Even After the Harris-Biden Substitution, the Presidential Race Still Sucks
It's still a close race between terrible, and terribly unpopular, major party candidates.

An old joke frames Washington, D.C. as Hollywood for ugly people. But it's more accurate to say it's Hollywood for horrible people who make you want to back away slowly in search of an exit. To notice the unattractiveness of members of America's political class, you need to be dangerously close to their sociopathy and hunger for power, and who wants to enter that orbit? And that brings us to Kamala Harris, vice president of the United States and savior (they hope) of Democrats' dreams of retaining the White House against a challenge by famously flawed former President Donald Trump.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Past-Due Departure
"It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your President," read, in part, a letter published over President Joe Biden's signature and released on X Sunday morning. "And while it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term."
And so ends, kind of, the drama that began when Biden's disastrous presidential debate performance on June 27 put to rest any pretense that the octogenarian is up to the demands of campaigning for another term in office, let alone serving four more years. The situation also raised plenty of questions about who has been performing the duties of the head of the executive branch, since Biden doesn't seem up to the job. And it left unfilled the position of Democratic nominee.
In a subsequent message Biden offered "my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year." But the separate endorsement raised eyebrows. In truth, the president, even in his decayed state, is not known for confidence in his number two.
A Candidate With a Bad History
"President Biden hesitated to drop his re-election campaign in part because he and his senior advisers worried that Vice President Kamala Harris wasn't up to taking on Donald Trump, according to three Biden aides familiar with recent talks about his plans," Axios's Alex Thompson reported. Among concerns are Harris's inability to retain staff—they quit in droves—and her reluctance to take on responsibility.
Under Harris, the office of the vice presidency has had "an extraordinarily high 91.5-percent staff turnover rate," according to a report by OpenTheBooks, a watchdog group.
"People are thrown under the bus from the very top, there are short fuses and it's an abusive environment," one official told Politico in 2021 about the environment in Harris's office.
Former staffers describe being subject to prosecutorial-style grillings—ordeals with special meaning given Harris's background as San Francisco District Attorney and then California Attorney General. In San Francisco, she was chastised by a judge for failing to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence to defendants about misdeeds at a scandal-ridden crime lab. Over 1,000 cases were dismissed.
"A review of her career shows a distinct penchant for power seeking and an illiberal disposition in which no offense is small or harmless enough to warrant lenience from the state," Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown noted in 2019 during Harris's crash-and-burn try for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Harris defended herself during the crime lab mess by apologizing for taking years to establish a policy for sharing evidence. But the impression that she wasn't on the ball carries over into her vice presidency, where she often seems to have neglected her homework. That was on display during Harris's infamous 2021 interview with NBC's Lester Holt regarding her nominal role overseeing border policy.
"This whole—this whole thing about the border. We've been to the border. We've been to the border," Harris insisted.
"You haven't been to the border," Holt responded.
"And I haven't been to Europe," Harris snapped. "I don't understand the point that you're making."
Even in the aftermath of that fiasco, Harris remains famous for word-salad comments that leave the impression she's trying to kill time with noise rather than address issues she simply doesn't understand.
Two Unsatisfying Contenders
But as bad as her record is, and as poor a candidate as she's been in the past, Harris has the advantage of running against Donald Trump, the abrasive Republican nominee with a loyal following but equally dedicated detractors. When Biden was still the presumptive Democratic pick, roughly half of Americans polled by Pew Research said they wanted to trade both Biden and Trump for other choices.
Famously thin-skinned as a boss, turnover among Trump's staff during his administration was almost identical to that of Harris's staff at 92 percent. (Biden administration turnover is 71 percent—it's almost as if these are all really unpleasant people to be around.)
If Harris turns sentences into ransom notes of randomly joined words, Trump uses the English language to paint a Jackson Pollock painting of overlapping truth, lies, and exaggerations.
