Kamala can’t win

[Hammster]

Kamala Can't Win

Harris faces structural disadvantages that no amount of astroturfing and fraud can overcome.

open.substack.com

Opinion piece. I’m sure that all my liberal friends will agree.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Kamala Can't Win

Harris faces structural disadvantages that no amount of astroturfing and fraud can overcome.

open.substack.com

Opinion piece. I’m sure that all my liberal friends will agree.

I think you discount the power of propaganda.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I saw "structural disadvantages" and thought this would be some riff on the notion that Blacks face disadvantages in society.

No, it's even less clever and more unhinged than that. I looked up the author's bibliography and he's got some.... interesting... takes. My favorite so far is this one from 2020 in which he argued that state legislatures should live up to their "republican principles" and send their own electors to overturn their popular votes and reinstall Trump as president.

 

[PloverWing]

Wow. So Josiah Lippincott is announcing in advance that if Harris wins the election, he will declare that the the election was fraudulent and will call on his supporters to reject the elected government in Washington. He would rather pull down democracy itself than see his candidate lose the election. This is bad stuff.

 

[Hammster]

I saw "structural disadvantages" and thought this would be some riff on the notion that Blacks face disadvantages in society.

No, it's even less clever and more unhinged than that. I looked up the author's bibliography and he's got some.... interesting... takes. My favorite so far is this one from 2020 in which he argued that state legislatures should live up to their "republican principles" and send their own electors to overturn their popular votes and reinstall Trump as president.

Interesting that this has nothing to do with the OP.

 

[Yttrium]

The opinion piece is nonsensical. Harris is a sitting vice president and has run for president in the past. Her current standing in the polls shows her to be at least as popular a pick as Trump. From what I can tell, the majority of Democrats support her candidacy, and her selection easily falls within Democrat convention rules.

The writer of the opinion piece is reaching so hard that his arms are in danger of falling off.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Interesting that this has nothing to do with the OP.

What is there to talk about? The prediction at the heart of the piece in your OP is unknowable. Beyond that, it's just a bunch of factual errors wrapped up in a silly rant. I mean, just this line:

She is not popular. She is not inspiring. She has no base of support.

That's idiotic. She's polling ahead of Trump. She's got more money than him. Those numbers are what had been reported as of 7/29 and I assume they include Biden's prior fundraising, but they clearly don't include record-breaking amounts raised during July and then in August after Walz was announced.

Is there something substantive in there that you wanted to talk about?

 

[Hammster]

There’s nothing I need to discuss.

 

[durangodawood]

There’s nothing I need to discuss.

So starting something in the "discussion and debate" section with no intent to discuss.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

A few thousand fraudulent votes in close, crucial swing states can do wonders. Stick to the game plan libs.

 

[Ted-01]

Kamala Can't Win

Harris faces structural disadvantages that no amount of astroturfing and fraud can overcome.

open.substack.com

Opinion piece. I’m sure that all my liberal friends will agree.

Has she even interviewed yet since her announcement to "run"?

 

[Hans Blaster]

People wonder why the Trump apparatus is seen as anti-democratic. This screed illustrates that perfectly.

From this:

Should the DC regime install Kamala it will mean the end of our constitutional order and of free and fair elections. Kamala cannot legitimately win the presidency. Should the media declare her the winner on November 6th it would be an absurdity on the scale of journalists insisting that North Korean elections are free and fair.

To this:

The regime cannot survive the installation of another astroturfed and unpopular political leader into the highest office in the land. The weight of the sheer ridiculousness of it all will bring faith in our system of government crashing to the ground.

To this:

Kamala is a line in the sand. If she can be installed in the presidency then there is no reason to keep holding elections, the DNC and its media apparatchiks can simply make or break the presidency with a snap of the fingers. In this scenario, there is no longer any reason for patriotic Americans to serve or support the regime in DC. They must withdraw their consent and search for new guards for their future security.

and closing like this:

We can be certain of one thing, however, Kamala is not going to win a fair election in November. It is impossible.

