Kamala can’t win

[Nithavela]

This is some really low quality bait.

 

[A2SG]

And she received 0 votes from the American people.

Neither did Gerald Ford, and he was President. Harris will face voters come November, which is more than Ford did.

-- A2SG, facts seem to be against this point of view, it appears....

 

[MrMoe]

This video came out before Biden stepped down. It outlines very well why Kamala Harris should never be president.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No, not all of the voting. Nobody voted for her in the primary. She simply took Joe's votes for herself, along with his campaign funds.

She won over the delegates that were pledged for Pres. Biden's renomination along with VP Harris' renomination. Everyone who cast a ballot in a presidential preference primary knew she was the joined with him. (As for the funds, she was part of that campaign from the beginning as a candidate for VP.)

She couldn't even get votes in 2019 during that primary. Now all she has to do is convince people to vote for her in the general election once she gets past reading teleprompters and shirking interview requests.

There weren't any primaries in 2019.

 

[HIM]

And she received 0 votes from the American people.

Which is a travesty. The system set up is being ignored by the system and the brain dead populous. Whether or not she is a good candidate is irrelevant due to that one fact.

 

[A2SG]

Which is a travesty. The system set up is being ignored by the system and the brain dead populous. Whether or not she is a good candidate is irrelevant due to that one fact.

We've already had one president who actually assumed office without having received a single vote, so it's hardly unprecedented. But, the difference here is, Kamala Harris isn't president yet. That will be determined by vote, so we're already a step ahead of 1974.

-- A2SG, just to add a bit of perspective....

 

[ozso]

Neither did Gerald Ford, and he was President. Harris will face voters come November, which is more than Ford did.

-- A2SG, facts seem to be against this point of view, it appears....

What facts? Were there no protests against Ford taking over? Were there no problems with him being president? Just because something similar happened in history, doesn't make it a good thing, or something that should be repeated.

 

[A2SG]

What facts? Were there no protests against Ford taking over?

Nothing significant, as I recall. There were probably some people who objected, but no legal objections were raised, nor was his presidency challenged in court.

Were there no problems with him being president?

Well, most generally regard him as below-average for his presidency, but there were no significant problems during his tenure. No attempts to impeach, for example, nor was he indicted for anything after his term.

Just because something similar happened in history, doesn't make it a good thing, or something that should be repeated.

It wasn't similar, and it isn't being repeated. Kamala Harris was duly elected to the office she currently holds, and she will be on the ballot for President in November (presuming she's the party's nominee, which seems to be assured at this point), and the voters will decide. Also, just to be clear, Kamala Harris did receive votes during the various primaries, she was President Biden's running mate, and on the ballot just as he was. The only difference was, she wasn't the head of the ticket...but everyone who voted for President Biden knew she'd be the one to take over if Biden were unable to continue for whatever reason.

My point was simply that, whatever problems some people may have with the way Kamala Harris entered the presidential race this year, it's far from the most unusual circumstance surrounding a presidential election.

-- A2SG, but, granted, if you object to her, or the manner in which she was nominated, you are still free to not vote for her....that's more than those who were opposed to Gerald Ford got....

 

[HIM]

We've already had one president who actually assumed office without having received a single vote, so it's hardly unprecedented. But, the difference here is, Kamala Harris isn't president yet. That will be determined by vote, so we're already a step ahead of 1974.

-- A2SG, just to add a bit of perspective....

Yeah that makes it right....

 

[A2SG]

Yeah that makes it right....

No, what makes it right is that all the rules for nomination in the Democratic Party have been followed, and should Harris be given the nomination as the Democratic candidate for President, she will be on the ballot in the general election, where the voters will decide on the next President.

If she's elected, it will only be after the voters decide.

-- A2SG, same as every other president...well, with one exception.....

 

[ozso]

Nothing significant, as I recall. There were probably some people who objected, but no legal objections were raised, nor was his presidency challenged in court.


Well, most generally regard him as below-average for his presidency, but there were no significant problems during his tenure. No attempts to impeach, for example, nor was he indicted for anything after his term.