And even as Biden's disability has become more obvious, and after the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, the former president's favorability rating has remained underwater at 42.1 percent (53.3 percent unfavorable). But that's better than Joe Biden's 38.5 percent approval (56.3 percent disapproval) and—importantly—it compares strongly to Kamala Harris's 38.3 percent approval (51.4 percent disapproval).
While Harris just stepped into the role of heir apparent to the Democratic nomination, pollsters anticipating the move tested her against Donald Trump. It's early days yet, but she doesn't look like a shot to the arm of Democrats' hopes and dreams.
It's Still Trump's Race To Lose
"She has been polling the same as Biden—or just slightly better—against Republican nominee Donald Trump, according to multiple surveys taken before Biden withdrew from the 2024 contest," NBC News noted this week of a comparison of polls for a then-hypothetical Harris-Trump race. "And Biden was running behind Trump in many national and battleground-state polls."
The Hill's polling averages have Trump up by 2.5 percent over Harris, compared to the 2.7 percent advantage he enjoyed over Biden.
Which is to say, not much has changed in this presidential campaign. It's still a close race between terrible, and terribly unpopular, major party candidates.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Trump, in a landslide.
Even after this article, JDT still sucks
I was right about how the Dems would get rid of Brandon by hook or by crook, as I wrote before.
I was wrong about the timing.
Do you think that the Democrats should have stayed with Biden regardless?
I was expecting them to dump Brandon six months ago behind the scenes, with the President making his announcement of not seeking another four years during a televised appearance in the Oval office.
I was expecting them to dump Brandon six months ago
That would have required some forethought and planning. Democrats are incapable of both.
turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit.
I was wrong about the timing
They didn’t have any choice, they couldn’t cover for him anymore. They had to pull the trigger when DJT’s failed assassination attempt put FJB’s polling numbers so far in the dirt that donors got nervous.
There’s been some strong arguments that the Democrats are setting up Kamala to loose, because they want DJT in when the economy collapses. I don’t believe this is what’s happening, the fucking Democrats and their globalist pals will grasp for power no matter what the political environment is. Rather they’re just running with what they’ve got, who else are they going to use? Newsom? Fucking HRC?
Why not a nobody, a blank slate unknown to more than a couple hundred people in the world — family, school buddies, co-workers, etc. — with no record of good or bad or known opinions on public policy matters? A Chauncey Gardner but of normal intelligence? Somebody they neither owe anything to (yet) nor owes them anything (yet)?
Or, if they're too chicken to try that, a previously non-political but known figure like Trump? Maybe a famous New York chef. Or a music promoter. A game show host. A retired baseball great. President of a medical school, or medical center. Figurehead of a fast food chain they founded and sold long ago.
TRUMP2024
MAWF - Make America Whine Free, vote No Trump.
Vote for the party with actual grievance-study academics and government agencies?
MCGA.
Make China Great Again.
Vote Harris.
Hunter, is that you?
VP Harris has a record, now let her defend it in debates with The Donald (who plays one hell of a game of golf, damn did you see that video?!).
Kamala won't be unburdened of the past sluggish, inflationary economy. She owns it, along with POTUS Biden.
Kamala won’t be unburdened of the past sluggish, inflationary economy. She owns it, along with POTUS Biden.
I suppose you have a better answer to the following question than Bill O'Reilly did:
What did Biden do to cause inflation or the other economic conditions you and Trump say are so bad? (Inflation has been bad, no one questions that. The other economic conditions, I think that needs more analysis to justify that conclusion.)
Oh, and evidence for any assertions you make would be awesome.
What did Biden do to cause inflation
They're too stupid to answer that question.
But just by aksing it you must have TDS!
Um, you no longer have to defend Biden (and you will no longer get paid for doing so).
turd, the ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit.
^This steaming pile of shit proposes murder as a preventative for what the asshole really doesn’t know.
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?…”
Inflation has been bad, no one questions that
The Biden Administration did indeed lie about inflation, until they could no longer convince their loyal voting base to quit trusting their lying eyes.
