My wife believes that the reason she lost was due to the fact that she was a black women and a black women could not be elected President of the United States. I disagree, the reason she lost is that she lied to the American people. She knew of the mental decline of President Biden and she did nothing about it. She did not do her job.
Harris was also an incumbent who tried to run on the slogan of "turning the page" on the past. That didn't make any sense.
Harris' main skill was in denigrating opponents. That wasn't enough to win against an opponent who had a record of serving as president that was more reality-based than Harris' sloganeering.
There was something very condescending and cringeworthy about Harris. The video that Harris sent in lieu of attending the Alfred Smith charity dinner illustrates these characteristics that made Harris unlikeable.
And on race and sex, the best perspective comes from the UK Conservative party. Margaret Thatcher was not held back by being a woman. Kemi Badenoch was not held back by being Black. The most plausible way that Harris losing is connected to being female and Black is that Harris was a DEI hire chosen not for quality, but for being female and Black. Harris failed because of a lack of quality.
Harris was a bad choice for a candidate. The Democrats blundered by sneaking Harris into that role.
It is indeed a sign of quality and guts that Ira Stoll had such an insightful analysis at a time when conventional wisdom said the opposite. I say the same about WSJ Features Editor James Taranto, whose response to my draft op-ed on how polling can fail spectacularly was to insist on putting the op-ed online on Tuesday, while the voting booths were still open (https://www.wsj.com/opinion/when-is-a-poll-not-a-poll-voters-trust-models-2024-election-ed04cd18). The op-ed is also in Wednesday's print WSJ.
You nailed it! Spot on!
My wife believes that the reason she lost was due to the fact that she was a black women and a black women could not be elected President of the United States. I disagree, the reason she lost is that she lied to the American people. She knew of the mental decline of President Biden and she did nothing about it. She did not do her job.
Harris was also an incumbent who tried to run on the slogan of "turning the page" on the past. That didn't make any sense.
Harris' main skill was in denigrating opponents. That wasn't enough to win against an opponent who had a record of serving as president that was more reality-based than Harris' sloganeering.
There was something very condescending and cringeworthy about Harris. The video that Harris sent in lieu of attending the Alfred Smith charity dinner illustrates these characteristics that made Harris unlikeable.
And on race and sex, the best perspective comes from the UK Conservative party. Margaret Thatcher was not held back by being a woman. Kemi Badenoch was not held back by being Black. The most plausible way that Harris losing is connected to being female and Black is that Harris was a DEI hire chosen not for quality, but for being female and Black. Harris failed because of a lack of quality.
Harris was a bad choice for a candidate. The Democrats blundered by sneaking Harris into that role.
It is indeed a sign of quality and guts that Ira Stoll had such an insightful analysis at a time when conventional wisdom said the opposite. I say the same about WSJ Features Editor James Taranto, whose response to my draft op-ed on how polling can fail spectacularly was to insist on putting the op-ed online on Tuesday, while the voting booths were still open (https://www.wsj.com/opinion/when-is-a-poll-not-a-poll-voters-trust-models-2024-election-ed04cd18). The op-ed is also in Wednesday's print WSJ.
And I'm sure happy that you did.