I see that James Talarico is doing something that Kamala did not

[senseandsensibility]

During his interview with Lawrence last night, he defined his opponent with surgical precision. Incorporated in every answer was the term "the most corrupt politician in America" about Paxton. He also referred almost as often to Paxton enriching himself and doing nothing to lower prices. He was a master at pivoting to those two things no matter what the subject and still answering the question.

Ironically, this may be one good thing that comes out of the 2024 "autopsy" which found that Dems did not define their opponent. The simple fact is that you can have all the great ideas in the world (and Dems do) but first you need to "dirty up" your opponent. That way, voters will listen more critically to their lies and name-calling

Kamala did a great job and I am not trying to second guess her. She was in an impossible position in many ways and she did a great job with what she was handed. But if we can learn something from that race, let's do do. Defining your opponent AND presenting a positive vision for the future is unbelievably difficult. But from what I saw from Talarico last night, he understands that and is going to do it!

[leftieNanner]

1. Yes!

And he also needs to reach out to lifelong Republicans and convince them that they haven't gotten such a great deal under their "leadership".

[senseandsensibility]

3. Yes, he must do many things at once

but since I was a teacher for decades, and I know that Talarico also was a classroom teacher, I have faith that he can do it. In teaching, you have to stay focused and on message yet be able to react to behavior problems, lack of understanding from students, distractions of various kinds. You have to be flexible and switch up your approach in a calm, logical way but still maintain your focus on the material you are teaching. I recognize his teaching experience in his technique during interviews.

[peggysue2]

41. It's a big ask of anyone

But I agree, Talarico's teaching background gives him an edge, particularly when you know that Republicans are going to throw every weaponized cultural question his way to distract, deflect and shape the narrative to their advantage. Also, use all the name calling you'd expect of the Trump fluffer Paxton.

Talarico's vegan response was quick and good, humor at its most effective. The Republicans are already dubbing the man Talafreako because of former comments regarding gender. They're also suggesting he may be gay, he may be this, he may be that.

Talarico's challenge will be to deflect the smears with the same grace and humor Mamdani managed while highlighting Paxton's indisputable criminality then punching through with his own positive, working-class vision for the future.

Mamdani did this. Platner (whether you like him or not) is skilled in this sort of street fight. I'm hoping Talarico finds his own footing and brings his own passion to the fore without over-reacting to the garbage Republicans will undoubtedly throw at him.

If he does that, it will be the end of Paxton's slimy career.

[dalton99a]

2. Kick

[travelingthrulife]

4. It is also important he confronts MAGA christianity about their bastardization of Christianity.

Only another Christian addressing this could possibly impact them because they are so rigid in their thinking. Catholicism and Mormonism do not count for MAGA christians since they do not believe they are true Christians.

[senseandsensibility]

5. I'm not particularly religious so maybe I'm not a good judge

but from what I've seen, Talarico is very good at doing just what you are suggesting.

[travelingthrulife]

87. Agreed. I am not religious either. His voice is important.

[pat_k]

30. The distinction is between Christian Nationalism and Christianity.

The difference is between having personal beliefs others may vehemently disagree with, and seeking to impose those beliefs as a matter of law.

And that is the simple definition of a Christian Nationalist: People who are committed to passing laws that impose their PERSONAL religious beliefs on Americans who DO NOT SHARE those beliefs. Seeking to pass such laws is both deeply Un-Christian and Un-American.

What is SERIOUSLY problematic is overgeneralizing or using the label "Christian" when what you are talking about and objecting to is Christian Nationalism.

Frankly, just being a racist does not cross a red line in America. Each of us has a right to hold hatreds, personal animosities, or other awful beliefs in our hearts. (Just as we have a right to hold more benevolent, compassionate beliefs). Where the red line is crossed is when people break the law to harm or discriminate, or they empoy the levers of governmental power, whether judicial, legislative, or executive, to implement those personal beliefs as a matter of enforceable public policy. Doing that is an intolerable violation of constitutional moral principles.

