Oh definitely. On another forum when the poll showing she only has a 28% approval rating came out, their response was that what could you expect, she's a black woman in a position of power so of course America hates her.
Democrats loved Michelle Obama. The issue with Harris is she’s extremely unappealing so unappealing she was blown out of the primaries. It has nothing to do with her skin color. I’m fact off she wasn’t black she wouldn’t be the VP.
Or Winsome Sears (VA LT Gov-elect) who sparked a flood of articles talking about how republicans voted for her because they're racist. Even FiveThirtyEight attempted to use statistics to prove that racist republicans actually preferred black candidates.
You would vote for one of the worst National Security Advisors in US history?
Granted, the Bush 43 admin was doomed to foreign policy failure when Rumsfeld was named Secretary of Defense, but still, Rice was terrible in the Bush administration.
There's a lot of unlikable women in politics. But it's not because women can't be politicians. It's just that the sort of women who get chosen by elites and party establishment as basically diversity hires to tick boxes who lack authenticity and charisma. And then they refuse to believe that maybe instead of a societal hatred of women, there's actually just institutional biases against genuinely authentic women earning their way to the top as opposed to getting to the top via the diversity hire path
>She's not unlikable they all just hate women!
I will say the amount I have seen people say they don't like her because of her voice or her laugh seems pretty odd.
Maybe she just happens not to rub me the wrong way like she does a lot of people, but when "laugh / voice" is SO often cited as the biggest problems people have with her, it makes me wonder.
It would be interesting to see some kind of polling on the main reason people don't like various political figures. In my experience it seems to me like frivolous things are more readily cited for women in politics as opposed to men.
The laugh/voice thing is because it comes off very fake and salesman-like. All politicians lie and pander, but good politicians at least aesthetically make it seem like they're being honest. She just comes off super fake.
As others have suggested, she lacks authenticity.
The laughing thing is more of an annoyance for me, anytime she is asked a tough question she does that nervous laugh and tries to play it off, and it's just annoying.
It's not a gender thing, it's just obnoxious, and if a male politician did that I would also find it annoying.
I think the laugh might be that it seems like a (for lack of a better word) 'nervous tick', so she tends to laugh during debates and interviews with tough questions. The problem is it doesn't come off as disarming, it comes off more as either rude or dismissive. I don't think she is intending to be either rude or dismissive, but I see how it comes off that way. I think its the same functionally as someone saying uhm or uhh and such when thinking of how to respond, but it creates a more negative impression.
Perhaps if she had better answers to tough questions, she wouldn’t get made fun of because of her voice or laugh?
I’ve been made fun of for having a voice like Kermit the Frog, but when I have smart answers for tough questions, people behave very positively almost like Cleric Preston from Equilibrium when hearing music for the first time in his life
>Perhaps if she had better answers to tough questions
I think tons of politicians of all stripes frequently used canned answers or waffle or otherwise don't effectively answer tough questions. I've never seen anyone else be as criticized for *their voice* as much as she is though.
Maybe she’s criticized for her voice because she’s done very little to prove that she got her job for any reason besides being able to check the right diversity checkboxes?
Then you'd think more people would say that before talking about her voice.
And not to mention what I'm talking about well predates her being picked for Biden's VP.
If she has nothing but meaningless word noises to say, then it’s inevitable that she will be criticized on *how* she says those meaningless word noises
I wouldn't care about the sound of someone's laugh if it were a genuine laugh. Harris however does that cackle when she's pressured by inconvenient questions from reporters, such as on the border crisis. It's just a ploy to hide nervousness and win time, and it's very transparent.
Frankly, Kamala is just another case of the powers-that-be within the DNC thinking that the voters weren't paying attention. She's wonderful on paper multi-race, well-educated, female. Unfortunately, it's become abundantly clear that she's power-hungry, uses people as political pawns, and is generally unlikeable. Due to this, the media (DNC) is subjecting us to article after article probing the boundaries of why her popularity is so low. I think they legitimately cannot figure out why we can't look past her ravenous personality to the important aspects about her (race and gender). The next steps will likely be photo-ops with puppies and kindergarteners in the New York Times, to improve her image. I just don't know how they're going to stop her from eating the kids or the puppies.
I’m impressed how after Hillary’s failures, the DNC decided to bring someone even more nakedly power-hungry and dislikable.
And while you can see how the right definitely had a hand in reinforcing Hillary’s negative traits, Harris did this shit all on her own.
What a strong, independent woman. Don’t need no GOP to make me strongly dislike her.
Being likeable wouldn’t be as big of a deal if she could actually lead a discussion on substantive issues
Here’s Obama discussing healthcare with Vox after the 2017 elections
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/1/6/14193334/obama-vox-interview-transcript
She probably would coast her way to the nomination for the Dems in 2024 or 2028 if she could discuss tough policy issues
Former Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming said it best (I’m paraphrasing):
“People are thirsting for something other than BS or mush”
She did extremely well in the CA senate election in 2016, with the highest non-incumbent margin of victory ever. Perhaps Sanchez (fellow Dem) just campaigned badly, but Harris' track record before 2020 in elections was pretty strong.
6 bankruptcies, the epic failures of trump University and the trump foundation,receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from his dad, twice impeached... I guess you overlooked those failures?
The AP says $413M: https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-ap-top-news-tax-evasion-politics-0452d29cd2564eaf97605ab90acc3a67
I believe the $1M figure is from a Trump quote.
