quote:Kathy (Hochul; Gov. NY) faces the voters next in '26, but might she have other ideas such as."1600 in '28"?
I think Kamala's defeat, after having been anointed only 107 days prior to the Election is proof that anyone contemplating a presidential run had best be prepared to invest far more "lead time" to get ready. After all, Trump invested the past four years readying his successful run.
So maybe she already is thinking beyond her term as Governor.
Several responses enveloped until the Moderator said "enough":
quote:As much as I hate the idea there is too much dislike of the idea of a female US president. Base that on some careful questioning of some persons. Including my wife. That includes McCain, Clinton,& Harris.
quote:I suspect had Hillary not been Bill's husband, she might have actually won. She had the ability to debate people and actually answer questions, even if her policies were out of line with what people wanted after eight years of Obama. There was a definite fatigue there.
But here, we have our Open Discussion Forum, which at this time, appears to be the most active around here.
I can't think of when we had a more qualified candidate for President (that does not mean likeability) since Bush41 than Hillary; yet she lost to one who had no government experience whatever.
Kamala lost decisively because she really had little experience beyond being "Joe's understudy" - and she only had 107 days in which to make her case. How many world leaders did she sit down with for anything beyond "powder puff" sessions? Trump, for better or worse, was a "known quantity".
But "on the flip", there have been strong women leaders who can hold their own with others, gender notwithstanding. Consider Maggie in the UK, Angela in Germany, Golda in Israel. Others, such as Claudia in Mexico, are getting the chance, for better or worse, to "earn their spurs".
So what's with the USA? Is there some deep ingrown prejudice, or is it simply "the right one hasn't come along"?
irishchieftain Member # 1473
posted
Kamala lost for several other factors, including not convincingly disavowing her far-left positions and her word salad in front of the camera. (There is also “too big to rig” and all that entailed.)
Now who is up for voting for people like Sarah Huckabee Sanders as POTUS?
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
You must acknowledge, Mr. Helfner, that Kamala, or for that matter, any sitting VP running to succeed the sitting President, is between "the rock and the hard place" as to how to assail the Administration in which that VP sits.
I suppose, when Kamala went on "The View" - as "powder puff" a venue as I could imagine, she lost votes when she said "I'll really change nothing". I suppose there were all too many voters hearing those words who construed, right or wrong notwithstanding, that she would fall even further "under the spell" of Bernie, Liz, AOC, and "The Squad" than did Joe - and that is why I personally was disappointed with him (and as a veteran, the humiliating exit from Afghanistan).
Finally, regarding Sarah, or for that matter her Father, Mike, you think I want to have mandatory church attendance? I go to church when I want to go to church; namely Reunions and Centenary events at SKS, and Trinity Cathedral in Miami (because it's there; and the hotel at which I stay when in Miami is immediately to its South).
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
From my perspective concerning a woman president: It is definitely a case of the right one has not come along. Neither of the two recent attempts, Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris came anywhere near being the right one.
Hillary? One of the jokes about Hillary is that she could not run because she had already held the office for eight years, as in she was the brains keeping things going while Bill was having trouble keeping his pants on. She came across to me as having a very entitled and obnoxious attitude and a vindictive person you had better not cross because she would find a way to make you regret it. To consider her power hungry regardless of cost to the country or the world I would regard as an understatement.
Now, Kamala: Listening to her talk was downright painful. I heard the term “word salad” concerning her responses and thought it a fairly accurate description. Her ability think on her feet and to respond to any sort of conflict seemed to be completely absent, and her apparent mental capacity evidenced thereby did not appear to be that great. In fact, she came close to being one of the old “air head” girls. If any doubts remained concerning her unfitness for the job they were eliminated completely by her choice for VP. Then, getting around to the political viewpoint of either Hilliary or Kamala, I am in serious disagreement with both, but even if that were not the case, I regarded them as not fit for the job.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders? Yes, in a heartbeat. A couple others with both viewpoints and experience that I would go for with enthusiasm would be Kristi Noem and Pam Bondi. I am a little less enthusiastic about Nikki Haley, but still regard her as being far ahead of anybody, male or female, I know of on the Democrat side.
As to the point about mandatory church attendance, where did that one come from? Probably someone with some severe delusion. Let’s start with a couple of personal points that make that silly. First, J D Vance’s wife appears to still be a practicing Hindu and Trump’s son-in-law is a Jew and raising his children to be practicing Judaism. Second this would not pass Constitutional muster. Read correctly, the Constitution does not prohibit religious people from attempting to have a say in government. What it does say is that the government cannot impose any form of religious practice on the people. That is not to say it cannot pass laws based on moral grounds, what it was written to do was to prevent the development of an Established Church, as it was in many countries in Europe, and particularly the Church of England, which by the way the Episcopal Church is the US version thereof.
There are also two points of concern that will probably keep me from voting for a Democrat for the foreseeable future. I consider abortion a most immoral and repulsive act, and the fanatical pro-abortion view expressed just is a complete turn-off. Finally, and this is a religious perspective. Their half-hearted support / nonsupport of Israel and pity party for Hamas and like ilk, etc. I consider to be opposing God. Israel is still the land of God’s chosen people, the Jews, and opinions to the contrary do not change that reality. This among other reasons is why I consider the appointment of Mike Huckabee as ambassador to Israel simply brilliant. He understands the ramifications of decisions make concerning Israel far beyond immediate short term political issues.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Mr. Harris, mandatory church attendance, or even the development of a culture where if you choose not to attend, you are "ostracized", comes from me by way of my Evangelical Sister, who left the Episcopal Church in favor of such. She is all in favor of the Ten Commandments being conspicuously displayed in public facilities and that class, such as it was when I was in grade school, starts with the Pledge of Allegiance and the Lord's Prayer. No surprise, she is "bankrolling" her six Grandchildren so that they can attend private "Christian" schools and universities.
Suffice to say, three guesses and the first two don't count, who she voted for. No surprise, she of course holds the '20 Election was stolen, and that Trump is already amongst our greatest presidents. When I remarked to her regarding the CSPAN survey that Trump was 41st of 44 (Joe not rated when the survey was compiled), she said he should be 44 - our greatest!!!
So far as church and I go for '25. I don't expect to go to SKS during the year. The Centenary is over and my Class's next Reunion is not until '26 (25% of which are now "gone"; who knows how many by then?). Trinity Cathedral? one opportunity to do so next year - Jan 26. Naturally, if one of my visits to my Sister (Greenwich CT) includes a Sunday, out of respect to her, I'll accompany her to her, let's call it, "alternative worship" (based upon what I grew up with).
Regarding Hillary, there we must "agree to disagree", for I think she would have been everything that was was good about Bill - namely his slightly Left of centrist policies (the two Bushes with their slightly Right was also fine by me) - and without the bad. That she had already been "president" for eight years to me means she had eight years of "on the job training", just as did Bush 41.
Finally, allow me to reiterate, Joe was a dismal failure so far as I'm concerned - and I think he is due for a "big slide" in the ratings survey I've shared here from his present #14 (and I can only hope, for the good of "We The People", that Trump can ascend from his 45th - the worst POTUS ever - in that survey). Joe "campaigned" during '20, as a one term "bring us together" president. He turned out to want to "Out-Obama" with a transformational Left wing agenda, as well as overstaying his '20 proclaimed "welcome"- especially when learning of reports that his cognitive decline was evident to his "inner circle" long before the Debate that confirmed such to the public.
posted