Nicely put together set of thoughts (from both of the ‘What just happened’ installments). There is a thread that you allude to, and which plays heavily in my own exit polls AKA just my normal daily conversations over the last 5 days… per your namesake, wokeness has crossed the line for a huge proportion of Americans. For some it happened years ago, for others more recently as media, universities, et. al. more overtly disgraced themselves. So no real science behind my observation, but many of my acquaintances that edge a little left voted on one big issue - the woke insanity must be reeled back, not expanded.
Your analysis is invaluable. I had previously sent your article on how we are in serious trouble (regardless of who won) to my wife. She’s drifted to the Left over the years, but she started reading it and I think she liked it.
One thing that Trump had in common with Bill Clinton is that he plainly enjoyed campaigning. Whether it was doing two or three enormous rallies a day or sitting down with podcasters like Joe Rogan for hours on end, he always seemed like he was having fun. His enthusiasm was infectious and his supporters loved it. While Harris was stilted and scripted, Trump was stoked. Politics has always been show business. It always will be. Trump is a natural politician; Harris isn’t. Being a natural politician is a useful trait when you’re running for President.
You left out P-Nut. I only mention him because he would have been enough to sink any party—except by then, there were so many failures and missteps, that his case was lost in the morass. This was truly the worst campaign in my lifetime. And yet… It’s a mark of how messed up the system is, that she still came within a few sloppy inches of sneaking in. Or so it felt at the time.
Well, it wasn’t really that close. If not quite a rout, it was a decisive defeat. Kamala Harris vanquished by Donald Trump! He’s two for two against “strong progressive women…”
Yes it wasn’t close, but I must admit to buying the possibility that girl bosses and AWFLs and man-eaters might be enough to put her over. Even if you tune out the DNC media, sometimes the noise seeps through anyway. There were certainly enough fingernails screeching on that chalkboard.
I still think that the main reason, above all others is that the Dems picked a candidate wholly unqualified to be President in every sense of the word. They did this because they thought they could get away with it- like they thought they could
Get away with a President with dementia. They thought the American people were too stupid to notice. There was no reason to vote
Yes, I agree. Kamala Harris was a bad, bad candidate. But even so, in other circumstances she might have edged in. But a perfect storm of averse circumstances combined with her personal deficiencies to sink her candidacy. As I’ll noting in my follow up article, if Donald Trump did indeed sell his soul to Satan, he got a Hell of a deal. He’s the luckiest man in American political history, bar none.
Bill Clinton had the gift of acting like, when he's talking to you, there was no one else in the world he'd rather talk to, and you were the most fascinating person he's ever met. He walked away from a crowd energized, while most of us would be exhausted.
Or so I've heard (never met him). Most of us don't have that, and Kamala / Hillary certainly do not. (you're right that Nixon didn't, either)
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Of course, there are some substitutes for Clinton-style charisma. Margaret Thatcher wasn’t charismatic, but she had a non-nonsense aura of competence that served her well. You didn’t want to get handbagged by Maggie! But Harris is just a bundle of negative qualities.
I agree with all of this, but I'd add one huge factor that applies to all political races:
** The voters have to at least not dislike you. I didn't say they have to LIKE you, because many people don't much like Trump, but he's a known quantity. By contrast, Harris is just plain dislikable. As was Hillary.
This is impossible to prove analytically and so "experts" ignore it. It's also impossible to write a learned disquisition on it.
1972 - The wildly dislikeable Richard Nixon won 49 states against the feckless but seemingly okay George McGovern. I didn't find Harris dislikeable, just way out of her depth.
Absolutely. Some voters actively disliked Harris, others found her off-putting or inauthentic, still others couldn’t envision her as president. There was a variety of negative views that added up to a fairly broad rejection of her candidacy.
Good point. Mine was that Harris is incapable of relating to voters—which, I suppose, calls forth a variety of negative reactions, up to and including outright dislike.
Nicely put together set of thoughts (from both of the ‘What just happened’ installments). There is a thread that you allude to, and which plays heavily in my own exit polls AKA just my normal daily conversations over the last 5 days… per your namesake, wokeness has crossed the line for a huge proportion of Americans. For some it happened years ago, for others more recently as media, universities, et. al. more overtly disgraced themselves. So no real science behind my observation, but many of my acquaintances that edge a little left voted on one big issue - the woke insanity must be reeled back, not expanded.