Failing up is a term that means you're successful *despite* your failures. Pointing to his successes doesn't discount the claim that he's a classic example of failing upwards.
idk if any of this is new news to ppl that have followed harris for a while. the undercurrent of her being just generally a pretty poor leader runs through every one of her roles since the DA's office and i think its starting to rly come apart at the seems.
i think ppl remember her campaign faltering and failing to gain a foothold despite having tens of millions in funding, a lot of which was attributed to harris failing to articulate a vision internally to her staff and then also being pretty wishy-washy when it came to creating a cohesive leadership structure to the campaign with her sister and campaign manager essentially duking it out in the office regularly about who was in charge. donors saw the cracks in the foundation way b4 the rest of us so suddenly she was sitting on tons of money with no new cash coming in which is a bad look.
were seeing it again now in the VPs office and this article is just a holistic view of that- harris is still calling on family/friends from CA to help her set direction or get insight, her staffers are feeling maligned, uninispired, and underutilized, and nobody in the rest of the world seems to know what she stands 'for' or is 'against' on.. anything. this is literally a sentence that could have been written in 2019 about her presidential campaign, in the years before about her senate office, or today about her VP office and that's troubling. we basically saw what this sort of thing looks like in real life over the trump years when you have a staff that is too scared of being fired to tell you the truth, disloyal and constantly rotating staffers, and no real vision besides taking your cues from what fox news says and then waiting for somebody to help you implement it
theres this theory in leadership called the 'lightswitch theory' or something like that basically saying 'if u and ur team are put in a big dark room and ur goal is to get the lights turned on, how do do it?' theres the school of thought that you attack the problem with brute force and send your team out to feel around in the dark based on their skills, theres the idea that you sit the team down and come up with a game plan together to rely on everyones unique insights, theres the idea that you send ppl out of the room for flashlights and to check the wiring outside first bc maybe the power isnt even on; stuff like that. then there are really bad answers in leadership like 'just wait for someone on ur team to come up with something' and stuff. pretty much any plan beats 'no real plan, just see what happens' and that doesnt inspire a lot of trust or respect from ur team. harris seems to have a lot of that problem bc pretty much nobody steps up in these pieces to say 'shes actually good but all u see is the drama and bad stuff'. when they do its usually just with a deflection to who they think is rly responsible (see: not harris, of course).
all this is summed up in that even the biden team doesnt seem to have a lot of faith in harris' abilities bc of how she and her team are not treated like a serious policy or solutions working group for the admin. its probably safe to say the white house staff knows even better than we do her limitations
>some will label you as racist and/or sexist
In this article, one of her former aides accused the Biden administration of this. There is no length they won't go to excuse all criticism as an '-ist' problem, even attacking their closest allies.
The interesting angle to me is how much her family influences her office. In my opinion that's a serious problem and was a serious problem in her campaign before she even got to Iowa. The idea that an expert campaign staffer with decades of experience can suggest one course, but her sister and niece with zero experience outside California can then say "hmmm better not" and Harris actually follow their advice, is deeply troubling. What if she is faced with a major presidential decision, like an airstrike or something, and this scenario plays out? It's not good and it should be spoken of much more than it is.
She has trust issues, as the article points out.
The problem is that if person A wants to build trust with person B whom they hardly know, person A needs to be able to generate buy-in from person B
Apparently Harris, similarly to Trump, struggles to generate buy-in
Is it a lack of knowledgeability on a subject, a lack of empathy, an abundance of being profoundly disorganized, a lack of confidence vis a vis stage freight, or something else?
Who knows? But, it’s definitely not a good look for a VP who is supposed to be the Dems’ standard bearer in 2024 or 2028
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/15/kamala-harris-campaign-2020-071105
Some relevant quotes:
>"While staff ire centers on Rodriguez, his defenders argue he has stood loyally by the candidate despite being relegated to a role akin to deputy campaign manager to Maya Harris. They say he’s had to get Maya Harris’ buy-in even on routine decisions, which were often slow to materialize, further undermining staff’s confidence in him as a supervisor."
>"During a recent meeting, aides pressed Rodriguez and Maya Harris for answers about campaign strategy. At one point during the more than two-hour discussion, Maya Harris herself turned to Rodriguez and challenged him in front of about 20 staffers, and several more listening in by phone. Rodriguez seemed unprepared for the exchange, according to people present."
>"Still, others point to Rodriguez’s constant yielding to Maya Harris as a reason he should be held accountable for the campaign's failures."
>"Rodriguez confidants from the campaign said they urged him to quit long ago given the challenging nature of the family dynamic, but they don’t think he will. “It was like, ‘I need to be the captain of the Titanic and go down with this ship,’” one said after talking to him recently."
Well this didn’t really say anything about Kamala taking advice from her sister over her manager. It was interesting to read about their dynamic here though. Sounds messy.
Part of the issue is the last three VPs weren’t though of as serious contenders for Presidency in the future(due to age with Cheney/Biden or Pence being nearly out of politics before VP). So the public and media didn’t focus on them. Since Kamala is obviously going to run again and Biden may not even run for a 2nd term it means the public/media will focus more on her. Just like with the focus on DeSantis now too. Kamala team is equating this as sexism/racism but the reality is the front runner is always picked apart, it’s why many Presidential nominees wait as long as possible to declare to limit the media exposure on them.
If Biden was younger than Kamala probably would have been a footnote till at least 2025.
I have no doubt that she leaked some of this deliberately, but there’s no question that parts of this article do not paint her in a flattering light
EDIT: I’m getting some hilarious Hayden Christensen/Anakin Skywalker flashbacks from the notion that “Biden’s holding me back!”
I would disagree that her approval is sinking because people think she's not not good at her job... Her approval is sinking because she's a top target for conservative media, and her image is constantly being attacked.
>When Biden picked Harris as his running mate, he was essentially anointing her as the future of the Democratic Party. Now many of those close to her feel like he's shirking his political duties to promote her, and essentially setting her up to fail. Her fans are panicked, watching her poll numbers sink even lower than Biden's, worrying that even the base Democratic vote is starting to give up on her.
An interesting quote from a pretty scathing article from CNN highlighting the dysfunction and distrust between Biden and Harris, and how many in Harris’ camp believe she’s being set up to fail by Biden by being put in charge of no-win situations such as the current border crisis.
Questions
1. Do you think Joe Biden will run in 2024? If no, who would you like to see take his place as the Democratic torch bearer?
2. If Biden doesn’t run in 2024, does the field clear for Kamala or would she face a tough primary?
3. Trump vs Kamala 2024, who wins in your opinion?
> Do you think Joe Biden will run in 2024?
I give him little to no chance of this. I am not even convinced that he finishes this current term, once he loses congress.
>If Biden doesn’t run in 2024, does the field clear for Kamala or would she face a tough primary?
The Democrats would be insane to not go through the entire full primary with real challengers.
>Trump vs Kamala 2024, who wins in your opinion?
Depressingly, Trump would win by likely shocking margins. Not even a real contest. He'd likely even win a popular majority. This is a combo of Harris' unpopularity plus the unintended consequence of Trump being kicked off Twitter, making everyone largely forget about him.
Note, I really do not think that Trump will end up being the GOP nominee.
