Hanaguma

Funny though that she has never shown that yet. She may have been a prosecutor but that was a while ago, and she was rather famous for never actually being in too many courtrooms. Not sure why people think she is such a braniac- Howard University (her alma mater) doesn't even crack the top 100 universities in America. University of Cali Law school was the #82 Law School in the States. Not exactly Ivy League.

I don't think she would, actually. What is her track record at debates so far? Look no further than the 2020 primaries. She does not do well when questioned directly or when she needs to answer extemporaneously. As for Trump, check his debates with Hillary Clinton. Some say he won and some that he lost, but it cannot be denied that he at least did respectably well. And Hillary is far the intellectual superior to Kamala, as well as a far better debater. So, if Trump could handle Hillary, he won't have trouble with Kamala. Especially if the debate is in a more GOP friendly arena. How about using Fox News?

Hell yeah, it is a very impressive start. No question. But if you review her 2020 campaign, it was remarkably similar. Lots of buzz in the beginning but tailed off. We shall see. I think the GOP was hoping for Biden to run, but Kamala was their next choice. They can tar her with the same brush regarding Biden's failed policies. Plus her own rather radical ideas. IMHO one of the more moderate governors would have been a stronger candidate at the top of the ticket.

Considering who Biden thought was the "smartest person I know", then Trump talking to his kids seems rather tame. They are all bright, well educated, well traveled, etc.

I thought those were checkmarks of the current Democratic Party....

Something could be worked out. But the key is to keep the Supremes away from politics. Having fixed terms would make the justices part of the political system and vulnerable to responding to politics rather than ruling based on the Constitution. Almost by nature a judgeship needs to be a terminal position, followed by retirement or death.

I have no issue with the fundraising, it has been building up for weeks. The money was drying up for Biden, the donors were waiting to see who was next. Now about the "grassroots, ground up" campaign that has seemingly elevated Kamala to the top spot on the ticket, any ideas what it is about? Here is what Schumer said 48 hours after Biden quit; “When I spoke with her Sunday, she said she wanted the opportunity to win from the grassroots up, not top-down,” Schumer began. “We deeply respected that, Hakeem and I did. She said she would work to earn the support of our party and boy has she done so in short order. So now that the process has played out from the grassroots, bottom up, we are here today to throw our support behind Vice President Kamala Harris!” https://nypost.com/2024/07/23/us-news/schumer-jeffries-set-to-endorse-kamala-harris-as-dem-nominee/

If by "knocking it out of the park", you mean jumping a full 1.5% in the national polls, then yes she is. But if history is any indication, she starts strong and finishes very weak. I am also curious as to the "grassroots, from the bottom up" process by which she is being awarded the nomination. Chuck Schumer didn't give any details about it...

They are not 'slurs' if they are true. She was and is a California liberal, judging by her political positions. She was chosen as VP on the basis of her race and gender. She DID have an affair with a married man. Separated yes, but married. Also 30 years older. Also the purpose was to further her career- and it worked, according to the married man she was sleeping with. THAT is the problem. She may very well be unlikeable if you go by the turnover of her staff. More than 90% have left since 2020. Time will tell. The GOP should focus on her politics and her failures.

Yes, she is either described as both or as black. But never as Indian only, even though if you break it down her Brahmin Indian part is the biggest. It is pretty obviously political.

JD will be fine. He will appeal to the voters in the Rust Belt and the swing states there especially. They will NOT be impressed with a California liberal whatsoever. JD speaks their language and has lived in their world. He is also more conservative than Trump, especially on abortion. That will shore up the social conservatives, while Trump can still seem moderate.

True, but Kamala the Prosecutor was a long time ago. Her more recent record as Attorney General (an election she came very close to losing), her utter failure in 2020, and her invisibility (to be generous) as VP matter far more. There needs to be some extensive rebranding of her image to make her palatable to the public. She has supported some very radical measures that are not in line with the general public zeitgeist in the US.

They matter when the results of the affair bleed into politics. Willie Brown paved the way for Kamala to meet the upper echelon of California Democratic politics. The first big step of her political career was as a result of sleeping with him. Without him, she would have been just another mediocre lawyer working for the gubmint.

Problem is, Kamala knows nothing about any of those three issues. The best she did was to stand behind Biden when he was signing bills into law and clap like a trained seal. Where she was raised politically, they are non-issues.

That's reasonable, a lot of us furriners are opining on what happens Stateside. But to the American voters, foreign policy generally takes a back seat to domestic concerns- prices, crime, inflation, immigration. The Dems will probably spend a lot of time crying "abortion! Felon! Racist! Woman hater!" and try to make it stick.

I meant in comparison to Kamala. That is the thrust of this discussion. If you want to think on the foreign policy front, we could have a chat about that too.

That is kinda strange. AFAIK, inflation was 1.4% when the Bad Orange Man left the White House, then jumped to over 9% under Biden. But I could be wrong... anyway most Democrats seem to think that campaigning on the wonders of Bidenomics is not a winner for this election. Another problem is that Kamala, well, is not a very skilled politician. Biden was better, even Trump is better. She is not likeable and not warm, that was proven in her disastrous 2020 run at the White House. Her one great skill is that she is very very good at working the room of the insiders and power brokers of the Democratic Party. This is probably a result of her spending so long in the safe cocoon of California Democratic politics. Basically a uniparty state. As time goes by and she is exposed to the general public more and more, her weakness in this area will start to drag her down.

Perhaps if anything good comes out of this debacle, that might be it. Term limits for all levels, not just President. I mean, look at who is running both parties, from Pelosi to Schumer to Grassley... all dinosaurs. I would venture that 2 terms at each level, and no more re-election after 70, would be reasonable. There is no reason for someone to be in Congress for 3 decades.

Very true. We had to have that conversation with my father after he had a stroke. It was not pleasant... Imagine how peaceful life would have been if Joe has simply stated he was not standing for re-election BEFORE the Democratic primaries started. Plus better for the country overall, America is now showing its ass around the world and people are not impressed.

Poor old guy, he gave it his best shot. Now he has been hung out to dry by his party. They forced him into a debate that they knew he wasn't ready for, used that as an excuse to sharpen the knives, then threw him under the bus. Now, just a couple of days later, crickets. It is as if he never existed. Never mind, everyone, nothing to see here, we have a new queen to coronate! The media has forgotten him in the stampede to rehabilitate Kamala and elevate her to the big chair. He resigned by Tweet in a letter written by someone else, has yet to appear before the American people to explain what happened. Et tu, Nancy?

Interesting article, but it is a bit sloppy. Gives stats for "woman and children" as crime victims, yet crime against children is not misogynistic. Reality is that men are more likely to be both the victim of crime and the perpetrator. I think something like twice as many men are murdered than women, for example. Wonder when the committee to stop violence against men will be set up?

Ah yes, the prosecutor who said whe was "proud" of a rapist (Jacob Blake) who assaulted police officers. Who set up and promoted charities to pay the bail for violent rioters. Who jailed pot smokers and was a pot smoker herself. You are right, it WILL be a nice debate.

Nikki Haley ran in the past. As did Tulsi Gabbard.

Here are the words of WIllie Brown himself; “Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was Assembly speaker. I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco." He was married at the time. Not "technically true". He was married. Doesn't matter if he and his wife were separated. He was married.

Give her time to implode.