• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lets Play: Pin the Blame on the Donkey

If Kamala loses to Trump, who will be to blame?


  • Total voters
    38
Way to reach across the aisle. The rhetoric is a classic example of why we are so deeply divided.
Like the malignant narcissist scumbag piece of shit liar grifter rapist seditionist felon and tax cheat not providing federal assistance based on the political leader of a state. God forbid they haven't kissed his ass. A perfect example.
 
If Kamala loses to Trump, who or what will be to blame?
I voted other. Fox News and all the rest of the RW extreme Trump loving media who promotes the Cult of Trump would be to blame. We could also put some of the blame on the poor education in America.

If people aren't smart enough to realize the danger of Trump, they are uneducated.
 
Way to reach across the aisle. The rhetoric is a classic example of why we are so deeply divided.
I can't disagree with that statement. But the rhetoric coming from Trump is just as bad or worse. "Enemy from within" "Liberal Vermin" "They're poisoning the blood of the country" "Using the military on Shifty Schiff or Nancy Pelosi" "They're eating the dogs; they're eating the cats"

My lord man, there is no end of it coming from the right. If you take a deep dive into this division, it really became focused when Trump entered the game. It's always been there but stayed in 'the closet' so to speak for the most part. Trump has done this to America.
 
Beating such a terrible candidate should be easy by someone who is, essentially, the incumbent.
If the Republicans ran Haley, they would be up by 5 points right now. Had they run someone like Chris Christie, they would be looking at a 1988 level victory and even putting states like Mass in play. There is a general feeling in the electorate that things are not going well right now - a general feeling of a lack of law and order in their cities, problems around the world, and while inflation is way down, groceries are still 30% higher than they were pre-pandemic, and housing is incredibly expensive in many areas. The only reason this election is even close is Trump. Close to half the country is unwilling to vote for such a reprehensible person.

This is the thing that many Republican voters don't seem to understand. There is not a scenario where Democrats could run a candidate for president and win 400 or more electoral votes. Even with a candidate as talented as Obama, they couldn't hit 400 electoral votes. This is because a large percentage of Republican voters will not vote for a Democratic candidate for president under any circumstances. In contrast, there a significant number of Democratic voters that will vote for a Republican under some circumstances. If the Republicans ran a true moderate candidate like Charlie Baker or even Chris Christie for president, and let them run as a moderate, they would win in a landslide, it wouldn't even be close. The extremism in the Republican primary electorate is the only reason Republicans aren't absolutely dominating our politics.
 
I voted other. Fox News and all the rest of the RW extreme Trump loving media who promotes the Cult of Trump would be to blame. We could also put some of the blame on the poor education in America.

If people aren't smart enough to realize the danger of Trump, they are uneducated.
There’s far more media that’s critical of Trump and “critical” is an understatement for some. I think it’s quite possible that the constant crying wolf have contributed to desensitizing people to them.
 
If the Republicans ran Haley, they would be up by 5 points right now. Had they run someone like Chris Christie, they would be looking at a 1988 level victory and even putting states like Mass in play. There is a general feeling in the electorate that things are not going well right now - a general feeling of a lack of law and order in their cities, problems around the world, and while inflation is way down, groceries are still 30% higher than they were pre-pandemic, and housing is incredibly expensive in many areas. The only reason this election is even close is Trump. Close to half the country is unwilling to vote for such a reprehensible person.

This is the thing that many Republican voters don't seem to understand. There is not a scenario where Democrats could run a candidate for president and win 400 or more electoral votes. Even with a candidate as talented as Obama, they couldn't hit 400 electoral votes. This is because a large percentage of Republican voters will not vote for a Democratic candidate for president under any circumstances. In contrast, there a significant number of Democratic voters that will vote for a Republican under some circumstances. If the Republicans ran a true moderate candidate like Charlie Baker or even Chris Christie for president, and let them run as a moderate, they would win in a landslide, it wouldn't even be close. The extremism in the Republican primary electorate is the only reason Republicans aren't absolutely dominating our politics.
You’re a sharp guy but also completely wrong. :p You think most Dems don’t vote for Dems regardless of who the Repub running is? I don’t mean that as a criticism. Most all of us do it so I disagree it’s a uniquely Repub thing. Repubs may not vote for Dems, generally, but they will sit an election out if it’s someone that doesn’t particularly motivate them, hence McCain and Romney. Honestly, I don’t know if trying to pander to the other side as I think Harris is trying now, while I understand it, is any kind of a good strategy and I mean that for both parties. Why wouldn’t Democrat voters hold it against someone trying to appeal to people they think are horrible and deplorable? If, despite out raising/spending Trump, glowing press coverage and an endorsement by Taylor ****ing Swift, Harris still can’t beat the hated, old orange guy, maybe the problem isn’t everyone else.
 