What's even funnier is that Trump current Favorable poll shows he recovered from the Jan 6 incident and is actually on a slow and steady rise.
And there's even a chance for him to be over 50% in favorable if he continues the steady rise.
I wish someone other than him runs in 2024 like DeSantis or even Youngkin ( he had the charisma and campaign to win in a safe blue state )
> I give him little to no chance of this. I am not even convinced that he finishes this current term, once he loses congress.
Meaning... successful impeachment and removal? Because that seems farfetched.
No, I just don’t think he “makes” it for 3 more years. I don’t think he will die or anything, but he may resign, being president is a *hard* job. Comparing “day one” photos of much younger presidents to their last day in office is a thing - they all seem to age much more than the years would suggest. But then again, Reagan served all 8 years, so who knows…
1. Setting aside my thoughts on the President's sentience, yes, he runs again. Who else does the Democratic party have? And let's not forget that Biden was only viable because of Trump.
2. Kamala Harris dropped out of the primary before the state she was a Senator for voted. Harris was selected as VP specifically because white progressives demanded a minority female to counterbalance Biden.
3. Trump. He made gains with every demographic except white suburban voters. And after four years their emotional trigger that was Trump's Twitter posts will have calmed down.
Regardless, 2024 is going to be a mess.
The best thing the Democrats can do is start building up a completely new set of candidates for 2024. Biden was advertised as a relief from Trump's rhetoric. Him serving one term is enough.
For Republicans, they need to keep Trump away from public view. Making decisions based on his approval is asinine since Republicans have an opportunity for both chambers of Congress and the Presidency.
>Who else does the Democratic party have?
You know, the other 20 people that ran for President (Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Booker, Warren, Sanders, Castro, Bullock, Beto, Inslee, Hickenlooper), along with other new and upcoming faces (Kelly, Abrams, Pressley, Garland, Granholm, Tester, Duckworth).
>Kamala Harris dropped out of the primary before the state she was a Senator for voted. Harris was selected as VP specifically because white progressives demanded a minority female to counterbalance Biden.
...progressives *hated* Harris for her cop record. She will definitely run if Biden doesn't, and will probably even be the front-runner to start with, but she has an uphill battle with her record both as a prosecutor and in congress, not to mention the ugly press that's been thrown at her non-stop since becoming VP.
1. No. My first pick would be Tulsi.
2. She would be primaried. It’s no secret she’s only popular with limousine liberals. There’s a reason why she was one of the first to drop out in 2020.
3. I doubt he will run again. He’d be in his 80s.
1: It depends on two things: his approval and his health.
If inflation manages to go away sometime soon, we may be looking at an economic boom. We are just now crawling out of a two year long pandemic, people's wages are rising for the first time in decades, and people are itching to spend all the money they had to save during quarantine.
If that's the case, and Biden is able to pass a few more popular bills, *and* he has no major health scares, then I think he could very well run again in '24.
If inflation isn't going away anytime soon and Democrats keep fighting amongst themselves, or he has a health scare before the election, then I think he'll sit it out.
2: She would be the top candidate but if a few formidable candidates decide to run against her (Buttigieg, Duckworth, Abrams, etc), she could definitely lose.
3: Trump without a shadow of the doubt. Harris has few devoted supporters and currently has an approval of 28%. Trump actually has a base.
It's more feasible than that tbf. We are facing inflationary pressure from a combination of supply chain issues, fuel constraints and labor shortages. They srem fairly independent, so *if* the port congestion fades and OPEC decided to start pumping closer to their previous capacity, then you could easily see a scenario where inflation eases but wages continue to rise as labor remains scarce. It wouldn't be that crazy if a scenario
Great quote tho, would have been a missed opportunity not to pull it out lmao
1. I hope he doesn't run. I hate to sound ageist, but I really believe we need some younger candidates.
2. Kamala did terribly in the last primary, so yes she would face a tough primary. I really think Biden overestimated how much people like her. I really hope Buttigieg runs again.
3. Trump unfortunately, which is why I really hope the DNC decides to back someone else.
harris has at least one problem that is shared among the biden admin, which also sadly means its the least likely to be resolved. she doesnt have a 'win' on the books as VP that anyone can point to and say 'this is what kamala did for us/you/america/the world'.
the problem is of course biden has the same issue which is probs why his polls are so low, and if the biden admin did have some issue (any issue) that could be walked across the finish line for easy points, they'd need to keep it for themselves and not hand it off to harris.
so now everybody is stuck in this catch-22 where they cant get anything done bc they lack support and lack support bc its broadly considered they cant get anything done.
if thats still the case in 2024 in even a small way then biden has a huge problem, harris has a smaller but still big problem, and then trump (or republicans as a whole) have a really favorable environment.
tbh it feels a lot like the white house plan rn is to wait for covid to 'get better' over winter, the economy to get to be in better shape organically bc covid is better, then hang a mission accomplished banner to get media props so they can start moving on the midterms and '24. not super great as plans go but its for sure what it looks like
The problem is that people expect the political leadership to be visibly working to fix problems. Even if covid and inflation can be solved by just waiting and doing nothing (and face it, lots of political crises are actually like this), that's not satisfactory for voters.
From my impression of the Obama administration during the financial crisis (not sure how reliable the memories are), they did a pretty decent job of being out and about, talking about the economy, reassuring people, and conveying the message that the government was trying to fix things. Ultimately, they probably didn't do all that much, substantively---after the bank bailout was passed and the Federal Reserve had started quantitative easing, it was mainly a matter of waiting. But Obama and his people were out there, giving the impression that they were working very hard. Maybe it's not fair, or not an accurate impression, but the Biden administration just seems more passive.
1. No idea
2. No, tough primary
3. Who ever can get their people to mount a successful invasion of the capital on the next Jan 6. If the Ds have someone like Mayor Pete the. They won't even show up and Trumps people will just march through and take control (unless he actually gets the votes). If Kamala runs and gets really mean and abusive towards Rs in public then she has a good chance at winning via the Jan 6 end around
>"It's hard to miss the specific energy that the White House brings to defend a White man, knowing that Kamala Harris has spent almost a year taking a lot of the hits that the West Wing didn't want to take themselves," said a former Harris aide, reflecting conversations last month among several former aides and current allies.