Much in the same way they couldn’t lie anymore about Joe’s cognitive issues.
The Biden Administration did indeed lie about inflation, until they could no longer convince their loyal voting base to quit trusting their lying eyes.
That's not what I asked. Have an answer to my actual question?
Day one executive orders. Canceled Keystone Pipeline.
Energy prices are driven by fear of the future as much as supply and demand. Biden signaled the war on cheap energy was a top priority. Energy prices skyrocketed. That was a large driver of inflation.
From 1/21 to 1/22 fuel prices rose 50%. They eventually completed a >100% rise in the middle of 2022. Fuel prices hit a peak 60% higher than the non-Covid peak under Trump. Energy prices trickle into everything. The money printing had surprisingly little impact on prices. The shutdown of supply chains, production and shipping did much more. In my opinion, Trump had authority to stop that domestically under the interstate commerce clause. I blame him for failing to do so. Always will. The difference is intentional destruction versus suboptimal decisions. Back to the money printing... the bill for the last 25 years of reckless spending has yet to come due. Expect it in the next 10-20 years. The economic disaster will make this round of inflationary disruption look very minor.
Fuel price info linked below.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_epm0_pte_nus_dpg&f=m
What did Biden do to cause inflation or the other economic conditions you and Trump say are so bad?
Remind us what Biden's massive legislative accomplishments supposedly were? Therein you will find your answer.
Remind us what Biden’s massive legislative accomplishments supposedly were? Therein you will find your answer.
Answering a question with a question, huh? And a rhetorical question at that.
I think that this is an important issue. I really would like to see someone give me a real answer with factual support.
You know the answer, dude. You're just being willful to be argumentative.
The democrats were all in on massive spending on an economy already heated up. They pushed massive spending legislation, and they tried to push even more, not in a time of uncertainty or when dealing with massive economic disruption, but after all economic indicators showed a massive bounceback from reopening.
It was grift, spending to promote progressive causes, based on the false premise of an "emergency". There was nothign to "build back" from, there was definitely no inflation reduction, and he never returned spending to the pre-energency baseline.
Again, you know all of this. Stop playing stupid.
Again, you know all of this. Stop playing stupid.
I wasn’t playing “stupid.” I was not making assumptions about what someone meant when they didn’t say it explicitly. People tend to do that when they don’t want to commit to a specific answer, or try to be clever or sarcastic, Now that someone has, I can address it.
At its core, inflation is caused by demand exceeding supply, right? Additional government spending or monetary stimulus will increase demand, which is why it is used as stimulus when demand is low during recessions. So, obviously, the stimulus packages passed and signed by Biden would lead to inflation. (One of those packages, a extension of the COVID relief, was a party-line vote with no Republicans supporting it. They had clearly supported the original COVID package, passed when they controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House. The second large package was an infrastructure one that included a fair amount of Republicans voting for it. (There are also plenty of articles that point out how various Republicans that voted against that infrastructure package nonetheless hype it to their constituents about how it helped them.)
What I was really hoping to see what some acknowledgement that the spending and monetary policies don’t explain all of the inflation. I couldn’t find papers published by economists claiming that it does. The bounce back of demand at the time when supply chains were still disrupted, plus the disruptions of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the sanctions that followed, also had a substantial effect on inflation. You almost acknowledge that this is true when you talk about the “massive bounceback from reopening.” There would have been inflation higher than we had seen in many years even if Biden and Democrats in Congress had not passed any additional spending.
It was grift, spending to promote progressive causes, based on the false premise of an “emergency”. There was nothign to “build back” from, there was definitely no inflation reduction, and he never returned spending to the pre-energency baseline.