Your analysis is invaluable. I had previously sent your article on how we are in serious trouble (regardless of who won) to my wife. She’s drifted to the Left over the years, but she started reading it and I think she liked it.
"...soft on crime policies as a prosecutor..."
One quibble.
I never forgot that Kamela jailed parents of truant children.
Most of those parents lived pay-check to pay-check. Being jailed created real hardship.
Plus a parent in jail is in a poor position to ensure that the kid goes to school.
Kamela was willing to hurt people just to bolster her image.
The woman has no moral compass.
I assume your misspelling is intentional -- what for, showing disdain? At least try to get her name right, Steve, even if you don't like her.
One thing that Trump had in common with Bill Clinton is that he plainly enjoyed campaigning. Whether it was doing two or three enormous rallies a day or sitting down with podcasters like Joe Rogan for hours on end, he always seemed like he was having fun. His enthusiasm was infectious and his supporters loved it. While Harris was stilted and scripted, Trump was stoked. Politics has always been show business. It always will be. Trump is a natural politician; Harris isn’t. Being a natural politician is a useful trait when you’re running for President.
You left out P-Nut. I only mention him because he would have been enough to sink any party—except by then, there were so many failures and missteps, that his case was lost in the morass. This was truly the worst campaign in my lifetime. And yet… It’s a mark of how messed up the system is, that she still came within a few sloppy inches of sneaking in. Or so it felt at the time.
Well, it wasn’t really that close. If not quite a rout, it was a decisive defeat. Kamala Harris vanquished by Donald Trump! He’s two for two against “strong progressive women…”
Yes it wasn’t close, but I must admit to buying the possibility that girl bosses and AWFLs and man-eaters might be enough to put her over. Even if you tune out the DNC media, sometimes the noise seeps through anyway. There were certainly enough fingernails screeching on that chalkboard.
I still think that the main reason, above all others is that the Dems picked a candidate wholly unqualified to be President in every sense of the word. They did this because they thought they could get away with it- like they thought they could
Get away with a President with dementia. They thought the American people were too stupid to notice. There was no reason to vote
For her other than she was not her opponent.
Yes, I agree. Kamala Harris was a bad, bad candidate. But even so, in other circumstances she might have edged in. But a perfect storm of averse circumstances combined with her personal deficiencies to sink her candidacy. As I’ll noting in my follow up article, if Donald Trump did indeed sell his soul to Satan, he got a Hell of a deal. He’s the luckiest man in American political history, bar none.
Good discussion so far. I'd just add one thing:
Bill Clinton had the gift of acting like, when he's talking to you, there was no one else in the world he'd rather talk to, and you were the most fascinating person he's ever met. He walked away from a crowd energized, while most of us would be exhausted.
Or so I've heard (never met him). Most of us don't have that, and Kamala / Hillary certainly do not. (you're right that Nixon didn't, either)
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Of course, there are some substitutes for Clinton-style charisma. Margaret Thatcher wasn’t charismatic, but she had a non-nonsense aura of competence that served her well. You didn’t want to get handbagged by Maggie! But Harris is just a bundle of negative qualities.
I agree with all of this, but I'd add one huge factor that applies to all political races:
** The voters have to at least not dislike you. I didn't say they have to LIKE you, because many people don't much like Trump, but he's a known quantity. By contrast, Harris is just plain dislikable. As was Hillary.
This is impossible to prove analytically and so "experts" ignore it. It's also impossible to write a learned disquisition on it.
1972 - The wildly dislikeable Richard Nixon won 49 states against the feckless but seemingly okay George McGovern. I didn't find Harris dislikeable, just way out of her depth.
True. But I don’t think anyone thought McGovern was actually likable; just OK, and Nixon was the incumbent who went to China and Russia.
Absolutely. Some voters actively disliked Harris, others found her off-putting or inauthentic, still others couldn’t envision her as president. There was a variety of negative views that added up to a fairly broad rejection of her candidacy.
Good point. Mine was that Harris is incapable of relating to voters—which, I suppose, calls forth a variety of negative reactions, up to and including outright dislike.
Trump gave the impression that he’d at least APPEAR friendly for a while, and he wouldn’t be glancing at his watch to see when he could leave.
Are you referring to the 2020 debate when Biden checked his watch?
Was there also a funeral where he did that?