And I don't think there is anyone who does a better job of speaking out against Christian Nationalism -- speaking against the cancer on Christianity that Christian Nationalism represents -- than James Talarico.

[Festivito]

65. That is a must-see for clarity.

[pat_k]

67. That sermon put him on my radar at the end of 2023.

I saw him as an incredibly effective voice desperately needed on the national stage at a time when the rise of Christian Nationalists and White Supremacists represents perhaps the biggest threat we face.

I was delighted to see his star on the rise as a leading voice in the walkout to break quorum on redistricting. And I was over the moon when he announced he was running for the U.S. Senate.

I'm not a Christian, but I pray to whatever powers may be that Ted Cruz is forced to welcome him to the Senate as the Jr. Senator from Texas on Jan 3 2027.

[travelingthrulife]

88. They aren't all Christian Nationalists though, many just have a really hateful interpretation

of their religion.

[pat_k]

91. If they have no interest in discriminating or reshaping law in accord with their beliefs, they aren't violating...

Last edited Thu May 28, 2026, 02:09 PM - Edit history (6)

... fundamental principles.

They have a right to their twisted interpretations, so long as they understand trying to control others by enforcing conduct that comports with those personal religious beliefs or personal discriminatory hatreds violates the fundamental moral principles that are the bedrock of the constitution and our body of law as it has evolved as we travel the road to a more perfect union.

If they do not understand this, they are Christian Nationalists, not Christians.

In America, your beliefs are yours, however repugnant. It is when you start thinking it is your job to discriminate based on those beliefs, pass legislation to force others to act in accord with personal religious beliefs, or otherwise use the levers of governmental power to make those beliefs enforceable as public policy that you cross into "no f-ing way, not in America" territory.

A person can stand in the middle of the public square spouting about aliens or how white people are being replaced. I might wish such people didn't exist, but we must tolerate them. It is when they demand a rollback of DEI to purge institutions of non-whites, or try to control what others read, who they love, or whether they choose to have a child that the red line is crossed.

It is fact that white-supremacists, people who hate those who do no confirm to a gender binary, and Christian Nationalists exist that demands stringent protections against discriminatory acts or influence in public policy, including counter-forces, like DEI.

It is not our job to purge all repugnant beliefs from the minds of Americans. For the good of civil society, we can certainly strive to instill moral principles grounded in compassion, but the most important job is to hold the line and make it crystal clear that in America, we will NOT tolerate ANYONE seeking to pass laws that force their PERSONAL religious or discriminatory beliefs on others who do not share those beliefs. It is not just deeply Un-American, it is deeply Un-Christian. Christianity is about FAITH not CONTROL. CONTROL is the OPPOSITE of FAITH.

[summer_in_TX]

42. My thoughts exactly. That's why I've thought that Talarico was particularly needed at this time.

The man for the moment.

We can help by refusing to use the word Christian about them, not Christian Nationalist, Christian Evangelical, Christian Fascist, or Christian Taliban. That just confuses people into thinking they are yet another Christian denomination. The word to describe this is christopretensism (and its derivatives). They are christopretenders.

[leftstreet]

6. Trump needed no defining

Nothing Harris said would make a MAGA say, "OMG I didn't realize that! I'm not voting for the guy"

Trump, like Paxton was a known corrupt entity. MAGAs vote for them BECAUSE of it.

Talarico needs to get back to his Jesus Wants National Healthcare and Cheaper Rent stuff

[senseandsensibility]

7. Magas are and were a lost cause

We agree about that.

[Bluetus]

11. No. "MAGA" is mainly about 30 million

This are another 50 million who are not so hard core, but they perceived the Harris campaign as being about abortion and not much else. I'm not saying that Harris talked only about abortion, but there really were no other memorable proposals. I agree she had a nearly impossible task because, if she took stronger positions, that invited a contrast with Biden who finished his career in a very unfortunate way.

We have to define the opponent, AND we must offer real alternatives, not just vague platitudes. Look at Mamdani. He was VERY specific about the tax policy he was going to pursue, the housing policy, day care programs, and transportation programs. Very, very specific. And as a consequence he ended up with a mandate which helped him enact these solutions quickly.

