No matter what you think of Kamala's performance as VP, the bottom line is that I see no evidence that Kamala resonates with voters. She performed very poorly in the primaries, and it wasn't because of a lack of early money or a lack of early helium. Her popularity seems to have gone down since she became VP.

And as ladybruin says, the road is much tougher for female candidates than male candidates for all the wrong reasons.

This is an interesting post, but I don't know if I 100% agree with it. Trump's entourage is constantly changing because he is such an impossible boss, yet Trump remains.

Lets not forget she got destroyed by Tulsi in the primary debates exposing her record. She was a horrible choice for VP But she ticked the required boxes. The same can be said for the new WH Press Secreatary

While I do think both women and POC have a tougher road to the top, I also think the right woman or POC can be propelled to the top, if they have the right game and image. I think someone like Michelle Obama or Oprah, or even Stacey Abrahms, would benefit more than be harmed by being women and POC.

Kamala, imo, does not struggle because she is a woman or a POC, but rather because she is so very combative. She seems to not be able to turn off the Prosecutor in her, and in so many interviews, when confronted with tough, but normal questions, she seems to switch to confronting the Interviewer in a combative or dismissive way rather than finding a way to disarm the question with some grace. I hate to say it but she seems to be a worse Hillary Clinton in that regard.

And if Kamala runs I suspect it will male POC and white women (suburbs) who do not show up in the numbers needed to vote for her. Those will be her biggest loss areas.

This is the one thing that has really perplexed me with Trump, especially with some of the people who join him but had otherwise high level careers otherwise.

I totally get how Trump seems to pull people in, past their prior comfort zone and then into being a shameless liar and for some to take criminal actions. I think so many think they can get into Trump's orbit and remain uncorrupted but few, if any, seem to be able to withstand him.

And that is because he starts small. He just expects you to cover for a few of his lies, in what seems to be the normal type political shade, these people are used to doing. But then there is another and bigger lie, and another right after that. Soon the person has covered for so many lies, that they are being accused of being a liar. So now they start to OWN the lies and must defend themselves. So now they are not just defending lies but lying themselves. Then Trump is demanding actions that are on the fringe, and so on and on. Until the person is actually doing fringe legal/ethical things themselves.

Trump is unrelenting. It is always one more inch, deeper into lies, deeper into unethical and illegal activity, to the point the person feels they are All In as they are exposed. They are not just protecting a criminal and unethical Trump, and are trying to salvage themself. Trump has to win, so they can win.

But where I am shocked is on how few turn to 'save themselves'. How many seem to be willing to go to jail (or risk it) to keep faith with Trump. More understandable when he was POTUS but post POTUS, why would someone like Mark Meddows not want to just go in, get full immunity, and give fulsome testimony and move on with his life with his family with no more legal threat hanging over his head? If not Meddows there have to be a dozen more very key officials DOJ would bargain with for full cooperation.


Trump really seems to have a mob like hold on them all without the typical Mob threat that if you rat I will kill you and your family and that is strange to me. Especially when they must all know Trump would abandon each and everyone of them to save himself.

A prime example of that is the old guy that testified in the hearings from Arizona . Trump tried to destroy him and his followers threatened him. after that first day I said to my sister I wish they asked him Would you vote for Trump in 2024? The next day they did and he said Yes

Though I can not see how if your a GOP person why you would be swayed by a Biden or Harris or Pete ticket. Obama swayed some of the average GOP's and they really got nothing from him either

While ticking the right boxes can and should be considered, I do not think that necessarily was the key to Kamala's choice.

I think more key is that there was really no good choice that would be received well and be looked at as a good heir apparent for Biden.

As much as I do not like her, I think perhaps only Elizabeth Warren, may have been able to take the VP and grown in stature in that role as she is quite good at dealing with situations and the press in a way that seems very focused and intelligent but not come across combative or haughty.

Yup. it is a shocking cult hold he has on them and i do not think it can be defined as any thing other than a cult.

In all seriousness i think that guy would vote again for Trump, even knowing in doing so, Trump would come after him and finish the job of destroying him and his family. Look how many people have testified about the horrible things Trump put them through, and yet they still say they would vote for him again.

Np you just stated who the best clear choice was and that was Elizabeth Warren but sadly she did not tick off the person of color box . She was me second choice for the best Presidential candidate

I dunno if the women who lied about her ancestry, lied about her support of Reagan, and plagiarized recipes in the NYT is good at dealing with the press.

well maybe she is since people actually think she is at all viable.

