Yesterday, Nate Cohn at the NY Times published a story confirming something he’d written about months ago. Kamala Harris didn’t lose the election because of low Democratic turnout. On the contrary, if the turnout had been higher she still would not have won.
In the wake of last November’s election, many Democrats blamed low turnout for Kamala Harris’s defeat…
Newly available data, based on authoritative voter turnout records, suggests that if anything, President Trump would have done even better if everyone had voted.
The new data, including a new study from Pew Research released Thursday, instead offers a more dispiriting explanation for Democrats: Young, nonwhite and irregular voters defected by the millions to Mr. Trump, costing Ms. Harris both the Electoral College and the popular vote.
This really has been an argument on the left since last November’s defeat. Traditionally, the argument has always been that higher turnout helps Democrats and lower turnout helps Republicans. Last year, that consensus turned into a battle between progressives and moderates. The progressives argued that Harris lost because she didn’t excite the Democratic base with progressive policy promises and, as a result, many Democrats stayed home. The moderates argued something very different: That progressives scared away swing-voters with their extreme positions and some of those voters wound up voting for Trump.
She is not qualified to change mints in the men’s urinals!
Who?
She’s definitely proven that leadership isn’t among her talents. She’s a follower.
Her talents are only with Willie Brown. He thinks she’s very talented!
HAHAHAHA Let her run-nobody would donate, she would AGAIN be humiliated. Maybe she can market her own booze “Kamala’s Little Helper” sold in 6-packs or 2 liter bottles at your favorite liquor store!