The infrastructure package (originally titled “Build Back Better” before it was retooled later to get some Republicans to support it) may have been sold as an emergency measure related to the pandemic, I don’t recall well enough to say otherwise. But politicians of all types, including Trump, have talked about the need to upgrade our infrastructure for decades. And that is because the U.S. consistently has let everything from roads and highways to electrical grids fall behind in basic maintenance and technology. Texas didn’t seem to learn much from the winter fiasco a few years ago and again has taken a long time to get power back to its residents after Hurricane Beryl.
In the end, what I really want to know is what Trump and other Republicans will do differently if they win, and what is the evidence that it will work better. It is too easy to argue economics from ‘common sense’ and limited knowledge of the details. Talking specifics with data and other support is hard.
For an analysis that focuses on facts instead of politics, you might consider this article.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2024/03/15/inflation-update-the-latest-figures-why-it-happened-what-to-expect/
By the way, that link I provided agrees with you more than it does me. There you go, I provided you with fuel for your case.
"What did Biden do to cause inflation or the other economic conditions you and Trump say are so bad?"
He didn't "cause" inflation. His party's lockdown policies began the inflation spiral. It's not like we didn't warn them inflation was headed our way. They DON'T LISTEN. Then Biden's spending and failure to ease supply logjam exacerbated the problem. And by now, we know the left worked overtime to obscure our misadventures in the Wuhan lab. The fact that we even indirectly funded a Chinese gain of function research still astounds me.
Did George Bush cause the financial crisis? Not really, the banks and WS belong to he left, and the ruinous lending practices long predated him. Glass steagal repeal happened under the Clinton admin. But right or wrong, the bad economy isn't good news for the current president.
You don't poll lower than Trump when you actually to a good job. The evidence is the current state of the economy and the voter's moods. His EV mandate alone is going to be costly, especially to the auto industry.
Harris has a record? Do you mean like actual things she said and did that might not poll well in 2024?
Don't worry, much of that has already been fixed. And the media are now working 24/7 to create a new "record".
Yup. They've already started talking about how she was never the "border czar" in spite of her assignation being referred to as "the new border czar" by much of the media.
"Facts changed!"
"And we know, because we changed them."
She's started already? Who'd she find who can give her this job for doing that?
Blowing a few Party elites in a back room for a job is a time honored practice for Harris.
It's still a close race between terrible, and terribly unpopular, major party candidates.
Shame on the 90+ percent of voters who will vote for one of them anyway.
One reason Brandon couldn't win was because he was polling worse among black voters than his actual performance in 2020.
Remember the day AFTER the election, Newsweek published an article about how Trump won a higher share of the black vote than 2016.
Also, I saw a tweet somewhere saying that Trump won an outright majority of the white female vote in 2020.
Skin color is the most important thing.
Exactly. If you really want a sign that we've progressed to the point where race, gender, etc. don't matter any more, it will be when there aren't big differences in voting patterns among those different groups.
^This steaming pile of shit proposes murder as a preventative for what he really doesn’t care.
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?…”
So when the DNC stops pushing race based policies?
To morons like Z it is.
2020 was the first time since they've kept track that white women didn't successfully pick the president.
Or maybe they did.
Hmmm?
Also, I saw a tweet somewhere saying that Trump won an outright majority of the white female vote in 2020.
Seems to be true. (55% according to a CNN national exit poll I found)
But is that a good thing that he won a solid majority of white people, but much lower numbers among all other racial groups and all women? (12% Black, 32% Latino, 34% Asian, 41% other, 42% all females)
^This asshole proposes murder as a preventative for what he really doesn’t care. He is a piece of shit, ain’t he?
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?…”
If I recall correctly he actually got less white votes compared to 2016. Losing independents on top of that proved costly. There's a reason why he courted libertarians.
Things have changed since then. He's been gaining on a lot of important demos. The witch hunt against him has fired up his base and maybe even some independents.
Shame on the 90+ percent of voters who will vote for one of them anyway.
Elections in the U.S. are too long overall to keep the average voter's attention. The average voter doesn't have the interest to maintain attention for the whole thing, so they skip the primaries.