When was the last time a Democrat has been elected President with a set of mandates for specific programs he was going to implement. You may have to go all the way back to Kennedy or Johnson for that. Or Eisenhower with the interstate highway plan. I consider Eisenhower a Democrat. He certainly would be a Democrat in today's politics.

[senseandsensibility]

12. Good points

Now is the time to go big!

[questionseverything]

22. I would say Obama was elected to bring us a public option in healthcare

[Bluetus]

33. But he hedged so much about it that he had no mandate.

And of course, there was no public option even considered. Obamacare is all private insurance, but it did include some other worthwhile reforms that aren't much discussed.

[Mad_Machine76]

50. That's not true

There was a public option considered near passage of the act, but it got derailed by that era's Democratic turncoat, Joe Lieberman, who threatened to torpedo the whole thing if it wasn't taken out.

[Bluetus]

58. That is not my recollection

Obama took the public option off the table before there were any negotiations with Republicans. He decided he couldn't get enough votes for the public option, so he adopted a strategy of letting the for-profit private companies remain in control, and try to control some of their most abusive practices.

We will never know whether something better was possible because it was never allowed to be part of the debate.

Obama was definitely from the Clintonian "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" camp. I understand that argument, but when you don't take clear positions on anything, you don't have a mandate.

[Mad_Machine76]

59. Here's a link from Wikipedia that appears to support my recollection of events

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_insurance_option

https://www.politico.com/story/2009/10/lieberman-ill-block-vote-on-reid-plan-028788

[Bluetus]

62. I don't deny that Lieberman screwed the pooch

We always seem to have one two assholes that are willing to ruin it for everyone else (SInema, Manchin, Fetterman).

But the WIki article says it accurately IMHO:

President Barack Obama promoted the idea of the public option while running for election in 2008.[8] Following his election, Obama downplayed the need for a public health insurance option, including calling it a "sliver" of health care reform, but still campaigned for the option up until the health care reform was passed.

I would dispute that last bit about campaigning for it all the way to the end. Obama took it off the table early on. I guess he decided he couldn't get past Lieberman.

He certainly could have mentioned the public option while campaigning. There was gaslighting galore while the legislation was going through ("death panels" etc), so most people were totally unaware that "Obamacare" was in fact going to be largely a continuation of the same for-profit system we have always had. And now, 16 years later, we are still paying double what any other western country pays and UHC and everybody else is still trying to use the same abusive denial-of-care practices they always did.

I don't blame Obama for that last bit. The Republicans have been taking Obamacare apart, brick-by-brick. Systematically, every year.

I do wonder why there aren't more Dems very clear about at least having the option to expand traditional Medicare, or even taking the slightest steps to oppose the abuses of "Advantage".

[Mad_Machine76]

64. I believe, however, that it was near the end of the passage of the ACA

when Lieberman torpedoed it and Obama had to make the difficult decision of having Democrats in the Senate and House cut it out so at least the rest of the ACA could pass. It did pass the House. It ultimately died in the Senate. Obama (rightly IMHO) wasn't willing to lose the entire thing for it. How much he campaigned for it is debatable, however, he never personally demanded that it be removed until Lieberman threatened a filibuster on final passage and he would have signed ACA with it (or, as the case ultimately was, without it).

[Bluetus]

66. I am sure the truth lies somewhere in that region. Politics can be very ugly

and politicians try to present a favorable picture to the public and their supporters.

The bigger point, however, is about mandates. We can debate just how passionate Obama was about getting the profit motive out of our HC system. I am willing to believe that he wanted to do that, but concluded it wasn't possible, so he tried to get what he could. I am not trying to second-guess that part of the ordeal.

My interest is WAAAAY upstream of that. If you want a strong mandate, then you have to sell the idea hard, and long in advance of the moment of truth. That did not happen. Obama played it safe. McCain was imploding and Obama didn't want to give McCain and Palin any ammo to work with. That is the nature of politics. If Obama had run hard on the public option, then there would have been loads of Big Pharma and Big Insurance flooding the zone against Obama.