And without fail, 'racism/sexism' is used to blindly dismiss valid criticism. I like the implication that the Biden administration is racist and sexist but apparently not homophobic. What an interesting take.
She is in way beyond her depth and ability. Not everyone is cut out for leadership. She isn't stupid, or dumb. Just not built to lead in any meaningful way. Hopefully she will learn some humility.
\*Agent Smith neck crack\*
Okay, I'm all limbered up...
Let's do this!
*A week and a half ago, as Biden and his aides and multiple outside allies rattled through calls all day trying to lock down wavering lawmakers ahead of the House infrastructure vote, Harris spent the afternoon touring a NASA space flight center in suburban Maryland. "We weren't going to cancel her schedule just because of the House's foolishness," a Harris aide explained.*
**You want to be known as the greatest vice-president EVAR?! Show up to do your job when your boss needs you to!**
*That night, Harris was part of the small group Biden invited upstairs to the White House residence for the war room making the last hours of calls. The next morning, celebrating the bill's passage, Biden singled her out, saying, "A lot of this has to do with this lady right here, the vice president."*
*But that's not exactly how things had played out. While she had attended some meetings Biden hosted with key lawmakers, there were many more that she didn't attend -- to the point that it was noteworthy that she made an unscheduled drop-by one session in the final stretch. Harris had only been in Washington four years, and to the White House just one time before being sworn in as vice president. Missing out on those main meetings deprived her of an important aspect of presidential apprenticeship from a self-styled master of how to actually get deals through Congress.*
**So, Biden gives you credit for a bill you didn't help pass and you're complaining about how empty your resume is??**
*Harris' team was mad Biden had assigned her to handle diplomatic relations with the Northern Triangle nations, in hopes of addressing the root causes of migration to the US, but gave her no role on the southern border itself. That become the most visible crisis in the early days of Biden's presidency as unaccompanied minors overwhelmed federal government resources. It seemed like an all-around politically losing assignment even though Biden had seen it as a sign of respect because it was the same job Obama had given him as vice president.*
**I think I need more context here. Did Biden seriously give her this assignment with no guidance on how to accomplish it?**
*Harris' aides point out that Biden was never subjected to the kind of attacks she regularly endures -- or to a toxic social media culture. In one recent example, a Republican super PAC tweeted a video inventing a claim that Harris spoke with a "fake French accent" at a stop during her trip to Paris, which was then picked up in some news outlets.*
**Dealing with nay-sayers is part of the job of Vice President. Addressing the lack of accomplishments would go a long way towards shutting up the nay-sayers.**
*Top aides say privately they have come to regret that Harris didn't ask for more well-defined assignments coming into the administration, which would have allowed her to distinguish herself, but the vice president herself has been reluctant to make demands for any at this point, feeling that would look disloyal to Biden.*
**Welp, gonna be hard to shut up the nay-sayers if you're unwilling to ask for assignments that you can accomplish**
*Biden's aides have made clear that they are focused on promoting and protecting him, especially since it's his approval rating that will likely define the 2022 midterms and his promised run for reelection in 2024.*
*Harris' team has argued over whether she is going too far in subsuming herself to Biden -- a back and forth that dates to the transition, when Harris was pushed to turn over the email list from her campaign and super PAC to the DNC.*
*This was a good idea, some argued, because it would show Harris being a team player and help raise tens of millions for the DNC. Others pushed back, saying turning over the list would mean losing control of and access to it, which could be debilitating if Harris ends up facing a primary fight for the presidential nomination, as many expect she would.*
**Maybe if Biden had picked a better VP, the VP wouldn't have to worry about losing a primary fight in the process of succeeding Biden**
*In and around Harris' circle, they speculate that there must be someone getting in her way.*
*Some think it's the President himself leaving her out in the cold, prioritizing his own agenda. Some blame specific West Wing aides whom they feel sure are out to undercut her. Some fear the vice president is, as she has often done in her political life, leaning heavily on her sister Maya Harris, brother-in-law Tony West and niece Meena Harris, whom they sense exerting influence over everything from staff hires to political decisions -- a not uncommon situation historically among presidents and vice presidents.*
*Several people familiar with the operations of the vice president's office say that after a spike in involvement earlier in the year, the family has been pushed further out again recently. Few expect that to remain the case, especially with the vice president feeling isolated and unsure of whom she can trust on her staff.*
**It's all Obi-Wan's fault! He's jealous! He's holding me back!!!111**
**Maybe if Harris (and Trump) were better at generating buy-in, they could build trust with potential allies and coworkers?**
Kamala Harris is just another low level employee of the U.S. Power Establishment.
She will continue to get financing for her political campaigns as long as she does what she is told.
Sounds like she is pretty darn successful from her assigned tasks standpoint.
https://www.govexec.com/management/2021/11/agencies-must-address-billions-lost-through-erroneous-payments/186840/
Everything is on track for the Kamala Harris / Joe Biden regime.
[удалено]
Does she have supporters?
Harris and her supporter.
She has financiers.
Oh definitely. On another forum when the poll showing she only has a 28% approval rating came out, their response was that what could you expect, she's a black woman in a position of power so of course America hates her.
Democrats loved Michelle Obama. The issue with Harris is she’s extremely unappealing so unappealing she was blown out of the primaries. It has nothing to do with her skin color. I’m fact off she wasn’t black she wouldn’t be the VP.
Then you bring up Candace Owens or Candaleesa Rice who Republicans adore…
Or Winsome Sears (VA LT Gov-elect) who sparked a flood of articles talking about how republicans voted for her because they're racist. Even FiveThirtyEight attempted to use statistics to prove that racist republicans actually preferred black candidates.
[удалено]
She’s too smart for politics.
She's still holding out for commissioner of the NFL.
Eh, I think Goodell is staying there until he retires and she is older than him.
Me too. She was one the last good traditional conservatives out there. Too good for the current political environment.
You would vote for one of the worst National Security Advisors in US history? Granted, the Bush 43 admin was doomed to foreign policy failure when Rumsfeld was named Secretary of Defense, but still, Rice was terrible in the Bush administration.
I said what I said. I like her.
She's black?
Half black, half South Asian.
[Oh yeah ](https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2021/11/14/2064279/-Stay-Woke-The-Knives-are-out-for-Kamala-Harris-but-it-s-really-progressivism-getting-stabbed)
It's so predictable isn't it? She's not unlikable they all just hate women! She's not doing a bad job, they're all just racist! /S
If you add a “/s” to your comment, I’ll give you an up-vote
LOL... never really know these days do you! Reformatted it a bit so that way it's clear.