We keep getting stuck with lesser of two evils choices in November because of the small fraction of all voters that bother to vote in primaries. Primaries are dominated by the most strongly partisan and activist members of each party. It is inevitable that you rarely get a winner of the primary that would appeal broadly to a general election majority on their own merit. Instead, you get a candidate that is palatable to most of the party's voters, and enthusiasm is mostly in the form of dislike or even hate for the opposing side.
That negative partisanship is why voters won't do the more logical thing. The logical thing to do, when you have two candidates you don't like from the major parties, is to not vote for either of them. Vote for the "lesser evil", and you don't provide any incentive for a party to change the primary process to make sure they don't nominate candidates that are any amount of evil.
The thing that has kept happening in recent years is that every election is the "most important election ever." That makes people afraid to not vote for someone opposing the target of their disgust that can actually win. "I'll vote for the lesser evil again this year, because it is just too important to make sure Donary Trumpton doesn't win." (Or Josald Bidump, or Donala Trarris)
Of course it is never actually "both sides" to an overwhelming number of voters. One side is always worse to them. But if they really feel that way, then they have to take charge of the primaries and make sure that their party's nominee is someone that a solid majority of all voters will want to support. It does the Democratic Party no good to nominate someone that Republican voters hate so much that it drives up their turnout and makes it really hard to win over any Republican leaning independents. Same for the Republican Party. Nominating Trump again only served to drive up the urgency for Democratic Party voters to turn out and make it hard for the GOP to win over Democratic-leaning independents.
The primaries are months in the past now, but I can try and suppress my cynicism and have hope that enough voters recognize that the primary process absolutely must change.
^This steaming pile of lefty shit proposes murder as a preventative for what he really doesn’t care. He is an asshole, ain’t he?
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?…”
No, what you’re neglecting is that partisan division among the rank & file on policy issues is the greatest it’s been in maybe 60 years. The voters really are making meaningful choices now, and not just for president. Hardly matters who comes thru primaries, they still have a fairly clear choice.
No, what you’re neglecting is that partisan division among the rank & file on policy issues is the greatest it’s been in maybe 60 years.
Is it? Subjectively, I've seen really similar levels of differences on major policies my whole voting life of 3 decades+.
I'd be interested in seeing some data on what you're saying.
Partisanship in legislatures is much higher, making compromises and bipartisan legislation rare, but I think that is explained by parties needing or wanting to please their base so much. Which, as I was arguing, comes down to needing to please the base in primaries. It does not follow that the general electorate is as divided as legislators are.
I guess Reason will have to reluctantly vote for Cackles.
They suffer from a more sophisticated form of TDS, so yes.
Harris out of the gate yesterday promising more lawfare. Bragging about being a prosecutor and knowing Trump's "type". The crowd chants "Lock him up" while Kamala smirks.
KamKam as attorney general:
"In those roles, I took on perpetrators of all kinds: predators who abused women, fraudsters who ripped off consumers, cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain," she said. "So hear me when I say I know Donald Trump's type."
While attorney general, Harris said she took on one of our country's largest for-profit colleges that was scamming students. "Donald Trump ran a for profit college that scammed students," she added.
"As a prosecutor, I specialized in cases involving sexual abuse," "Well, Trump was found liable for committing sexual abuse."
As attorney general, "I took on the big Wall Street banks and held them accountable for fraud," she said. "Donald Trump was just found guilty of fraud on 34 counts."
At least she can read a teleprompter. Unlike old Joe.
turd, the TDS-addled ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
It's ok because Republicans did it first. No... wait. That's backwards.
Poor sarc. Out of ideas.
He’s not the only one. Reason is still running with BOAF SIDEZ this week, apparently.
Maybe there’s software issues that are preventing DNC talking point updates. Might be related to the Crowdstrike issue last week, they should have IT look into it.
Donnie has already been rated worst POTUS in history by the George Mason poll. Any decent candidate would make mincemeat out of that convicted felon con man.