For the mandate thing to work, you must latch on to a very popular idea that the public feels so strongly about that the corporate money cannot overcome. Another way of saying that is our system is now totally slanted toward what the biggest corporations want. That works for Trump because he was always going to give the richest and most powerful everything they wanted anyway, so they aren't going to oppose him ever.

[questionseverything]

61. Disagree

[PatrickforB]

36. I still genuinely believe if the Dems had RAMMED Medicare for all Americans through in 2009, we never

would have lost another election.

[spooky3]

72. The biggest problem is that we pay into Medicare throughout our

Working lives, without receiving a benefit until age 65 or later, and some people pay extra premiums even after age 65 (IRMAA). If that’s necessary to afford Medicare only for retirees, where is the $ going to come from to cover Medicare for all?

We currently pay more than TWICE (per capita) what the second highest paying country spends on healthcare, and much more than other developed countries. So I think we have to address the obscene profits and in a few cases extremely high salaries being made by multiple parties (eg medical device manufacturers, Big Pharma, some private hospitals) in the health care systems, and bring costs down. (Many other problems in our systems must also be addressed). Then we maybe can afford a Medicare for all type of system. We have to learn from other countries’ successes and limitations.

[PatrickforB]

76. Nah, with all due respect, your post would have us all dancing at the end of the same string.

I as a patient want the treatment I need.

The doctors, nurses and allied health professionals want to heal me.

And right smack dab in the middle of that is the PROFIT motive. This is in direct conflict with the whole thing. Healthcare schools and prisons should never be for profit.

The real problem is a) years of irresponsible tax cuts for billionaires and corporations with sustained high spending with the military industrial complex, which is a parasite on the treasury has forced massive cuts to programs that help us, while b) corporations and billionaires are getting billions in government contracts, and c) corporations only pay in 4% of the federal government's income tax revenue while individuals like us pay in over 50%.

This is the most massive heist in known history - a class war waged so successfully by the billionaire robber barons that our government is bankrupt, our power is fading away as we speak, and the treasury doors are flapping in the wind. Millions of people have actual needs that our tax dollars that WE pay in to OUR government, supposedly OF, BY and FOR we the people SHOULD be paying for.

Instead we are spending billions on stupid shit like this war in Iran, reflecting pools and bunker-ballrooms.

Trump is only a symptom. Our whole shareholder primacy capitalist system encourages and rewards sociopathic behavior to the extent that our government has instead become so corrupt it cannot even function.

We need dozens more like Mamdani, AOC and Warren and IF we actually have a midterm election, and IF it isn't rigged in favor of the Republicans, then I want to see some fucking impeachments, the complete release of the Epstein files, and I want our guys to go in there slugging and fire all the fucking white supremacist 'justices' and get people who don't legislate Jim Crow from the bench.

We need to clean fucking house and rebuild something that actually IS a government of, by and for the people as opposed to a cash cow for billionaires.

Did you hear that today, Zuck's $300 million yacht pulled into Seattle concurrently with Meta announcing 1400 layoffs. Human beings, working stiffs, people with families and this schmuck has a fucking $300 million yacht. NO. We need to tax these parasites out of existance.

[spooky3]

78. I suggest that you do some reading on the problems in our health care

System and how other developed countries do theirs. A great place to start is T. R. Reid’s “Sick Around the World/The Healing of America” (also made into a PBS Frontline show).

Review on Amazon: Fine overview of world health care models https://a.co/d/06p6QIpk

“… What he does find are four basic models of coverage:

1) The Bismarck Model: Both health care providers and payers are private entities. Private health insurance companies, which are financed by employer and employee contributions, do not make a profit. There are tight controls on the costs of medical services and fees. (Germany, France and Japan use this model.)

2) The Beveridge Model: Health care is provided by the government. It is financed by taxes. All hospitals and clinics are owned by the government. Most doctors work only for the government. (Great Britain, Spain, Italy, most of Scandinavia, Hong Kong and Cuba use this model.)

3) The National Health Insurance Model: The providers of health care are private, but they are paid only by the government; thus, this is a single-payer system. The system is financed by monthly premiums. (Canada, Taiwan and South Korea use this model.)

