024.

Dear Lord, give it up. You're embarrassing yourself.

From the same article. But you will of course say I should have picked a poll from December 2022.

A September 2023 CNN poll showed that "more than half (56 percent) of Democrats — and nearly three-quarters of Americans (73 percent) said they were seriously concerned for Biden's physical and mental competence".[73]

[quote] But you will of course say I should have picked a poll from December 2022.

I will. As can happen with midterms, e.g., 1994, 2010, the 2022 results falsely, & unexpectedly, gave Democrats optimism about 2024. You're not seriously denying that, are you?

Exactly, there was an 11-day period in late 2022 when almost no one was worried about Biden's age one bit. You win, of course! Total brilliance!

I really thought he would've resigned after the mid-terms, so Dems could claim the first female president in office.

I'm not so much claiming that we weren't worried about Biden's age as I am that electability concerns were not in the forefront after the midterms. If they were, we would have seen the party leaders acting as they did post- June 27th.

In June 2022, David Axelrod, a former senior advisor to President Barack Obama (under whom Biden served as vice president) told The New York Times that, “The presidency is a monstrously taxing job and the stark reality is the president would be closer to 90 than 80 at the end of a second term, and that would be a major issue.

As early as 2022, Democratic political consultant James Carville,[48] Mark Leibovich of The Atlantic,[49] Michelle Goldberg, Maureen Dowd and Ezra Klein of The New York Times, and The Economist opined that Biden should not run for re-election

On July 28, 2022, U.S. Representative Dean Phillips became the first incumbent Democratic member of the U.S. Congress to say that Biden should not run for re-election. Phillips called for "generational change," citing Biden's age.

In August 2022, U.S. Representative Angie Craig would not say if she would support Biden if he ran for a second term in 2024 and urged a “new generation” of Democratic leadership.

On October 10, 2022, U.S. Representative Tim Ryan stated at a televised Ohio Senate debate with JD Vance that he did not believe Biden should run for re-election in 2024 and would like to see a generational change.

In 2023, Democratic National Committee officials reportedly staged "hush-hush talks" to plan for contingencies in the event of Biden's withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race.

This is just my opinion based on what I read and heard and saw in 2020. We had a lot of people running for POTUS. No one emerged from the pack as a front runner. So party leaders, primarily Clyburn, and others talked to the candidates who were still in the race, and persuaded them that Biden had the best chance if we could all unify behind him. He had the support of the Black voters. He was very well known so no one would have to learn about him. He was Obama's VP and Obama was still very popular. Biden had the experience and could attract the staff to run a national campaign. The goal was unity, and to defeat Trump. No one expected Biden to run for re-election. He was the "bridge" the transition candidate and would serve one term. So who he chose as his running mate was important.

Joe has wanted to be President for decades. He had run two or three times already and got nowhere. When he finally achieved his long sought after goal, he was able to see his policies and his plans and initiatives put into action. He was on a high. So was Jill, and the family, and his long time closest aides. He was so insistent on looking forward and accomplishing something, he seemed to ignore the Insurrection and the Prosecution of the leaders who plotted it. They were free to regroup and organize and peddle their lies and divisive racist bullshit all over the country, and got help from the media. Joe and his aides did very little to promote his VP. She worked hard, and she was in the room, but unlike how President Obama treated Joe, she was practically invisible for two and a half years. Joe enjoyed being POTUS so much, he forgot he was a one term POTUS. His ego told him he was the only one who could beat Trump. His family and his closest aides agreed. Then, he debated Trump in June. Joe fucked us.

[quote] His ego told him he was the only one who could beat Trump.

His ego wasn’t all that wrong.

[R157]. Ummm. No

Well, it is indisputable that only Biden has defeated Trump.

Anyone could have defeated Trump in 2020.

Biden didn’t even make it to the first primary the previous two times he ran.

[quote] Anyone could have defeated Trump in 2020.

Are you the same poster who believes that anyone other than Harris could have defeated Trump in 2024?

Over a dozen Republicans ran against him in 2024. Nikki Haley couldn’t even win her own state’s Republicans. Ron DeSantis didn’t win a single race.

In 2016, Trump beat 16 Republicans, winning the vast majority of races. He has some weird magical hold on enough Americans in the right places.

I don’t think Biden could have won in 2024, but he is the only one who figures out how to fight Trump and win. If he had run in 2016, we would be in a vastly different place.

Yes, Biden possessed the secret sauce in 2020.

R149 = the tiresome “Mighty Joe Biden” troll.

[quote] Well, it is indisputable that only Biden has defeated Trump.

Yeah. We’re kind of aware of that. We factored that in in our conclusion that your claim was laughable.

Not a “Mighty Joe Biden” troll. I had plenty of contemporaneous issues with his presidency. But neither do I see Biden as nothing more than a punching bag, as does MAGA world.

Yeah. Admitting he shouldn’t have run for president in his 80s is quite abusive to the man.

