If Kamala loses, will she run for POTUS in 2028?
- Thread starter Finance85
- Start date
Trump ran again because of the court cases. He wants protection from prosecution. Harris won't have that problem.
When it comes to defending Trump online, Northern has the endurance of a Olympic Kenyan long distance runner
DeSantis would probably be looking to run this thing up in blue states if GOP Senators would have done their duty and convicted Trump. Instead they overestimated the decency of their base, thinking Trump would be politically dead from natural causes, but we all know how that worked.
Don't forget the grift. He will absolutely run again in 28 if he loses and every election until he dies. And I wouldn't put it past the Rs to run him out there again in 28 either.
The Rs will absolutely choose to nominate him again, too. He can milk things for another few years.
Technically I was around for Nixon, but Trump is the only candidate in my memory to run again after losing.
No the party won’t back her. The Dems have a much deeper bench than R’s right now. There’s any number of candidates that would be very strong. The key is forcing the far-left to chill out and fall in line when it comes to rally behind the pick. R’s do that way better than Dems.
That makes sense, but the federal cases didn't happen until after Trump decided to run again.
Biden had failed presidential runs in 1984, 1988, and 2008.
Kamala failed in 2020.
They were running to be their party nominee.
There absolutely is a difference. Many politicians run multiple campaigns to get the ticket nod; it takes years to build up name recognition. Before Trump, when’s the last time a loser of a general election ran in the next race? Teddy Roosevelt?
They did. The difference is rather significant however. Everyone but one person fails in securing the party nomination. What I was referring - obviously to those who can read and comprehend English - was those who secure their party nomination but fail in the actual election for POTUS. And it remains true, those who lose in that situation, rarely secure their party's nomination to run again. Because they lost, and party's want to win.
Trump is unique - like in many cases - because he failed in 2020 (even if you think it was stolen) because he has a cult following (you included) and an iron grip on the GOP.
You're in a cult. Big difference.
The irony here is so thick, a chainsaw might not cut it.
It’s easy to get a cult to fall in line. Simplest thing ever.
big difference. you are testing the waters in a primary.
He rejects that fact. He believes what he wants to believe, reality does not mean anything to him.
To answer the original question, I don’t think Harris would run again, but I certainly don’t think she’d do very well. No chance Walz would get the VP pick again.
You have to go back to Stevenson vs Ike…the second time largely because everyone knew Ike would win reelection.
Grover Cleveland in the late 1800s is the only time a POTUS lost reelection, then won a second term for years later.
I like how they always bring up the “you support a raper”
Are they not doing the same thing supporting Biden and Harris, how many illegals have they let in that are raping and killing. Heck one of these idiots the other day was supporting a transgender born a male, beating up a female. To funny I tell ya.
Helpful tip for ya, if you're going to be a smartass don't make stupid errors.
Adjudicated rapist and convicted felon with the mental capacity of a squash. You guys had options, but this is what you picked.
What would she run on? She’s already take every stance on every issue. Or would she just go back to supporting a fracking ban, getting rid of insurance and defunding the police?
No, and she shouldn't.
She's just too damn wooden.
To win POTUS you need to be a communicator and have the element of charisma or personal magnetism. I call it the "twinkle" or the "it" factor.
On top of her lacking the "it" factor, her campaign strategy is terrible. They are running her campaign like a state-level party machine election, i.e. trying to sell her resume and stockpiling endorsements. That's pretty much what state party machine candidates do.
Political machine candidates don't need to win over the public, they just need to go to cocktail parties and pretend to laugh at the lame jokes of influential people to win endorsements. Then in the campaign say, "hey see my last job title, I'm ready for the next job title. See all these people who endorsed me, I must be the right person for the next level position. " This has pretty much been her M.O. throughout her career.
And you CAN win governor or even US senator this way with the backing of the state party political machine. But you cannot win POTUS this way.
Plus you cannot win POTUS without the "it".
Full disclosure: I voted Harris.
She's just too damn wooden.
To win POTUS you need to be a communicator and have the element of charisma or personal magnetism. I call it the "twinkle" or the "it" factor.
On top of her lacking the "it" factor, her campaign strategy is terrible. They are running her campaign like a state-level party machine election, i.e. trying to sell her resume and stockpiling endorsements. That's pretty much what state party machine candidates do.
Political machine candidates don't need to win over the public, they just need to go to cocktail parties and pretend to laugh at the lame jokes of influential people to win endorsements. Then in the campaign say, "hey see my last job title, I'm ready for the next job title. See all these people who endorsed me, I must be the right person for the next level position. " This has pretty much been her M.O. throughout her career.
And you CAN win governor or even US senator this way with the backing of the state party political machine. But you cannot win POTUS this way.
Plus you cannot win POTUS without the "it".
Full disclosure: I voted Harris.
Trump is in a different position because he actually held office. The question should be how many former presidents ran for a non consecutive term. I can only recall one other off the top of my head that did and the only reason I know is because he won.
Not voting for either, but if I vote for someone it has zero to do with their personal life, everything to do with what policy they do or don’t support. Sometimes someone’s policy seems shitty enough you vote for the less shitty policy, even if that person is a puke
Problem is that Trump intertwines his personal life with public policy. In fact he prioritizes crafting public policy for personal gain.