4) The Out-of-Pocket Model: Those with money pay for medical care; those without money stay sick and/or die. The government is too poor and/or disorganized to provide universal health care. There are few or no private insurance companies or plans. (Approximately 160 countries in the world use this model.)…”

[leftstreet]

23. +1

We have to define the opponent, AND we must offer real alternatives, not just vague platitudes. Look at Mamdani. He was VERY specific about the tax policy he was going to pursue, the housing policy, day care programs, and transportation programs. Very, very specific. And as a consequence he ended up with a mandate which helped him enact these solutions quickly.

[lame54]

43. Not this again...

Speech after speech she talked about economic incentives, going after corps and their price gouging, small business loans, plans to make rent and housing more affordable

The media narrative is she only bashed Trump and avoided kitchen table issues

Complete horseshit

[spooky3]

71. +a zillion nt

[betsuni]

77. Opportunity economy, middle class, small business, first-time house buyer subsidy, corporate price gouging,

Medicare coverage for in-home health care, higher wages, tax billionaires, more apprenticeships and end requiring college degrees for federal jobs, helping farmers, etc etc etc.

It's ALWAYS horseshit and why does anyone believe it or spread it around.

[mountain grammy]

84. FDR who said...

The rich say if they’re taxed they will leave America. I will miss them.

Mandami said the same thing.

Most voters aren’t rich. Tax the rich sells. Say it loud and clear.

[PatSeg]

8. I thought Kamala ran an excellent campaign

and Trump came up quite often. Meanwhile, I think it was assumed that any reasonable voters already knew what a totally corrupt piece of shit that he was. His first four years supposedly confirmed that and his next four years out of office reaffirmed what we witnessed when he was in the White House.

I think comparing a senate campaign between Talarico and Paxton is quite different than a national presidential campaign. I remember Kamala going after Trump frequently and Hillary before her. The opposition just used their criticisms against them. People on the right are still complaining about their many accurate and devastating attacks. And yes, those deplorables are still deplorable.

[senseandsensibility]

10. I remember marveling at how good Kamala was during the debates

and I never criticized her during the campaign. I still don't. She was truly in a no win situation. And we're not even talking about the gender thing, which I think may have been decisive.

[PatSeg]

52. I agree that gender was against her

Voter suppression and other republican tricks didn't help, but in the end, it is easier for them to defeat a highly qualified woman than any man with fewer qualifications.

Quite honestly, I was actually surprised at how good Kamala was on the campaign trail and Tim Waltz was a brilliant choice for a running mate. Together they were amazing, quite unlike Trump's weird and disjointed campaign. He was running as if he already knew he was going to win.

[Bluetus]

35. You have to draw contrasts

If we want to run against Trump's corruption, then give examples of his corruption and then offer a clear, tangible solution, such as

"I will fight hard to ban all stock trading by every member of Congress and every senior official of the Executive branch. Yes, that will be a sacrifice for some people. But that is why we call it 'Public Service'. "

Have you heard any specifics like that from any of the recent Presidential candidates?

[PatrickforB]

40. Except I would get rid of the 'fight hard' clause. My email box and mobile text fills up every day with dozens

of ads that go according to this formula:

The Republicans just did X. Are you as mad as we are about X? We want to do the right thing! We will FIGHT for you! Pleeeeeeeeeeze give us money!

And I don't give. I gave our candidates hundreds of dollars in the 2024 election cycle only to see Elon, Thiel, SpaceX and Palentir hack into the voting machines, create phantom counties and flood the swing states with so-called 'bullet ballots.'

A bullet ballot is a ballot marked only with Trump/Vance, and nothing else.

Every time I point this out, and I mean EVERY TIME, people on here say that 'denial isn't good strategy.'

OK, how about FAIR PLAY? Basic morality? Not CHEATING in elections?

This upcoming midterm election will be America's last for awhile unless people crawl out of the woodwork and shimmy across broken glass to vote in numbers that foil any attempts at cheating.

