Post Election Analysis

Kamala was so distasteful that she had to pay left wing celebrities for their endorsements.

How not to run a campaign?

A few interesting post-mortems were found along with this one . . .

Nellie Bowles, the Free Press, said Harris "made me furious, because she’s a good and fine person who ran a truly terrible campaign. It was a campaign that exemplified all of the delusions of the modern Democrats: that you never need to say what you stand for (because people should just assume you know what’s best for them), that you should never answer hard questions or appear with questionable figures, and that the only issue any American woman should care about is abortion…

David Brooks offered an insight that should be taken to heart . . .

David Brooks: "There will be some on the left who will say Trump won because of the inherent racism, sexism and authoritarianism of the American people. Apparently, those people love losing and want to do it again and again and again…

www.foxnews.com/politics/media-liberals-...ers?dicbo=v2-r9qsPyg

Isn't it amazing that all we were hearing from major media outlets was what a flawless campaign Harris was running given all the flaws they are finding with her campaign in the aftermath of the election?

"Kamala Harris Ran A Flawless Campaign"


Underperformed in all 50 states.

PrintSmith wrote:
Isn't it amazing that all we were hearing from major media outlets was what a flawless campaign Harris was running given all the flaws they are finding with her campaign in the aftermath of the election?

A flawless campaign would have included talking to the biggest possible audience in the world (Joe Rogan), for 3 hours. Unfortunately for Harris, she wouldn't be able to do that if Rogan asked her follow up questions. Her repeated word salads would have reached the next level, making her look like Biden at the debate. It would be impossible for Harris to have a flawless campaign, even with an unlimited budget.

She will actually be happier she lost. I don't think she was ready to have the weight of the world on her shoulders. I think she would have a mental breakdown with her first global crisis.

Not really on topic . . . but what is it about rendering candidates for president from the party of Democrats in the style of Warhol's Guerrillero Heroico that is found to be so appealing? Is it truly in the interest of the party to have their candidates associated with a communist terrorist in the process? Che might have been a hero to communist revolutionaries, but is he really a hero to be emulated in these United States?

FredHayek wrote: She will actually be happier she lost. I don't think she was ready to have the weight of the world on her shoulders. I think she would have a mental breakdown with her first global crisis.

Why would it matter to her? She was truly only interested in the title given she'd been shown firsthand over the last 4 years that the country could be run from behind the curtain with a figurehead announcing the decisions that had been reached.