Biden won in 2020 after sputtering out in Iowa and seeming old and ineffectual in the first debates. He turned it around at the end of Feb thru March for two reasons:

(1) South Carolina primary date went much earlier and Black voters landed him a massive victory there, and

(2) when Coronavirus shit got real in early to mid March, we all felt rightly freaked out that Trump was in charge and we wanted the Obama-Biden competence back in the White House. Biden very quickly became a stand-in for the previous admin's superiority and professionalism. Support coalesced around him FAST as the NYC body count rose and the whole city and then most of the nation was shut down.

But in 2024 Biden seemed so much more elderly (and he was), and he was blamed rightly or wrongly for the very real inflation spike and price hikes of 2021-22. Everybody felt that and unfortunately in Biden's case the President takes the blame even if it's systemic and global.

Why this is bad news for yellow school bus drivers.

Harris on the other hand... both sides carry some truth. She is a "cringe" public communicator at times AND she really did have charisma and star power for a while there as the Dem nominee. She brought the election much closer in just 2 months, compared to where it was in June-July when Biden was doddering and then fighting and refusing to quit. She lost by just a few points, vs the 7 or 8 Biden was tracking to lose by.

Sadly at this moment she would do the Democratic Party a favor by staying low profile for the 2028 cycle. The Democrats desperately need a rejuvenation and she's an extension of Biden-Harris. That's a main reason she lost; most swing voters were dissatisfied with the status quo and were restless, and she represented the status quo.

What you say is correct. But men get a pass. Trump and the two Bushes could hardly open their mouths without sounding like morons. For all three, there were entire booklets published containing all their stupid statements. Yes, Harris said several vapid things, but you could never fill a whole book. Biden is almost as bad as the Bushes, long before any question of senility arose. McCain was also far more blundering and unintelligent than Harris.

Those of us who think she was a pretty decent candidate aren’t blind to her weaknesses. We’ve just not decided to hold her to a higher standard just because she’s a women. If a large percentage of recent male candidates have the right to sound stupid nearly all the time, she should have the right to be stupid occasionally.

[quote] She is a "cringe" public communicator at times AND she really did have charisma and star power

???

Absolutely fair point R171. Though it was one of the factors that hindered her 2020 campaign from gaining real traction among Democrats, back then. She stayed in the single digits and then dropped out pretty quickly.

Trump 1.0 took advantage of an inherited good economy & too many voters gave him continuing credit, while memory-holing 2020. Biden & the Democrats took the blame for the pandemic-cause inflation. In hindsight, no Democrat, not the aging Biden, not his vice president nor anyone else was going to defeat Trump in 2024, as evidenced by the fact that he became the first republican since the post-9/11 George W. Bush in 2004 to capture the popular vote.

R174 summarizes the situation perfectly. Another piece of evidence is that Trump ran one of the most pathetic and half-hearted campaigns possible and still one. Whatever you think of Harris’ campaigning it was more committed and competent than Trump’s. I don’t think anyone could have defeated him

[quote]If he had run in 2016, we would be in a vastly different place.

People need to stop with this. He wouldn't have won. He would have been saddled with worse baggage than Clinton. (Iraq War, Anita Hill, Crime Bill, Allowing Student loans not to be declared in bankruptcy)

Biden couldn't win a single state in his first two presidential runs. Whether you like Clinton or not, she established herself as a formidable candidate on her first time running. As mentioned above, it took a lot of maneuvering for Biden to win his first state on his THIRD try running.

Most of Biden's goodwill comes from Obama having him as his VP. Left to his own devices, there isn't much there.

[quote]Whatever you think of Harris’ campaigning it was more committed and competent than Trump’s.

Two things sank Kamala's campaign. 1.) Campaigning with the Cheney's while flaunting the idea of including a Republican in her administration and 2.) Her dismal answer on The View asking how she would be different than Biden.

[quote] Campaigning with the Cheney's while flaunting the idea of including a Republican in her administration

While it may have hurt her with some American Firsters, it helped her with the many college graduates the GOP has been bleeding under Trump.

[quote] it helped her with the many college graduates the GOP has been bleeding under Trump.

It helped her with the college graduates whose vote she was already going to get. It didn’t increase her total at all.

College graduates pre-Trump were far more likely to vote Republican than they were post-Trump. Part of the Great Realignment.

[quote]I’m always side-eyeing the level of hate this very capable and accomplished woman gets. Haters will say what the fuck they will but Kamala Harris would’ve been a great president. At the very least, she would’ve been better and protect democracy better than the piece of shit and his shit ass minions we’re dealing with now.

WRONG. You know who didn't protect democracy? Joe Biden & Kamala Harris. They both are on the record of saying that "if donald trump is elected, he will democracy" and then they did absolutely nothing to stop him from running for president again. Even when they had a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY to turn this country around by getting rid of trump and the insurrectionist politicians. By getting rid of traitors. They did NOTHING. Not a single fucking thing. Had they have had them prosecuted, the democrats would have had control of the house and senate. The things they could have accomplished. But they didn't want to do that.