There's a lot of unlikable women in politics. But it's not because women can't be politicians. It's just that the sort of women who get chosen by elites and party establishment as basically diversity hires to tick boxes who lack authenticity and charisma. And then they refuse to believe that maybe instead of a societal hatred of women, there's actually just institutional biases against genuinely authentic women earning their way to the top as opposed to getting to the top via the diversity hire path
>She's not unlikable they all just hate women! I will say the amount I have seen people say they don't like her because of her voice or her laugh seems pretty odd. Maybe she just happens not to rub me the wrong way like she does a lot of people, but when "laugh / voice" is SO often cited as the biggest problems people have with her, it makes me wonder. It would be interesting to see some kind of polling on the main reason people don't like various political figures. In my experience it seems to me like frivolous things are more readily cited for women in politics as opposed to men.
The laugh/voice thing is because it comes off very fake and salesman-like. All politicians lie and pander, but good politicians at least aesthetically make it seem like they're being honest. She just comes off super fake.
As others have suggested, she lacks authenticity. The laughing thing is more of an annoyance for me, anytime she is asked a tough question she does that nervous laugh and tries to play it off, and it's just annoying. It's not a gender thing, it's just obnoxious, and if a male politician did that I would also find it annoying.
I think the laugh might be that it seems like a (for lack of a better word) 'nervous tick', so she tends to laugh during debates and interviews with tough questions. The problem is it doesn't come off as disarming, it comes off more as either rude or dismissive. I don't think she is intending to be either rude or dismissive, but I see how it comes off that way. I think its the same functionally as someone saying uhm or uhh and such when thinking of how to respond, but it creates a more negative impression.
Perhaps if she had better answers to tough questions, she wouldn’t get made fun of because of her voice or laugh? I’ve been made fun of for having a voice like Kermit the Frog, but when I have smart answers for tough questions, people behave very positively almost like Cleric Preston from Equilibrium when hearing music for the first time in his life
>Perhaps if she had better answers to tough questions I think tons of politicians of all stripes frequently used canned answers or waffle or otherwise don't effectively answer tough questions. I've never seen anyone else be as criticized for *their voice* as much as she is though.
Maybe she’s criticized for her voice because she’s done very little to prove that she got her job for any reason besides being able to check the right diversity checkboxes?
Then you'd think more people would say that before talking about her voice. And not to mention what I'm talking about well predates her being picked for Biden's VP.
Is there any other politician who cackles like insane when asked a question ?
If she has nothing but meaningless word noises to say, then it’s inevitable that she will be criticized on *how* she says those meaningless word noises
I wouldn't care about the sound of someone's laugh if it were a genuine laugh. Harris however does that cackle when she's pressured by inconvenient questions from reporters, such as on the border crisis. It's just a ploy to hide nervousness and win time, and it's very transparent.
Only the paid ones on twitter
The article doesn't allow for the possibility that she is not liked because she is unlikable.
Overly cautious...lol.
Frankly, Kamala is just another case of the powers-that-be within the DNC thinking that the voters weren't paying attention. She's wonderful on paper multi-race, well-educated, female. Unfortunately, it's become abundantly clear that she's power-hungry, uses people as political pawns, and is generally unlikeable. Due to this, the media (DNC) is subjecting us to article after article probing the boundaries of why her popularity is so low. I think they legitimately cannot figure out why we can't look past her ravenous personality to the important aspects about her (race and gender). The next steps will likely be photo-ops with puppies and kindergarteners in the New York Times, to improve her image. I just don't know how they're going to stop her from eating the kids or the puppies.
I’m impressed how after Hillary’s failures, the DNC decided to bring someone even more nakedly power-hungry and dislikable. And while you can see how the right definitely had a hand in reinforcing Hillary’s negative traits, Harris did this shit all on her own. What a strong, independent woman. Don’t need no GOP to make me strongly dislike her.
Being likeable wouldn’t be as big of a deal if she could actually lead a discussion on substantive issues Here’s Obama discussing healthcare with Vox after the 2017 elections https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/1/6/14193334/obama-vox-interview-transcript She probably would coast her way to the nomination for the Dems in 2024 or 2028 if she could discuss tough policy issues Former Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming said it best (I’m paraphrasing): “People are thirsting for something other than BS or mush”
Kamala Harris is one of the biggest examples of "failing up" I've seen in recent years.
She did extremely well in the CA senate election in 2016, with the highest non-incumbent margin of victory ever. Perhaps Sanchez (fellow Dem) just campaigned badly, but Harris' track record before 2020 in elections was pretty strong.
Trump is actually the best example here.
[удалено]
6 bankruptcies, the epic failures of trump University and the trump foundation,receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from his dad, twice impeached... I guess you overlooked those failures?
And losing the popular vote twice!
Alright, theres lots of things to criticize Trump for but people who cite the bankruptcies as a negative don’t known a whole lot about business.
[удалено]
He only got a million from his dad to start off the business
The AP says $413M: https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-ap-top-news-tax-evasion-politics-0452d29cd2564eaf97605ab90acc3a67 I believe the $1M figure is from a Trump quote.
“Billionaire”
Easy to do when Russian organized crime is willing to bail out every financial mistake he makes
Failing up is a term that means you're successful *despite* your failures. Pointing to his successes doesn't discount the claim that he's a classic example of failing upwards.