How has it worked out? Seems to me you nor I know....
Well, up to this point, instead of realizing Joe might not be the best choice at present and nominating someone who could wipe the floor with Trump early on, they just run with him. And then, with a short window to go...

Now sitting with a good chance Trump could take it. That's how it's worked out so far.🤷‍♂️
 
Isn’t she a great candidate running against the worst candidate ever? She’s the vice president to the guy who got the most votes ever. This shouldn’t even be close.
I said in July, that if Trump couldn't run against Joe Biden, and he got to pick anyone else to run against, then it would have to be Kamala Harris.

I was mocked at the time for saying this.
 
You’re a sharp guy but also completely wrong. :p You think most Dems don’t vote for Dems regardless of who the Repub running is? I don’t mean that as a criticism. Most all of us do it so I disagree it’s a uniquely Repub thing. Repubs may not vote for Dems, generally, but they will sit an election out if it’s someone that doesn’t particularly motivate them, hence McCain and Romney. Honestly, I don’t know if trying to pander to the other side as I think Harris is trying now, while I understand it, is any kind of a good strategy and I mean that for both parties. Why wouldn’t Democrat voters hold it against someone trying to appeal to people they think are horrible and deplorable? If, despite out raising/spending Trump, glowing press coverage and an endorsement by Taylor ****ing Swift, Harris still can’t beat the hated, old orange guy, maybe the problem isn’t everyone else.
You are mistaken. Mitt Romney lost with a higher percentage of the vote in 2012, than what Donald Trump won with in 2016. Think about that, the only reason Mitt Romney lost in 2012 is he was running against the absolute best candidate Democrats could run - and the candidate was an incumbent. The same amount of support Romney had in 2012 would have amounted to a near landslide win against Hillary in 2016. Point being your entire premise is wrong, Republicans didn't sit out the 2012 election.

A much higher percentage of Democrats describe themselves as moderate than Republicans. Moreover, blue states are much more likely to elect a Republican governor than red. Look no further than Maryland, Vermont, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts - all extremely blue states that have recently had Republican governors.
 
Are libs truly this desperate to think theyve already lost?
No more desperate than Trump supporters who are already laying down the groundwork to claim election fraud again.

Like that guy who got caught claiming nuns didn’t live at the nunnery even though no one can remember him being there (he said he had been) and that over fifty nuns do, in fact, live there.
 
Why is this even a question? She has every advantage in this race. She should win easily.
Current polling suggests otherwise.
 
If Kamala loses to Trump, who or what will be to blame?

You are leaning hard into this Harris-will-lose thing. Is that what you're rooting for?
 
If Kamala loses to Trump, who or what will be to blame?
Progresssives, who have dragged Dems so far left that middle of the road people no longer identify with them. Those of us who are Not LGBTQIA+ do not favor he/shes playing womens' sports. Nor do we like being harangued for saying so.
 
Harris and Biden will be to blame, but the Dems will blame the left for their own failures.
 
I opted for Kamala/Biden, but I would have preferred "Democrats" if you hadn't poison pilled that choice by adding the Gaza part.

More precisely, the Democrat leadership who initially opted to let sleepy Joe run again saddled with Harris, and then trying to make Harris his last minute replacement.
 
If Kamala loses to Trump, who or what will be to blame?

It seems obvious to me that Democrat-Party weakness would be again to blame (and it has nothing to do with the Gaza crap):

- Democrats have for decades allowed Republicans to call them "communists," despite Kennedy and Johnson blowing the door open to Vietnam to "fight communism."

- Democrats allowed McConnel to deny a President (Obama), for the first time in history, his choice for a Supreme Court Judge.