Biden was a God damned fool who should have had trump prosecuted for the insurrection. But instead he didn't want want to upset the MAGAts. He didn't want to have a TRAITOR prosecuted for trying to overthrow the government & also trying to overturn a free & fair election. Biden committed a crime by doing that. Soft on crime idiot. He deserved to be impeached for letting trump go free. What a fucking idiot.

And Kamala should have pressured him. And if she did and he still was his usual soft of crime & didn't want to have trump the traitor prosecuted, then she should have started giving interviews to why trump needs to be prosecuted. Democracy and freedom were on the line and she and soft on crime Joe Biden couldn't be bothered to try and save them.

The rest of the democratic politicians should have done that.

You really don't get any stupider or weaker than the democrats for letting trump get away with one of the worst crimes to happen on American soil. They should all be run out of office. They are USELESS

And people warned us back in 2020, that all of what is happening would happen. Very public attorneys & other people said, "if Biden doesn't prosecute trump, it will be the end of democracy". They all knew Biden was soft of crime and spent his entire career helping to let republican politicians get away with crime after crime. And those attorneys and everyone else were 100% correct.

In my role as a “Biden troll,” R180, Biden thought that, in the aftermath of J6, Trump was a spent force politically. And he wanted to try to unite the country in Trump’s wake. Not a choice that has aged well, but not one made without some thought.

Agreed, r181. It was a last gasp for decency in politics. Now we know that Democrats reaching across will only get them chopped off by MAGA. No more bipartisanship.

[quote] Two things sank Kamala's campaign. 1.) Campaigning with the Cheney's while flaunting the idea of including a Republican in her administration and 2.) Her dismal answer on The View asking how she would be different than Biden.

The view answer, possibly. But campaigning with Cheney? Seriously?

[quote}WRONG. You know who didn't protect democracy? Joe Biden & Kamala Harris. They both are on the record of saying that "if donald trump is elected, he will democracy" and then they did absolutely nothing to stop him from running for president again. Even

WRONG---at least with respect to Harris. Harris was vice-president, not president. Even if she had wanted to do that she had absolutely no power to do that. It's bizarre you would blame her for that.

Whether Biden, who would have had some power to do what you propose, should have done it is something we can at least debate. You have to take into account what a serious step it would be to do that to a former president and what the repercussions would have been. To-date our democracy has functioned because people like Trump didn't arise. Although we have formal measure to deal with people like Trump, I don't share your confidence that using those formal measures would have had the entirely happy outcome you predict. I'm far from a Biden admirer, but I don't automatically criticize him for not taking the steps you suggest. Trump is only a symptom of the problem. The true problem is that we have so many voters who think what Trump does is okay. You can't prosecute or legislate that away.

[quote]In my role as a “Biden troll,” [R180], Biden thought that, in the aftermath of J6, Trump was a spent force politically. And he wanted to try to unite the country in Trump’s wake. Not a choice that has aged well, but not one made without some thought.

You are not performing your role very well. Who on earth would have thought such a stupid, naive thing? Are you saying Biden is that stupid?

See R182 & R184, R185.

Thanks for the tip. I will look at my own post to inform myself. Thanks again.

Presidential politics is pretty cutthroat. I worked on many many campaigns going back to Jimmy Carter. I was on staff at the DNC during one campaign. Let me tell you what I surmise was Kamala's problem in 2020. She as not established. Beyond a certain sphere she was a comparative unknown, not a national figure. She had a very difficult time raising money and hiring professional staff. Her sister was running her campaign. It was a family affair. This was not her "fault." There is no blame game here. Professional Campaign people like Plouffe, Axelrod, Jim Messina, etc., etc., etc. good ones, seasoned, experienced, connected, were not ready to bet on Kamala back them. She had no money either. That is why she wisely bowed out early. She was no fool. Basically political donors are opportunists just like the campaign staff. They want to back a winner. And if they can't, they at least want to not do themselves any professional career harm by backing someone who is likely going to not win or can tarnish them. (For example, I don't think anyone would want to hire someone who could make the claim they worked for John Edwards.). This is 3 dimensional chess. Sometimes you will back someone who won't win...this time... with the eye towards the future, for example, working for Pete Buttigeig. Or working for someone who can help you long term because the have great connections.

R188 here. The other smart thing Kamala did was drop out before she became the target of damaging attacks. The other candidates were going to attack one another and tarnish them, and when you're not well know then you become cannon fodder.

R189, she wasn't smart enough in 2019 to avoid answering interest group questionnaires.

Wasn't expecting Harris's close ally, the Lt. Governor, to drop out.

R191

Gavin Newsom curses every woman in his life.

Might Alex Padilla run for governor?

Why are we still debating this?

Because we only now learned that we didn't have your permission.

Time to drop the pussybow blouses.