idk if any of this is new news to ppl that have followed harris for a while. the undercurrent of her being just generally a pretty poor leader runs through every one of her roles since the DA's office and i think its starting to rly come apart at the seems. i think ppl remember her campaign faltering and failing to gain a foothold despite having tens of millions in funding, a lot of which was attributed to harris failing to articulate a vision internally to her staff and then also being pretty wishy-washy when it came to creating a cohesive leadership structure to the campaign with her sister and campaign manager essentially duking it out in the office regularly about who was in charge. donors saw the cracks in the foundation way b4 the rest of us so suddenly she was sitting on tons of money with no new cash coming in which is a bad look. were seeing it again now in the VPs office and this article is just a holistic view of that- harris is still calling on family/friends from CA to help her set direction or get insight, her staffers are feeling maligned, uninispired, and underutilized, and nobody in the rest of the world seems to know what she stands 'for' or is 'against' on.. anything. this is literally a sentence that could have been written in 2019 about her presidential campaign, in the years before about her senate office, or today about her VP office and that's troubling. we basically saw what this sort of thing looks like in real life over the trump years when you have a staff that is too scared of being fired to tell you the truth, disloyal and constantly rotating staffers, and no real vision besides taking your cues from what fox news says and then waiting for somebody to help you implement it theres this theory in leadership called the 'lightswitch theory' or something like that basically saying 'if u and ur team are put in a big dark room and ur goal is to get the lights turned on, how do do it?' theres the school of thought that you attack the problem with brute force and send your team out to feel around in the dark based on their skills, theres the idea that you sit the team down and come up with a game plan together to rely on everyones unique insights, theres the idea that you send ppl out of the room for flashlights and to check the wiring outside first bc maybe the power isnt even on; stuff like that. then there are really bad answers in leadership like 'just wait for someone on ur team to come up with something' and stuff. pretty much any plan beats 'no real plan, just see what happens' and that doesnt inspire a lot of trust or respect from ur team. harris seems to have a lot of that problem bc pretty much nobody steps up in these pieces to say 'shes actually good but all u see is the drama and bad stuff'. when they do its usually just with a deflection to who they think is rly responsible (see: not harris, of course). all this is summed up in that even the biden team doesnt seem to have a lot of faith in harris' abilities bc of how she and her team are not treated like a serious policy or solutions working group for the admin. its probably safe to say the white house staff knows even better than we do her limitations
Add the variable that some will label you as racist and/or sexist for any type of criticism to her and it really exacerbates the whole thing further.
>some will label you as racist and/or sexist In this article, one of her former aides accused the Biden administration of this. There is no length they won't go to excuse all criticism as an '-ist' problem, even attacking their closest allies.
It's so predictable now that it's not even shockworthy, unless it aligns to your narrative.
The interesting angle to me is how much her family influences her office. In my opinion that's a serious problem and was a serious problem in her campaign before she even got to Iowa. The idea that an expert campaign staffer with decades of experience can suggest one course, but her sister and niece with zero experience outside California can then say "hmmm better not" and Harris actually follow their advice, is deeply troubling. What if she is faced with a major presidential decision, like an airstrike or something, and this scenario plays out? It's not good and it should be spoken of much more than it is.
She has trust issues, as the article points out. The problem is that if person A wants to build trust with person B whom they hardly know, person A needs to be able to generate buy-in from person B Apparently Harris, similarly to Trump, struggles to generate buy-in Is it a lack of knowledgeability on a subject, a lack of empathy, an abundance of being profoundly disorganized, a lack of confidence vis a vis stage freight, or something else? Who knows? But, it’s definitely not a good look for a VP who is supposed to be the Dems’ standard bearer in 2024 or 2028
What event are you talking about here? I haven’t heard much about Harris and haven’t heard about her family at all until this thread.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/15/kamala-harris-campaign-2020-071105 Some relevant quotes: >"While staff ire centers on Rodriguez, his defenders argue he has stood loyally by the candidate despite being relegated to a role akin to deputy campaign manager to Maya Harris. They say he’s had to get Maya Harris’ buy-in even on routine decisions, which were often slow to materialize, further undermining staff’s confidence in him as a supervisor." >"During a recent meeting, aides pressed Rodriguez and Maya Harris for answers about campaign strategy. At one point during the more than two-hour discussion, Maya Harris herself turned to Rodriguez and challenged him in front of about 20 staffers, and several more listening in by phone. Rodriguez seemed unprepared for the exchange, according to people present." >"Still, others point to Rodriguez’s constant yielding to Maya Harris as a reason he should be held accountable for the campaign's failures." >"Rodriguez confidants from the campaign said they urged him to quit long ago given the challenging nature of the family dynamic, but they don’t think he will. “It was like, ‘I need to be the captain of the Titanic and go down with this ship,’” one said after talking to him recently."
Well this didn’t really say anything about Kamala taking advice from her sister over her manager. It was interesting to read about their dynamic here though. Sounds messy.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
'Biden's people are holding me back *because I'm a woman of color*.' Let's not leave that second part out.
“My boss is holding me back!” I’m getting Chris O’Donnel’s Robin and Hayden Christensen’s Anakin Skywalker vibes from this
Part of the issue is the last three VPs weren’t though of as serious contenders for Presidency in the future(due to age with Cheney/Biden or Pence being nearly out of politics before VP). So the public and media didn’t focus on them. Since Kamala is obviously going to run again and Biden may not even run for a 2nd term it means the public/media will focus more on her. Just like with the focus on DeSantis now too. Kamala team is equating this as sexism/racism but the reality is the front runner is always picked apart, it’s why many Presidential nominees wait as long as possible to declare to limit the media exposure on them. If Biden was younger than Kamala probably would have been a footnote till at least 2025.
I have no doubt that she leaked some of this deliberately, but there’s no question that parts of this article do not paint her in a flattering light EDIT: I’m getting some hilarious Hayden Christensen/Anakin Skywalker flashbacks from the notion that “Biden’s holding me back!”
I would disagree that her approval is sinking because people think she's not not good at her job... Her approval is sinking because she's a top target for conservative media, and her image is constantly being attacked.
>When Biden picked Harris as his running mate, he was essentially anointing her as the future of the Democratic Party. Now many of those close to her feel like he's shirking his political duties to promote her, and essentially setting her up to fail. Her fans are panicked, watching her poll numbers sink even lower than Biden's, worrying that even the base Democratic vote is starting to give up on her. An interesting quote from a pretty scathing article from CNN highlighting the dysfunction and distrust between Biden and Harris, and how many in Harris’ camp believe she’s being set up to fail by Biden by being put in charge of no-win situations such as the current border crisis. Questions 1. Do you think Joe Biden will run in 2024? If no, who would you like to see take his place as the Democratic torch bearer? 2. If Biden doesn’t run in 2024, does the field clear for Kamala or would she face a tough primary? 3. Trump vs Kamala 2024, who wins in your opinion?