- Democrats couldn't even promote Hillary Clinton's history against a draft-dodger who mocked POWs and the handicapped, which allowed him to appoint three Supreme Court judges.

- Democrats allowed Republicans to take back the House just two years after they spearheaded an attempt to steal the election with a fake elector scheme and a physical attack on the Capitol building on certification day.

- Democrats, despite great legislation between January 2021 and January 2023, appear worthless when it comes to promoting their positive legislative history.

- Democrats have allowed Republicans to create this massive debt (Bush and Trump) without calling them out for it, as Republicans sit back and simply blame Democrats.

- Democrats have allowed Republicans to create virtually every economic crisis without really blasting them (Reagan, Bush, Trump) for it, while inheriting the messes to take blame for hot fixing it fast enough (Clinton, Obama, Biden).


And here we are. Democrats have no idea if their candidate can beat that returning draft-dodger who has denigrated the military for years, who flipped the tax code upside down for the wealthy and wrecked Obama's economy, who was impeached for trying to coerce Ukraine into interfering in the 2020 election on his behalf, who purposefully mismanaged a global pandemic and filled unnecessary graves with his own followers (voters), who engineered a failed coup before launching a mob to the Capitol where they tried to "take back their country," who was impeached again for it and saved by McConnel, who is now an official sex offender, who is now officially a tax evader and bankrupt-prone business cheat, who in 2023 argued that he never gave an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, who has led the charge to abandon a military and democratic ally (Ukraine) to Russia, who ordered his Republicans to reject border security, and who now talks about penis sizes that he observed in locker rooms back in the day.

All of this is what the Democrat Party has to beat. All of this treachery, treason, and immorality. Should be easy. Should be. But the Democrat Party has been historically weak against an onslaught of Republican tactics to deceive and lie their way past them. While Republicans have their FOX News propaganda machine blasting misinformation to retard America, Republicans pretend that CNN is doing the same. Clearly not. While Obama talks about Democrats "going high," Republicans are nut punching. Republicans could put up a full-blown convicted pedophile for President, and they would work it into a righteous crusade against whatever Democrats put up. You know, cuz "communists!"
 
Last edited:
I opted for Kamala/Biden, but I would have preferred "Democrats" if you hadn't poison pilled that choice by adding the Gaza part.

More precisely, the Democrat leadership who initially opted to let sleepy Joe run again saddled with Harris, and then trying to make Harris his last minute replacement.

And I agree.
 
Progresssives, who have dragged Dems so far left that middle of the road people no longer identify with them. Those of us who are Not LGBTQIA+ do not favor he/shes playing womens' sports. Nor do we like being harangued for saying so.
It's insane that you think the Dems have moved left.
 
I voted other = the people who voted for *rump
 
Starting to get some testing-the-water pieces:

Democratic insiders are already figuring out who to blame if Kamala Harris loses to Donald Trump next week, even as both candidates continue to fight for an edge in key battleground states—and the fingers are pointing in different directions.

Some are prepared to direct blame at Harris herself, especially over disappointment around her messaging on the economy, according to a report by The Hill. But others say President Joe Biden would be at fault for how long he took to step aside, and as his campaigning for Harris has been filled with flubs.....

One decision sure to be scrutinized would be Harris’ selection of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate over Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, as the Keystone State—currently polling at a near deadlock—will help decide the election.

“[Harris] is going to look real silly for not picking Shapiro,” a former aide in Barack Obama’s presidential administration said. A Democratic donor echoed the sentiment. “I’m not sure Walz got her anything,” they said. “A lot of people I’m talking to say he seems like a great guy. Would I want to have a beer with him? Absolutely. But let’s face it, he wasn’t a great choice.”....

  • Harris as VP was a bad pick.
  • Biden's stubborness and pride in refusing to step aside was a bad choice.
  • Harris as a candidate was a better-pick-than-Biden, but was still weaker than other options.
  • Walz was a non-helpful pick, in a contest where Harris needed every ounce of advantage that could be squeezed out.

If she loses because she lost PA, the pick of Walz will be blamed mostly, and Biden will be blamed a little. If she loses because she lost more than PA, Biden will be blamed mostly, and maybe the Walz pick a little, and maybe her as a candidate a little.

If she wins, everyone will pretend like none of those realities were true.
 
Back
Top Bottom