Y’all so far are just repeating the same thing assuming nobody will notice that “reasons” is so far only one “reason” and not a great one at that. Somebody remind me the name of this cognitive error…
I’ve said it in ither comments on this thread I thought this was part of those.
Bad polling, handling of the border, how she ran the bay area when it came to marijuana charges and cases, perceived foreign policy goals especially in relation to Israel, bad public image towards young people (pokemon go to the polls energy) and a subpar debate record. From what I remeber she was solidly losing until the fly landed on Pence and he got memed to death.
In the end she will just be women trump or women biden, I.e more of the exact same.
“perceived foreign policy goals”
“how she ran the bay area”
“bad public image”
“subpar debate record”
So basically you don’t have specifics but just gross generalizations. So far that’s all anyone has come up with and it just gets repeated as though somehow saying it with more words makes it more than “because reasons”. It doesn’t.
How about some context and maybe even a few specifics?
Harris on Israel: She’s criticized Israel and made it clear Israel’s behavior would not be without consequences. Example.
“ran the bay area”: Honestly this is just kind of nonsense. Did you mean her reputation around drug crimes? What about all the other stuff like the Back on Track initiative? She helped pass legislation banning the gay panic defense. And efforts to change state policies around transgender medical treatment for prisoners (this is nuanced because she argued in line with the law but didn’t agree and worked to change it). Harris pushed hard agains the family separation policy under Trump, and was the first to demand Nielsen’s resignation. Just a tiny random sample of achievements, which are a lot more than you might think.
“bad public image”: What does this even mean given that the same could be argued for Trump and Biden? Or the “bad public image” of politicians in general? I’d argue that a lot of this “bad public image” has to do with people like you generalizing in vague ways and, to be blunt, remaining ignorant of the facts.
subpar debate record: What, like one? I know other people who flubbed debates. Obama, for example. It happens and while you could sort of argue that degrades her electability slightly you cannot argue that it points to an inability to be president.
My entire point here is that there is a LOT more to Harris than vague half-remembered generalizations that too often seem to be all people put forward. It’s really worth looking at her record in more detail. Wikipedia actually has a pretty good rundown. And of course On The Issues has the usual handy summary.
Harris cannot win, Harris will not win this election. If she is the nominated candidate all it leads to is Republican bullshit and a win.
“Because reasons”
Yes, because of many reasons, with the big one being she’s incredibly umpopular and will drive people away.
Yes but WHAT REASONS SPECIFICALLY?
Y’all so far are just repeating the same thing assuming nobody will notice that “reasons” is so far only one “reason” and not a great one at that. Somebody remind me the name of this cognitive error…
I’ve said it in ither comments on this thread I thought this was part of those.
Bad polling, handling of the border, how she ran the bay area when it came to marijuana charges and cases, perceived foreign policy goals especially in relation to Israel, bad public image towards young people (pokemon go to the polls energy) and a subpar debate record. From what I remeber she was solidly losing until the fly landed on Pence and he got memed to death.
In the end she will just be women trump or women biden, I.e more of the exact same.
“perceived foreign policy goals” “how she ran the bay area” “bad public image” “subpar debate record”
So basically you don’t have specifics but just gross generalizations. So far that’s all anyone has come up with and it just gets repeated as though somehow saying it with more words makes it more than “because reasons”. It doesn’t.
How about some context and maybe even a few specifics?
Harris on Israel: She’s criticized Israel and made it clear Israel’s behavior would not be without consequences. Example.
“ran the bay area”: Honestly this is just kind of nonsense. Did you mean her reputation around drug crimes? What about all the other stuff like the Back on Track initiative? She helped pass legislation banning the gay panic defense. And efforts to change state policies around transgender medical treatment for prisoners (this is nuanced because she argued in line with the law but didn’t agree and worked to change it). Harris pushed hard agains the family separation policy under Trump, and was the first to demand Nielsen’s resignation. Just a tiny random sample of achievements, which are a lot more than you might think.
“bad public image”: What does this even mean given that the same could be argued for Trump and Biden? Or the “bad public image” of politicians in general? I’d argue that a lot of this “bad public image” has to do with people like you generalizing in vague ways and, to be blunt, remaining ignorant of the facts.
subpar debate record: What, like one? I know other people who flubbed debates. Obama, for example. It happens and while you could sort of argue that degrades her electability slightly you cannot argue that it points to an inability to be president.
My entire point here is that there is a LOT more to Harris than vague half-remembered generalizations that too often seem to be all people put forward. It’s really worth looking at her record in more detail. Wikipedia actually has a pretty good rundown. And of course On The Issues has the usual handy summary.