patrick.net

They have to.

You see Biden is gonna step down and have Kamala take over in 5, 4, 3 ...

Misc says

They have to.

You see Biden is gonna step down and have Kamala take over in 5, 4, 3 ...

Harris can't and won't. In a strange twist I could see Tulsi flipping after serving 2 years, resigning and saying she wants to reform the Democratic party. Kind of Trump like. Problem with that is there's strong competition on the Right and would probably lose. Or she could run as a Republican and still probably win taking normal, not idiot Dem voters with her anyway.

Democrats really have nothing I can think of. Newsom will not poll well outside of the West Coast. WI, OH, MI and PA would be for sure loses. GA and FL she'd do well. Not a bunch of EV's, but could win Hawaii as someone from there. You know she'll get them federal funding.

Guys would vote for her as she's not a 10, but better looking than Kamala and god damn I'm not even gonna say anything about Hillary. She's a more intelligent and relatable woman for the woman vote. Ex-military.

Whoever plans on running in '28 they need to be hitting the big podcasts every year starting ASAP. Long form. No scripts or pre-planned questions. Start now and if you're in a cabinet position have a chance to explain what you're doing. Harris couldn't explain what she did at all for 10 minutes. Did no "real" interviews and even when she knew the question her responses could have been better stated by a retard.

Desantis is kind of like Newsom though depending who he's against. Ultimately if the next 4 years go well, it will likely be whoever Trump endorses. Harris is toast at this point is the overall point. Honestly wouldn't be surprised if she becomes a host on the View. She's a pro at saying nothing that makes sense. Joy or the black predator have to retire at some point. She'll get paid more than anything else she's qualified for. We need to keep female retards alive.

Kamala is a true republican supporter ;)

Kamala is another example of how it is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they were fooled. Democrats are still in denial phase.

In all honesty, the Dems did not lose in a humiliating fashion. If you want to look at humiliation ... look at a prior generation's election, 1984.

To win only one's home state of MN and that ... with a paltry 3.7K+ votes is pathetic!

And D.C. is not a state, just a city which gets some electoral votes.



I double checked with the over 70 crowd and Mondale had the full backing of all the unions in the country but couldn't win any rust belt states and historically speaking, no Democrat ever loses Massachusetts and all of New England until Mondale showed up. Basically, once Mondale left the city limits of Boston, his candidacy tanked for much of the state.

In effect, despite the oil patch bust of the early 80s, the loss of manufacturing to Japan Inc, etc, the Dems lost their main constituency to Reagan even though Reagan was barely a year into an economic recovery and a recovery which was mainly composed of coastal sectors like Big Defense, Finance, etc.

A lot of this was placed on Mondale being touted as Carter II ... memoirs of gas lines, stagflation, and hostage crisis. Still, the message was clear ... Dems, get your act together or you'll never see the White House again.

Nah, in 2028 they will be dying on the Newscum hill.

ElYorsh says

Democrats are still in denial phase.

I think the Dems have already made their excuses.

For instance, not propping up Harris from 2021 through 2024, but then, suddenly expecting that she'd sub for Biden in the final quarter. And then, if you listen to Congressman Cohen, he's pitched the trite topic that she's a victim of midwestern racism. Yes, the same places which voted for Obama back in 2008.

And when it's all tallied up, how badly did she lose?



For the most part, she won both the northeast and the west coast, along with ChiTown, MN, CO, and even flipped New Mexico. I wouldn't call that a crushing defeat for the Dems, just a sobering one.

And a defeat which just confirms the obvious, stop pretending that national elections are decided between Boston, NYC, DC, LA, and SF.

Rin says

And a defeat which just confirms the obvious, stop pretending that national elections are decided between Boston, NYC, DC, LA, and SF.

With a 54 (CA), 28 (NY) and 19 (IL) head start, yes those places (cities) make a difference. By default you're already at 101 out the gate. Toss in 11 (MA), 8 (OR) and 12 (WA). These people voted for Kamala Harris and got her 132 without doing a thing. That's usually a guarantee every POTUS cycle for the rest of our lives.

The Reagan/Mondale election was an anomaly we'll never see an election like that again. It would take an extreme gaffe by a candidate. Biden and Harris didn't even really campaign in '20 and '24. Yet they still got a good chunk of EV and popular votes.

Republicans get TX and FL. So a nice 70 point head start. Winning all the small states is a nothing burger generally. But say another 40 there. It's harder for Republicans to win a national election. They have to basically live in the midwest for 3 months.

Having been to both probably 10 times. CO and MN still confuse me. CO the most since they were the first weed state. Every single one of my heavy pot smoking friends in IL are extremely conservative. Straight R voters. I don't actually think I know a Democrat pot smoker besides one in North Carolina. Asheville (eye roll). Hippy loser hell hole.

WookieMan says

CO and MN still confuse me

CO is a perfect example of what happens when libs from CA take over, tons of parasitic lib boomers took over CO. The exodus of the last four years has been more conservative.

WookieMan says

That's usually a guarantee every POTUS cycle for the rest of our lives.

Yes, but we already know this. Even Bob Dole and Bush Jr didn't expect to get those areas. The reason why Trump's first election was so prominent was that he showed that one needs the rust belt vote, to win it all. Thus, there's this divide ... the big coastal cities = Democrat, everywhere else is a toss up.

WookieMan says

The Reagan/Mondale election was an anomaly we'll never see an election like that again.

Still, it happened. Look, I was born and raised in Massachusetts and I've never heard of a Democratic candidate, garnering only 39.x% of the votes on the South Shore of Boston. In fact, many hard core Democrats were livid that the party went w/ Carter's "Loser VP" ... their words, not mine. Many MA residents were not fans of the 'The Gipper' but since defense spending was hot, and Ted Kennedy got a lot of that money directed towards MA tech companies, ppl were willing to put up with Reagan in returns for the local economic benefits.

Rin says

and even flipped New Mexico

What was flipped here, it's always been dem mostly, no?

mell says

Rin says

and even flipped New Mexico

What was flipped here, it's always been dem mostly, no?

It's a back/forth region. Kerry didn't carry it and lost. Still, not enough Electoral counts in general.

Karl Rove ran all those 'Swift Boat' ads in Ohio, which was all that Kerry needed, to win the Electoral College but lose the Popular Vote.