Except Democrats have blown it by anointing KamKam. Her only positive attribute is her relatively young age.
Thankfully there are no crisis to deal with.
Unless you count the high price of Cheesy-Poofs. Not a big deal at all. Lay off the fatty snacks America.
How does Jan 6 have the same motive as 9/11?
I'm sure the faculty and staff at George Mason University could give you a long convoluted and specious explanation.
Attack the USA. Illegally remove democratic republic. Replace with fascism
Christo-Fascist or Islamo-Fascist. Doesn't matter.
I hate them both. We are the embodiment of the Western Secular Enlightenment.
Are you intentionally this stupid or just trying to be funny?
I read a lot of Ayn Rand as a teenager.
I read a lot of Ayn Rand as a teenager.
That doesn’t really answer the question of whether you are stupid or trying to be funny. Or maybe it does and the answer is yes?
[to avoid misunderstanding, I was definitely trying to be funny there]
^This steaming pile of shit proposes murder as a preventative for what he really doesn't care. He is an asshole, ain't he?
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
turd, the ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
No you didn't. You couldn't name one other book she wrote other than Atlas Shrugged lol.
Not that he'd know, but The Fountainhead was a much better book and, in its own obtuse way, kind of predicted Wokism and cancel-culture well ahead of its time.
As long as you lie in your username I won't stop pointing it out.
Motives for the September 11 attacks
Zero out of eleven overlap with the 1 / 6 goofballs. Left-wing hostage-poster-rippers have more in common with Al Qaeda's mindset.
"Illegally remove democratic republic."
The ONLY way this makes sense is if Al Qaeda was angry about the 2000 election and crashed planes into buildings to remove Bush from the White House and install Gore.
"La la la la la, can't hear you!"
-SPB
Wait, so you actually believe 911 was an attempt to take over the US government? How was that supposed to work?
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
But where is Trump on the kiddie porn offender scale?
turd, the TDS-addled ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
…that convicted felon con man…her relatively young age…unless you count the high price of Cheesy-Poofs…
Ha they’re still lying about inflation, are we just combining old talking points now? How disconcerting it must be to support Harris/Fill-in-the-blank without an updated style guide.
Chaos must reign at the DNC, I can’t wait for the convention to start.
MSM is going all out for this harridan. They do have that tradition.
Almost have to admire them.
There was a very slight, slightly more than zero, chance I could have been persuaded to vote for Biden, but with Harris now there is a much greater chance I could vote for Trump.
Incumbent Presidents are rarely challenged in the primary and so Biden going unchallenged was not unexpected. Republicans had a real chance to change this election and they chose not to take that route. Republican's had candidates like Ron DeSantis, MAGA without the Trump incompetence, more middle of the road like Nicki Halley, and old fashion conservatives. They chose none of the options preferring their tired corrupt old incompetent man, Trump.
Haley was a terrible candidate and so was desantis.
But I would happily vote for Haley over Harris.
So... you prefer neocon globalist sellout hacks to communist traitors?
Because the end result is the same.
Why? What does any one of the Republican candidates lack that they would not be better than Trump?
I think Desantis would be a better president, but he really wasn't a great campaigner. Trump's style doesn't really do it for me, but he does have a certain weird charm that seems to be appealing to a lot of people.
But isn't that the point of the article? We have a tendency to choose our Presidential candidates based on style rather than substance. Ron DeSantis has the background and skill to do the job of being President. Trump lacks the skill set to be President but attracts people, often by simple lying to them and he is preferred.
If "middle of the road" meant neocon, so-con (trad), or RINO, sure.
'"People are thrown under the bus from the very top, there are short fuses and it's an abusive environment," one official told Politico in 2021 about the environment in Harris's office.'
But as long as they meet DEI quotas, and preferentially sabotage white guys (and white-adjacent guy-adjacents) then it's all good.
Tuccille, FOAD, TDS-addled steaming pile of shit.