And on the off chance this actually happens, the Democratic party had better come in slugging to hold these fucks accountable for CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, WAR CRIMES, and human trafficking, child rape, and a bunch of other stuff in the Epstein files.

Because if our establishment Democrats start making lip noises about 'looking forward' and not prosecuting these immoral Kluxers to the fullest extent of the law, they will have lost all mandate. God help us then, because of what that leads inevitably to - we are already seeing 1789 and guillotine tropes in social media, coming much more often now. I'm too old for that shit.

So we need to play hardball with these parasitical fucks.

I want nothing more than a government that is actually of, by and for the people instead of Wall Street, corporations and billionaires.

[Bluetus]

56. Good point.

It really shouldn't be too much to ask for the candidate to present SAMPLE LEGISLATION that they are prepared to introduce the first day on the job.

In a more perfect world, we would have a PARTY OPERATION that already had sample legislation ready to go for at least the top 10 issues. In a democracy, it is expected that some give and take will be required to push legislation beyond the finish line, but we should be demanding that they show us what they intend to fight for.

[reACTIONary]

70. Sorry for,having to say this, but....

.... 'denial isn't good strategy.'

[SomedayKindaLove]

79. Maybe not the best strategy

But as far as obtaining power the R’s have been pretty successful with it.

[Soul_of_Wit]

48. Step one for Congress is heal thyself (insider trading is legal?!)

Step two is heal the Extreme Court (please, no grifting on the bench.)
Step three is restore the system of checks and balances inherent in the Constitution (there is a reason why Congress is mentioned first in the Constitution.)

[PatSeg]

55. Yes, as long as the examples are totally legitimate

and not as crude and tacky as Trump's ridiculous attacks on his opponents. Most of them aren't true and the name-calling is like something from a 4th grader.

Yes, I believe our candidates need to present simple, honest criticisms and less political doublespeak (both sides do it). People often tune out when it feels like the rhetoric is just more political spin. Politicians need to talk more like real people, not overly managed candidates who have to measure every single word and often give evasive answers.

[Lemon Lyman]

9. IDK

I remember Vice President Harris (& President Biden & Hillary) talking about who tfg is and laying out exactly what was at stake. The media went after them for it (think Norah O'Donnell with VP Harris re: Project 2025). Voters didn't listen, to their own detriment.

[wnylib]

24. They needed to speak more about what what people needed

and how they could provide it. Defining Trump only made some voters more determined to choose a maverick blustering character because they thought that traditional politicians were not listening to them.

[Soul_of_Wit]

49. Picking a convicted felon over competency is entirely because of not solving issues like housing and affordability (n/m)

[wnylib]

54. There's a bit more to it.

For decades, the RW politicians told people that their problems were due to liberal ideas. While the right was shifting money towards to themselves on tax breaks, busting unions, and catering to stockholders the financial costs of governing fell to the middle and working classes. Then RW pols told people that their lower incomes and higher costs were caused by immigrants, and by the govt costs of desegregation, regulatory laws on businesses, people receiving SS and Medicare, and poor people getting SNAP benefits.

We needed to listen to the complaints of people whose incomes were not rising while costs were. Then share their concerns and show them what was really behind their problems and what we would do to make things better for them.

We stood up for the rights of the people that they had learned to blame, and that was the right thing to do. But I think that we did not go far enough in showing them how the RW pols were causing the problems. We criticized RW pols for racism, xenophobia about immigrants, and the lack of character in people like Trump, but did not show clearly enough how the right was blaming certain groups for what the right was actually doing.

I remember bringing that up at a local Dem headquarters while phone banking for Obama in 2008. A couple volunteers did not understand what I said about wealthy tax breaks shifting costs to people on the economic ladder below them. I had to give examples and was surprised that Dem volunteers had not been aware of it. Imagine what RW voters did not know and needed to hear.

[wnylib]

63. Here is exactly what I was talking about.

Liberals will see this video. We need Dem politicians to be talking like this to ALL voters, loud and often.