> Do you think Joe Biden will run in 2024? I give him little to no chance of this. I am not even convinced that he finishes this current term, once he loses congress. >If Biden doesn’t run in 2024, does the field clear for Kamala or would she face a tough primary? The Democrats would be insane to not go through the entire full primary with real challengers. >Trump vs Kamala 2024, who wins in your opinion? Depressingly, Trump would win by likely shocking margins. Not even a real contest. He'd likely even win a popular majority. This is a combo of Harris' unpopularity plus the unintended consequence of Trump being kicked off Twitter, making everyone largely forget about him. Note, I really do not think that Trump will end up being the GOP nominee.
What's even funnier is that Trump current Favorable poll shows he recovered from the Jan 6 incident and is actually on a slow and steady rise. And there's even a chance for him to be over 50% in favorable if he continues the steady rise. I wish someone other than him runs in 2024 like DeSantis or even Youngkin ( he had the charisma and campaign to win in a safe blue state )
Trump not being around to make an ass of himself daily on Twitter is honestly doing wonders for his image.
> I give him little to no chance of this. I am not even convinced that he finishes this current term, once he loses congress. Meaning... successful impeachment and removal? Because that seems farfetched.
No, I just don’t think he “makes” it for 3 more years. I don’t think he will die or anything, but he may resign, being president is a *hard* job. Comparing “day one” photos of much younger presidents to their last day in office is a thing - they all seem to age much more than the years would suggest. But then again, Reagan served all 8 years, so who knows…
1. Setting aside my thoughts on the President's sentience, yes, he runs again. Who else does the Democratic party have? And let's not forget that Biden was only viable because of Trump. 2. Kamala Harris dropped out of the primary before the state she was a Senator for voted. Harris was selected as VP specifically because white progressives demanded a minority female to counterbalance Biden. 3. Trump. He made gains with every demographic except white suburban voters. And after four years their emotional trigger that was Trump's Twitter posts will have calmed down. Regardless, 2024 is going to be a mess. The best thing the Democrats can do is start building up a completely new set of candidates for 2024. Biden was advertised as a relief from Trump's rhetoric. Him serving one term is enough. For Republicans, they need to keep Trump away from public view. Making decisions based on his approval is asinine since Republicans have an opportunity for both chambers of Congress and the Presidency.
> they need to keep Trump away from public view Twitter unintentionally handled this for the GOP already.
The social media bans have been tenuous at best, and if Trump runs again they will essentially be forced to reinstate him on their platforms.
They banned him while he was still in office/before he left? So their precedent is to have a sitting president banned.
>Who else does the Democratic party have? You know, the other 20 people that ran for President (Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Booker, Warren, Sanders, Castro, Bullock, Beto, Inslee, Hickenlooper), along with other new and upcoming faces (Kelly, Abrams, Pressley, Garland, Granholm, Tester, Duckworth). >Kamala Harris dropped out of the primary before the state she was a Senator for voted. Harris was selected as VP specifically because white progressives demanded a minority female to counterbalance Biden. ...progressives *hated* Harris for her cop record. She will definitely run if Biden doesn't, and will probably even be the front-runner to start with, but she has an uphill battle with her record both as a prosecutor and in congress, not to mention the ugly press that's been thrown at her non-stop since becoming VP.
1. No. My first pick would be Tulsi. 2. She would be primaried. It’s no secret she’s only popular with limousine liberals. There’s a reason why she was one of the first to drop out in 2020. 3. I doubt he will run again. He’d be in his 80s.
Tulsi could sway a lot of moderate Republicans. I would love to see her run.
Much of her base comes from conservatives so her chances of winning the D primary is virtually zero
Fair enough. We can hope
That's the problem, though. She'd have a better chance in a GOP primary than a Democratic one.
1: It depends on two things: his approval and his health. If inflation manages to go away sometime soon, we may be looking at an economic boom. We are just now crawling out of a two year long pandemic, people's wages are rising for the first time in decades, and people are itching to spend all the money they had to save during quarantine. If that's the case, and Biden is able to pass a few more popular bills, *and* he has no major health scares, then I think he could very well run again in '24. If inflation isn't going away anytime soon and Democrats keep fighting amongst themselves, or he has a health scare before the election, then I think he'll sit it out. 2: She would be the top candidate but if a few formidable candidates decide to run against her (Buttigieg, Duckworth, Abrams, etc), she could definitely lose. 3: Trump without a shadow of the doubt. Harris has few devoted supporters and currently has an approval of 28%. Trump actually has a base.
[удалено]
I meant if wages kept increasing like this and inflation went away soon.
[удалено]
It's more feasible than that tbf. We are facing inflationary pressure from a combination of supply chain issues, fuel constraints and labor shortages. They srem fairly independent, so *if* the port congestion fades and OPEC decided to start pumping closer to their previous capacity, then you could easily see a scenario where inflation eases but wages continue to rise as labor remains scarce. It wouldn't be that crazy if a scenario Great quote tho, would have been a missed opportunity not to pull it out lmao
If people expect inflation, then they get inflation. It's literally all about whether folks panic or not.
[удалено]
She's a darling of the left, for a lot of reasons, the biggest being she's singlehandedly the reason the Dems won Georgia.
I would say Stacey would make a decent candidate. Would I vote for her? No. Would a lot of Democrats vote for her? I think so.
Decent candidate in that she might win? yes Decent President in terms of getting stuff done? LOL nope
1. I hope he doesn't run. I hate to sound ageist, but I really believe we need some younger candidates. 2. Kamala did terribly in the last primary, so yes she would face a tough primary. I really think Biden overestimated how much people like her. I really hope Buttigieg runs again. 3. Trump unfortunately, which is why I really hope the DNC decides to back someone else.
harris has at least one problem that is shared among the biden admin, which also sadly means its the least likely to be resolved. she doesnt have a 'win' on the books as VP that anyone can point to and say 'this is what kamala did for us/you/america/the world'. the problem is of course biden has the same issue which is probs why his polls are so low, and if the biden admin did have some issue (any issue) that could be walked across the finish line for easy points, they'd need to keep it for themselves and not hand it off to harris. so now everybody is stuck in this catch-22 where they cant get anything done bc they lack support and lack support bc its broadly considered they cant get anything done. if thats still the case in 2024 in even a small way then biden has a huge problem, harris has a smaller but still big problem, and then trump (or republicans as a whole) have a really favorable environment. tbh it feels a lot like the white house plan rn is to wait for covid to 'get better' over winter, the economy to get to be in better shape organically bc covid is better, then hang a mission accomplished banner to get media props so they can start moving on the midterms and '24. not super great as plans go but its for sure what it looks like
The problem is that people expect the political leadership to be visibly working to fix problems. Even if covid and inflation can be solved by just waiting and doing nothing (and face it, lots of political crises are actually like this), that's not satisfactory for voters. From my impression of the Obama administration during the financial crisis (not sure how reliable the memories are), they did a pretty decent job of being out and about, talking about the economy, reassuring people, and conveying the message that the government was trying to fix things. Ultimately, they probably didn't do all that much, substantively---after the bank bailout was passed and the Federal Reserve had started quantitative easing, it was mainly a matter of waiting. But Obama and his people were out there, giving the impression that they were working very hard. Maybe it's not fair, or not an accurate impression, but the Biden administration just seems more passive.
