chapotraphouse

Yup, just too 'woman', which is why Elizabeth Warren was comfortably in second or third for almost the entire race and only tanked after she went

voters, extremely shy from Hillary's loss, were afraid that [Kamala] was too Black

Yes because if Hillary's loss indicated anything it's that a black person can't win. This is definitely a coherent analysis.

Why are we still doing "too black" as an excuse after having a black president for 8 years?

it's wild to me that anyone tries to argue that normal people vote based on how they think a candidate will "appeal to the middle of the country". have these people ever talked to a human in real life that they weren't paying?

I agree, Hillary was too black.

Yes, that's the reason she had literally no supporters except those K-hive freaks.

I have a leftie telling me that because Cheney endorsed KH , we should take that as evidence that she is a bad candidate and NOT AN ANTIFASCIST.

I kept pointing out that Patton and Stalin invaded Germany and HATED each other. “Ally of convenience” is not a friend. As long as no concessions are made, the best thing you can do is let two enemies destroy each other.

After the main danger is vanquished, we excise our “once and future” enemies the neocons.

That would be the one upshot of Kamala winning, trolling libs with “huh turns out voters will vote for a woman guess that wasn’t the problem in prior elections.”

If in the sequel their interests turn out to be uninteresting and their power turns out to be impotence, either this is the fault of dangerous sophists, who split the indivisible people into different hostile camps, or the army was too brutalized and deluded to understand that the pure goals of democracy were best for it too, or a mistake in one detail of implementation has wrecked the whole plan, or indeed an unforeseen accident has frustrated the game this time. In each case the democrat emerges as spotless from the most shameful defeat as he was innocent when he went into it, fresh in his conviction that he must inevitably be victorious, taking the view that conditions must ripen to meet his requirements, rather than that he and his party must abandon their old standpoint.

From Marx's 18 Brumaire: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch03.htm

Trump only lost to Biden because voters were afraid Trump was too entrepreneurial.

McCain lost to Obama because voters were afraid McCain was too tumor-having.

having a coherent politics is just that easy.

Sure. That's the only reason

Ah yes, there's no reason people would avoid voting for a cop president after a widely publicized lynching.

The reality is that nobody knew who the hell she was. Only knew a few older people who liked her during the primaries and that’s because they have all the time in the world to watch CNN 24/7 and get familiar with the candidates.

Then why did she get trounced by fucking Klobuchar ?

Is this even wrong? I think if Kamala had been a white guy, she would've done a lot better and the Democrats might very well have rallied behind her instead of Biden. Yeah, she sucks ass, but she's not particularly worse than any of the other Dems. The only reason she's the candidate now is because she happened to be VP while Biden basically died during a live debate.

They're really telling on themselves with stuff like this. They really have no understanding of politics or politicians. To them, she's just a token who ticks a bunch of boxes, they can't imagine anyone would dislike her based on policy.

Hillary lost because she was too white and too much of a servant of the patriarchal bourgeois order for anyone to want to turn out for her. Kamala may have the same problem, though liberals seem to be pushing the "Kamala super progressive" lie.

Nah it's cause she's center right like Biden. Still gonna vote for her over the Cheeto fascists but this is not the reason.