Stephen Miller CRAWLS OUT OF TRUMP'S COLON to Hate Poor People - Democratic Underground Forums https://share.google/oii4i4zDt328g4sYi

[Skittles]

13. do not forget the double standard

the difference between what is tolerated from a white man and a black woman is, like, well, night and day

[senseandsensibility]

14. Yes, in many ways that is the elephant in the room

Both race and gender played a role, and in my opinion the fact that she was a woman may have been decisive. We've seen it now with both Hillary and Kamala. A lot of work needs to be done on that front.

[Skittles]

17. she always had to avoid looking like the "angry black woman"

even though, to be fair, black women have the right to be very angry indeed

[Bluetus]

38. It is a fact. Do we want to have our principles or do we want to win some elections so we can make these things right?

It should not be such a choice. It is not fair. But we really have to do battle on the basis of the de facto rules.

A black man could never have gotten LBJ's Civil Rights laws passed. And likewise, LBJ could never have accomplished that without all the work, pain and suffering by so many black folks. The system is set up to block progress. We have to be smart and ruthless in fighting that system, even when that means setting aside our biggest principles and goals in order to take the next step toward justice.

[Torchlight]

47. The one (principles) does not deny the other (victory)

It does not follow.

[Bluetus]

57. It has so far.

[pat_k]

15. Three key failures that were incredibly frustrating to watch.

She got soo much right: Focusing on inspiring hope and action , defending core values, on and on.

Nevertheless, I often found myself screaming at the TV "WTF about xxx?"

Here are the three key failures that drove me insane.


1. Failure to relentlessly condemn the felon's corruption, sexual abuse of women, association with Epstein, January 6, Un-American determination to take away our freedoms, insane determination to overturn the last election (not just as an object of ridicule, but as an intolerable corruption of America's most fundamental moral principles), determination to elevate those who seek to corrupt our elections. There was so much they seemed to tiptoe around.

2. Failure to unequivocally denounce the disgusting attacks on trans people. Failure to give a full-throated defense of LGBTQ as in the Freedom Over Fascism Toolkit.

3. Failure to take Her Own stance against the genocide in Gaza and call for conditional military support.

On edit: I have no idea if all of these things are addressed in the so-called "autopsy," but if they are not, I think the report will completely fail to provide needed direction.

[Joinfortmill]

16. Kamala's problem was she was a woman. Just saying, people.

[NNadir]

18. Like it or not, negative ads and action works. Good for him.

Thank you for the post.

[Rhiagel]

19. Kamala should have challenged TSF to a polygraph test in the debates.

[The Wizard]

34. I worked for an attorney

who asked a client to take a polygraph. When the client refused he knew the client was a liar, and proceeded with the case knowing the client was lying. He worked our a plea bargain .

[spooky3]

74. Research on polygraphs shows they are not sufficiently reliable, eg, see

https://www.lukiclaw.com/2023/01/the-problem-with-polygraph-tests/

[The Wizard]

83. He knew his client was lying to him

because the client refused a polygraph. It changed his defense strategy . It had nothing to do with polygraph reliability.

[spooky3]

89. I understand that, but people widely believe polygraphs are

Good tools. They aren’t. It’s possible the client was aware that they weren’t and didn’t want to falsely implicate himself.

[orangecrush]

20. Nailed it

[ananda]

21. The only reason Harris lost is that she isn't a white male.

Period

[spudspud]

26. Thank you. /nt

[Zelda_Orchid]

27. Yeah. I can hear the complaints from the always anti-Democrat morons:

"Why does she have to be such an uppity b*tch?"

[MineralMan]

25. Running for the Senate

Is very different from running for President. Kamala lost because too many people stayed home on election day. Shame on them. Not on her! We failed her and ourselves

[displacedvermoter]

28. He is also being a white male...

[KS Toronado]

29. Every Democrat running for office needs to blast the republicOn party

as only caring about the super wealthy, while we believe in feeding the hungry and helping the sick, etc etc.

[Politicub]

31. Can we please not do this?

By this I mean compare Talarico to Harris?