This insurrectionist make it clear that he does not care for elections or the law at all. Putting his guy in power is the only thing that matters. All Americans should reject this attitude and recognize the threat this is to our country.

 

[Hammster]

People wonder why the Trump apparatus is seen as anti-democratic. This screed illustrates that perfectly.

From this:


To this:



To this:


and closing like this:


This insurrectionist make it clear that he does not care for elections or the law at all. Putting his guy in power is the only thing that matters. All Americans should reject this attitude and recognize the threat this is to our country.

You read that way wrong. But I get it.

 

[ozso]

What is there to talk about? The prediction at the heart of the piece in your OP is unknowable. Beyond that, it's just a bunch of factual errors wrapped up in a silly rant. I mean, just this line:



That's idiotic. She's polling ahead of Trump. She's got more money than him. Those numbers are what had been reported as of 7/29 and I assume they include Biden's prior fundraising, but they clearly don't include record-breaking amounts raised during July and then in August after Walz was announced.

Is there something substantive in there that you wanted to talk about?

Money is a nonissue considering Trump has Musk backing him financially. One of the problems with having someone with over $200 billion as a backer, is it most likely leaves potential doners figuring Musk has the financial end fully covered. And once the hoopla over the Harris - Walz ticket wears off there's a good chance the surge in the polls will drop.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You read that way wrong. But I get it.

There isn't any other way to read it: "If my guy doesn't win, then it is false, and elections don't matter."

The unquoted portion of the screed consists of a lot of delusional notions about how VP Harris couldn't possibly win and the Democrats are already cheating, etc. Trump, despite his claim yesterday, is not loved by 75% of the people. He is not inevitable and not invincible. Until the mask came off at the debate, President Biden had reasonable shot of winning. Many prominent Democrats, including the VP, also would have reasonable shot of winning.

The difference between me and this anti-democratic sub-stacker is that I also think Trump has a reasonable chance of winning as does VP Harris have a chance. The majority of Americans recognize this.

 

[ozso]

There isn't any other way to read it: "If my guy doesn't win, then it is false, and elections don't matter."

The unquoted portion of the screed consists of a lot of delusional notions about how VP Harris couldn't possibly win and the Democrats are already cheating, etc. Trump, despite his claim yesterday, is not loved by 75% of the people. He is not inevitable and not invincible. Until the mask came off at the debate, President Biden had reasonable shot of winning. Many prominent Democrats, including the VP, also would have reasonable shot of winning.

The difference between me and this anti-democratic sub-stacker is that I also think Trump has a reasonable chance of winning as does VP Harris have a chance. The majority of Americans recognize this.

What's notable is all the support Biden was getting even though he's clearly unfit for another four years in office, until as you say, the mask came off.

 

[Hammster]

There isn't any other way to read it: "If my guy doesn't win, then it is false, and elections don't matter."

That’s not the context.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

That’s not the context.

I agree with Hans. What's your take?

 

[PloverWing]

That’s not the context.

Okay, give me a context.

One possibility is that Lippincott lives in such a bubble that he can't imagine that Trump could have lost the election to Biden last time, and he can't imagine Kamala Harris being popular now. So he thinks that Trump really won the election last time, and he thinks that the only way Harris could win this time is through fraud, because no one in his bubble would vote for either Biden or Harris. That's my most charitable reading of his article. (There are other, less charitable possibilities, but let's start with this one.)

So, is this the context you have in mind? Or, is there some other context in which his post makes sense?

 

[iluvatar5150]

You read that way wrong. But I get it.

That’s not the context.

Did you read the article of his from 2020 that I cited? He explicitly called for state legislatures to do exactly what @Hans Blaster interpreted him as suggesting in your OP. “Republican principles” was his wording, not mine.

Methinks you might be the one not aware of the context.