It wasn't similar, and it isn't being repeated. Kamala Harris was duly elected to the office she currently holds, and she will be on the ballot for President in November (presuming she's the party's nominee, which seems to be assured at this point), and the voters will decide. Also, just to be clear, Kamala Harris did receive votes during the various primaries, she was President Biden's running mate, and on the ballot just as he was. The only difference was, she wasn't the head of the ticket...but everyone who voted for President Biden knew she'd be the one to take over if Biden were unable to continue for whatever reason.

My point was simply that, whatever problems some people may have with the way Kamala Harris entered the presidential race this year, it's far from the most unusual circumstance surrounding a presidential election.

-- A2SG, but, granted, if you object to her, or the manner in which she was nominated, you are still free to not vote for her....that's more than those who were opposed to Gerald Ford got....

What was your point in comparing Harris to Ford?

 

[A2SG]

What was your point in comparing Harris to Ford?

I didn't compare them. I simply said that, whatever problems some people may have with the way Kamala Harris entered the presidential race this year, it's far from the most unusual circumstance surrounding a presidential election. There is nothing illegal about Harris' candidacy, and, should she become president, it will only be after a vote.

Unusual doesn't equate to wrong, in other words. And in this case, Harris' candidacy may be unusual, but it's far from the most unusual one we've seen.

-- A2SG, and that's all I'm sayin'....

 

[Hammster]

Neither did Gerald Ford, and he was President. Harris will face voters come November, which is more than Ford did.

-- A2SG, facts seem to be against this point of view, it appears....

Interesting. For some reason I assumed that in 1976 he actually had to secure the nomination through normal means. I guess I was wrong.

 

[KCfromNC]

And she received 0 votes from the American people.

The election is in November. And to be fair, she did get more votes than Trump in the last presidential election. Maybe that makes Trump super duper unelectable, since he got fewer votes than someone "unelectable".

 

[ozso]

I didn't compare them. I simply said that, whatever problems some people may have with the way Kamala Harris entered the presidential race this year, it's far from the most unusual circumstance surrounding a presidential election. There is nothing illegal about Harris' candidacy, and, should she become president, it will only be after a vote.

Unusual doesn't equate to wrong, in other words. And in this case, Harris' candidacy may be unusual, but it's far from the most unusual one we've seen.

-- A2SG, and that's all I'm sayin'....

The situation with Ford was similar to that of LBJ. With the obvious exception of assassination vs resignation putting them in the office of president. The situation with Harris is an entirely different ball of wax. There's never been a time when during the middle of a campaign for a second term, a president suddely dropped out. This situation is unprecedented.

 

[ozso]

I've noticed a number of posts like this which are variations on "is not" in response to posts with factual explanations. I wonder at what point they'd be considered goading.

Stay on topic please.

 

[Whyayeman]

Interesting. For some reason I assumed that in 1976 he actually had to secure the nomination through normal means. I guess I was wrong.

Yes, Gerald Ford replaced Spiro Agnew as Vice President after he resigned (in disgrace). Nobody voted for him. Nixon chose him. It was perfectly constitutional as far as I know.

He became President on Nixon's resignation (also in disgrace).

Back on-topic: it is perfectly clear that Kamala Harris can win. That is why the right has its knickers in such a twist.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, Gerald Ford replaced Spiro Agnew as Vice President after he resigned (in disgrace). Nobody voted for him. Nixon chose him. It was perfectly constitutional as far as I know.

He became President on Nixon's resignation (also in disgrace).

Back on-topic: it is perfectly clear that Kamala Harris can win. That is why the right has its knickers in such a twist.

How does this even compare? Nobody votes for vice president.

 

[A2SG]

Interesting. For some reason I assumed that in 1976 he actually had to secure the nomination through normal means. I guess I was wrong.

When he ran for reelection in 1976, he did. He lost to Jimmy Carter.

But prior to that, Gerald Ford was appointed VP when Spiro Agnew resigned rather than be indicted for tax evasion while in office (he pled no contest to a single charge afterward), then became President when Nixon later resigned amid Watergate. Ford's first act as president was to pardon Nixon. Some speculate he only became VP because he agreed to do that.

No one voted for Ford as President for that term. At all.

-- A2SG, so not the same as Harris, who will face voters in November....

 

[KCfromNC]

Stay on topic please.

A comment directly addressing the content of a post by the OP of the thread seems about as on topic as it could be.