I am not denying checking boxes count, as I said it should. I just don't think it is everything otherwise every single person put in place would check all the right boxes. Wehn McCain picked Palin it was because she checked different boxes. When Obama picked Biden it was because he checked certain boxes.

I think there is only a tendency to ridicule it or point at it being done when it involves a POC as 'men', 'old men', 'white men', 'women', 'white women' have been boxes in play as a positive for most such positions for the entirety of my life and only recently has POC entered as a box that is looked at positively and suddenly we get all these comments on 'box checking' that were never said prior.


I think the family lore re ancestry was told to her and she believed it. She certainly never had to test, if she did not.

She was a republican prior, so not sure why she would lie about it? Not saying she did not lie as I am unfamiliar with that story. Just seems strange as she was a long time Republicans AFAIK.

nYT recipes. Again no knowledge by me of that. Not really interesting to me.


Again I am no fan of Warren as I think she is a Progressive only because she thought she take Bernies place and lead the wing. I am not sure her prior GOp heart moved that far left and she has shown if she cannot be the Progressive nominee she has zero interest in seeing another progressive ascend to the top. I think she is selfish and not a good faith actor.

But I also think she, second only to Katie Porter, takes on the GOP and corporate interests in a clear and concise way which citizens can understand. People label there exposes as theatrics but they are full of detail and not just the usual type empty scolding rhetoric that usually comes from Congressional over sight, with all parties going for beers after and apologizing for roughing each other up.

Another low effort misdirection about Democrat women's chances at the 2024 Presidential Election in the.... 1/6/21 Capitol Attack/attempted coup thread.



Fat **** who has problems saying the words Industry and Yosemite is sweating his makeup off at the moment, tune in at 10amEST on Tuesday to see why!

Im surprised you never asked me who my first choice for the democratic nominee was? guess

In 2024?

Oprah or Michelle Obama from what I remember.

No 2020 instead of Joe. I do not think Oprah could handle the job. Michelle would be a lock though

Trump knows the game by reducing quickly his liabilities ?
That is why he fires them all .
I guess it act as a form of omertà .

It’s a tough process to go through but it’s imo the only way.

U got to break the moat ( dispensable associates ) first to get to the castle .
Imo the power of trump wasn’t trump himself , it was his irresponsible entourage
(Barr, pence, head of the senate,etc) protecting him .
No one wins a war by himself .

I think it’s possible .
It’s a form of progressive blackmail .
U saw this often in movies .

It stay with a shameful thing that seem big in the beginning but u end up reaching a point where at end u are in real trouble by trying to cover bigger lies ( or shameful act) as time goes by , compare to what u begin with .

Uh oh, fatass' lawyers are beginning to turn up the heat!



Six hours is far too long to say "fifth" the whole time, Tuesday is shaping up to be a banger!

His moustache-waxed first impeachment lawyer is also throwing dirt on the grave.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-crimi...y-cobb-1722882

It's impossible to separate being a woman, or being a person of color, from who Michelle Obama and Stacy Abrahms are, so I have no way of judging what sort of candidates they would be if they were white men.

That said, I agree that it would be possible for someone like Michelle Obama to be elected president. If Michelle Obama announced that she was running, I think that she would become the overnight favorite to win the nomination.

I am 100% certain that various high profile Democrats have tried to talk Michelle Obama into running. And I'm equally sure that a bunch of Democrats have tried to convince Barack to lean on her. But I'm inclined to believe her when she says that she has no interest in the job.

Just as Donald Trump is incapable of distinguishing between his personal interest and the national interest, he is incapable of distinguishing between a personal lawyer and counsel to the White House.

8.5 hours on site, 90 minutes in breaks, 7 hours of sworn testimony without pleading the fifth.

Donnie Dementia needs his extra strength diapers this weekend. I hope the music man is ready to sing the whole Cats soundtrack to soothe his dementia rage.

Are people generally not concerned about this issue with the Secret Service?

While I certainly understand the SS desire for privacy between them and their charge (POTUS, other) and how any breach of the shield of that privacy can lead, in the future to it being much harder for them to do their job, oversights is still a thing.

Does anyone dispute that the SS, if indeed they deliberately deleted text messages to protect their conversation and their charge (POTUS), is positioning themselves as 'above the law'?

It is incomprehensible that in today's day and age, a simple thing like getting new phones is not accompanied by 'backing up' ones data. More so, it is incomprehensible that such data is not just automatically backed up to a secure server since the archive requires such data be kept, which then should necissitate some form of back up so there are no 'oops' moments.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-...ittee-n1297373

primetime vivisection of the obese orange menace

Agreed, but I wish someone other than Luria was handling the bulk of the presentation. I don't find her to be very compelling.