Harris was competing on the national stage and had her gender and race used against her. She explained exactly what the republicans would do and was criticized for not giving enough details about her policy proposals (I can tell you her policy proposals so that was a bullshit accusation). Meanwhile, Trump was able to do whatever he wanted and still garner favorable coverage no matter his level of depravity.

Talarico does not have to contend with any of those things, except maybe some of the media bias.

He is an impressive candidate in a tough race, but there is no basis for comparing his experience to the vice president’s. At all.

[The Wizard]

32. In LBJ's first run for Congress he

handed his campaign manager a picture of a pig telling him to accuse his opponent of having carnal knowledge with this pig. The campaign manager said he couldn't do it because it was false. LBJ said "make him talk about it."

[senseandsensibility]

37. Wow

Never heard that one before.

[lame54]

39. More corrupt than Trump?

[RandySF]

44. You don't define an opponent with a single interview.

[efhmc]

73. I am not sure one can ever define an opponent especially one as creepy as his. Best to just constantly define yourself.

[yobrault1]

45. what she absolutely did not do that cost her votes

she did not campaign as a white man. She had one on the ticket but it was not enough.

[Soul_of_Wit]

46. Democrats need to be better at multitasking

Maga breaks so many things. Democrats must move fast and un-break things.

[gay texan]

51. The DNC could learn something from this guy

I have been screaming this since Dukakis in 1988

[ificandream]

53. Last night, Paxton broke out every stereotype from the Trump book he could find.

I especially noticed the one about how electing Talarico was a danger to everything his supporters believed in, using the trans and children endangered lies that Trump did. Which is funny considering Trump was a close friend of Epstein. Talarico needs to do what Democrats are usually hesitant to do -- kick him back just as hard. But the good thing here is he won't have to lie to do it.

[sheshe2]

60. I see....

I see that James Talarico is
doing something that Kamala did is not....a WHITE MAN.


And she is not just a woman, she is a BLACK WOMAN.

[Unca Jim]

68. Ummm...

Why is everyone forgetting how much continuing to support Israel even though they are committing a genocide hurt her?

Talarico is calling what Israel is doing in the region war crimes a moral disaster, and an atrocity. The Democratic party as a whole needs to say that loud and proud.

[betsuni]

69. She called Trump an "unhinged and unstable" fascist ... oh wait, it's Kamala the Invisible, like all the

Invisible Democrats -- they didn't say this, they didn't do that, they're not going to do the other, where are they? -- .

By the way, Democrats are always accused of spending too much time going negative on the opposition and mocked for supposedly having no message except for "I'm not as bad as the Republican, vote for me!"

[Tbear]

75. Lawrence asked a repuke style question painting Rep Talarico with the pro trans kids brush.

And he hit James with a follow up question and Talarico’s answers were weak and evasive both times. He needs to improve on this. This is a core repuke play that also hurt Kamala.
Love James and Kamala both, these are constructive observations to defeat this despicable smear tactic. Must not let support for LGBTQ be twisted into “boys playing girls sports” and “disfiguring children “ smears.

[ananda]

80. What? He isn't a Black woman?

...

[Historic NY]

81. Its called branding

that exactly what Trump does. so every breath a Democrat takes must start with doing that...like training Pavlov's dogs reinforcement

[bucolic_frolic]

82. I don't know, in those debates she pasted Trump pretty good

"They're eating the dogs" and a pile of things he did and said and would do.

[lostnfound]

85. You have a point, especially after 45 years of incessant smearing of liberals

Think tanks have been telling America what to think about liberals through a thousand different ways, and they convinced a large plurality of people of the evils of the Democratic Party

Every fault of 2% or 5% of the party has been used to label and smear the entire party. The dems are smeared as flaming radical communists/socialists on one end and corporatist suckups getting rich or loyal to foreign entities.
The insidious low growling voice used to talk about AOC or Nancy Pelosi combines with the toxic hate toward powerful women that they’ve also inculcated, to create a huge anti-democratic psychological bias within that base.

Mights as well give a pack of hungry wolves the right to vote.

[Old Crank]

86. Also bring up every time

That the every GOP is protecting a crooked Pedophile.

[red dog 1]

92. K&R