Which one is terrible and which one is terribly unpopular? Kamala Harris's greatest selling point against Trump is that not as many people know how shit she truly is. They're both steaming piles of crap; one just has better brand recognition for his stench.
n00bdragon, FOAD, TDS-addled steaming pile of shit.
I hope you have a wonderful day that turns that frown upside down.
" Kamala Harris’s greatest selling point against Trump is that not as many people know how shit she truly is."
I think very few voters know who she is. I've never seen her speak for anything longer than a brief sound bite. Most potential voters are in the same boat. We'll be introduced to her through campaign produced TV spots and celebrity endorsements. Her relative obscurity may well be her greatest strength, as you point out.
I wonder if she will 'go gaza' on us, exploiting Trump's support for genocide in Gaza and his war mongering against Iran, Russia and China. Trump's policies in Middle East are essentially those of Biden, but with Harris taking over, she may distance herself from slavish support for Israel, to be more in line with domestic and international opinion. Casting Trump as a corrupt tool of a vicious foreign power worked well in the past, after all. See Russia gate, see 2020 election.
It's early days yet, but she doesn't look like a shot to the arm of Democrats' hopes and dreams....She has been polling the same as Biden—or just slightly better—against Republican nominee Donald Trump, according to multiple surveys taken before Biden withdrew from the 2024 contest,
Polls are being massively misinterpreted now. There are virtually no swing voters in the US now - voters who will actually switch their vote from Trump to Biden to Trump to Harris. Those voters no longer exist
And yet polls are structured as if those voters DO exist. The whole point of polling is to poll opinion. What happens now is changes in enthusiasm not changes in opinion - which is also the primary effect of negative ads/campaigning. People simply become less/more likely to vote.
Pollsters construct their sample by trying to maintain a constant likelihood of voting. They don't want a large portion of their sample to be - FU I'm not voting for either one of them. So whenever there is some negative story from one side (eg the debate) or long-term trend (eg Biden getting older over time), the result is that the pollsters need to churn that side of their sample more in order to find people who are likely to vote. But that means the sample is different from one poll to the next - and not randomly. So there is no easy way to interpret the results. With a positive story (eg old man no longer in race), there is a burst of enthusiasm on one side - but that is offset by the decline of enthusiasm on the other - so again start churning the sample.
This is the sort of change that could diminish the top-downers confidence in their ability to manipulate outcomes. To raise the cost/risk of the whole donor/consultant/media/advertiser [elite] class that totally depends on polls as their sole source of info about what is happening. But unless there is a way for bottom-uppers to undermine the dependence on that poll info, the top-downers will ultimately recover their control/power/manipulation even if they are dead wrong about everything.
IOW - [populists] can never win against [elites] as long as they are trying to play the same game that the elites play. That means - elections themselves are the problem. As was very well known dating back to Athens - where elections were seen as the way for oligarchs to demagogue/manipulate the demos. Where sortition was seen as the way to undermine that manipulation.
In defense of Harris, at least she's not Newsom. That was my great fear. Not that Newsom could possibly win any electoral votes outside of Kalifornia, but still, she's better than Newsom in the same way my morning stool was better than Biden's morning stool.
And she's clearly better than Biden. But I don't think anything they could put on the ticket at this late date can beat Trump. Except maybe Tulsi Gabbard or Jared Polis. Neither of whom stand a chance of being nominated. We have better odds of an asteroid strike on D.C.
We still have a choice between "Turds", but among "Turds", Trump is less dangerous than Harris is. While I will not vote for either "Turd" and seriously doubt that the 3rd party/independent candidate that I end up choosing, I would prefer the "Orange Turd" than the "Vile Turd"!
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Every way you look at it you lose
... Trump is less dangerous than Harris is.
Less dangerous in what sense? Given that so many of those, like me, that strongly oppose Trump view a second term for him as being extremely dangerous, I'd really like to know what you view as being dangerous characteristics of a presidential candidate.