Donald Trump thoroughly beat Vice President Kamala Harris in this week’s election, winning the electoral college and popular vote. Was this a further example of the glass cliff, where when a company (or in this case, an entire political party) is in trouble, they send in a woman who takes the inevitable fall?
To be clear, I think the answer to this is no. So many things go into this election loss that you can’t sum it up in a trite phrase. However, because Biden stepped down from the election before the Democratic convention, they could have nominated anyone who fit the legal requirements.
And they nominated Harris.
To keep reading, click here: Was Kamala Harris a Victim of the Glass Cliff?
I was a constituent of Harris when she was in the Senate. I’d rather vote for Charles Manson’s rotting corpse than see her in a national office (or any other office, including dog catcher).
She was a victim of the voting public understanding exactly what she represented, as a loyal (and obedient) party soldier for the California Democratic party machine, and that a vote for Harris was a vote to make the rest of the country more like California, with the worst homelessness rate in the US, the highest gas taxes, and a business climate so hostile that thousands of companies (and tens of thousands of people) are leaving the state. The best ads for Trump were those put out by the DNC.
(Not that Trump is any more qualified. His sole advantage is that instead of half of Congress hating his guts, all of it will, with his own party hating him more than the other side, because he’s not one of them, he’s not beholden to them, and they can’t control him. (Plus, the DNC knows he’s the best agent for contributions they’ve ever had, or ever will.) IMO, his most likely legacy is to get so pi$$ed off at Congress that he just starts vetoing everything out of spite, including those that *have* to pass, like the budget, thus forcing true bipartisan cooperation in both houses of Congress for the first time in decades. And he’ll brag about doing so afterwards.)
It’s terrifying that people like you are allowed to vote.
Likewise.
I feel like the one thing that could have made a huge difference is: being utterly honest, transparent, taking care to not exaggerate, not mislead, not deflect. Have people in the campaign look at fact-checking websites, at least? If you and your running mate are both coming up as exaggerating with some lies thrown in, and your major opponent and his running mate are also (whatever the ratio), it’s a little bit of “the devil you know” with a little bit of (cynical) “at least if he gets this term he can’t run again”… and if he tries, that’s when benefit-of-the-doubters switch gears *fast*.