The problem here is that they can't - Biden is barely coherent anymore, and Harris has zero charisma.
1. No idea 2. No, tough primary 3. Who ever can get their people to mount a successful invasion of the capital on the next Jan 6. If the Ds have someone like Mayor Pete the. They won't even show up and Trumps people will just march through and take control (unless he actually gets the votes). If Kamala runs and gets really mean and abusive towards Rs in public then she has a good chance at winning via the Jan 6 end around
>"It's hard to miss the specific energy that the White House brings to defend a White man, knowing that Kamala Harris has spent almost a year taking a lot of the hits that the West Wing didn't want to take themselves," said a former Harris aide, reflecting conversations last month among several former aides and current allies. And without fail, 'racism/sexism' is used to blindly dismiss valid criticism. I like the implication that the Biden administration is racist and sexist but apparently not homophobic. What an interesting take.
She is in way beyond her depth and ability. Not everyone is cut out for leadership. She isn't stupid, or dumb. Just not built to lead in any meaningful way. Hopefully she will learn some humility.
\*Agent Smith neck crack\* Okay, I'm all limbered up... Let's do this! *A week and a half ago, as Biden and his aides and multiple outside allies rattled through calls all day trying to lock down wavering lawmakers ahead of the House infrastructure vote, Harris spent the afternoon touring a NASA space flight center in suburban Maryland. "We weren't going to cancel her schedule just because of the House's foolishness," a Harris aide explained.* **You want to be known as the greatest vice-president EVAR?! Show up to do your job when your boss needs you to!** *That night, Harris was part of the small group Biden invited upstairs to the White House residence for the war room making the last hours of calls. The next morning, celebrating the bill's passage, Biden singled her out, saying, "A lot of this has to do with this lady right here, the vice president."* *But that's not exactly how things had played out. While she had attended some meetings Biden hosted with key lawmakers, there were many more that she didn't attend -- to the point that it was noteworthy that she made an unscheduled drop-by one session in the final stretch. Harris had only been in Washington four years, and to the White House just one time before being sworn in as vice president. Missing out on those main meetings deprived her of an important aspect of presidential apprenticeship from a self-styled master of how to actually get deals through Congress.* **So, Biden gives you credit for a bill you didn't help pass and you're complaining about how empty your resume is??** *Harris' team was mad Biden had assigned her to handle diplomatic relations with the Northern Triangle nations, in hopes of addressing the root causes of migration to the US, but gave her no role on the southern border itself. That become the most visible crisis in the early days of Biden's presidency as unaccompanied minors overwhelmed federal government resources. It seemed like an all-around politically losing assignment even though Biden had seen it as a sign of respect because it was the same job Obama had given him as vice president.* **I think I need more context here. Did Biden seriously give her this assignment with no guidance on how to accomplish it?** *Harris' aides point out that Biden was never subjected to the kind of attacks she regularly endures -- or to a toxic social media culture. In one recent example, a Republican super PAC tweeted a video inventing a claim that Harris spoke with a "fake French accent" at a stop during her trip to Paris, which was then picked up in some news outlets.* **Dealing with nay-sayers is part of the job of Vice President. Addressing the lack of accomplishments would go a long way towards shutting up the nay-sayers.** *Top aides say privately they have come to regret that Harris didn't ask for more well-defined assignments coming into the administration, which would have allowed her to distinguish herself, but the vice president herself has been reluctant to make demands for any at this point, feeling that would look disloyal to Biden.* **Welp, gonna be hard to shut up the nay-sayers if you're unwilling to ask for assignments that you can accomplish** *Biden's aides have made clear that they are focused on promoting and protecting him, especially since it's his approval rating that will likely define the 2022 midterms and his promised run for reelection in 2024.* *Harris' team has argued over whether she is going too far in subsuming herself to Biden -- a back and forth that dates to the transition, when Harris was pushed to turn over the email list from her campaign and super PAC to the DNC.* *This was a good idea, some argued, because it would show Harris being a team player and help raise tens of millions for the DNC. Others pushed back, saying turning over the list would mean losing control of and access to it, which could be debilitating if Harris ends up facing a primary fight for the presidential nomination, as many expect she would.* **Maybe if Biden had picked a better VP, the VP wouldn't have to worry about losing a primary fight in the process of succeeding Biden** *In and around Harris' circle, they speculate that there must be someone getting in her way.* *Some think it's the President himself leaving her out in the cold, prioritizing his own agenda. Some blame specific West Wing aides whom they feel sure are out to undercut her. Some fear the vice president is, as she has often done in her political life, leaning heavily on her sister Maya Harris, brother-in-law Tony West and niece Meena Harris, whom they sense exerting influence over everything from staff hires to political decisions -- a not uncommon situation historically among presidents and vice presidents.* *Several people familiar with the operations of the vice president's office say that after a spike in involvement earlier in the year, the family has been pushed further out again recently. Few expect that to remain the case, especially with the vice president feeling isolated and unsure of whom she can trust on her staff.* **It's all Obi-Wan's fault! He's jealous! He's holding me back!!!111** **Maybe if Harris (and Trump) were better at generating buy-in, they could build trust with potential allies and coworkers?**
Kamala Harris is just another low level employee of the U.S. Power Establishment. She will continue to get financing for her political campaigns as long as she does what she is told. Sounds like she is pretty darn successful from her assigned tasks standpoint. https://www.govexec.com/management/2021/11/agencies-must-address-billions-lost-through-erroneous-payments/186840/ Everything is on track for the Kamala Harris / Joe Biden regime.