#presidential endorsement

[aanews69]

Immerse yourself in a shocking twist of political allegiances as we delve into the unexpected shift in union politics. In a riveting turn, the mighty Teamste...

[isawthismeme]

Nicky Jam removed his endorsement!

[ferdifz]

Reverse psychology...

---

(A speculative yet baseless suspicion of intent)

“Obviously” the other billionaires are just afraid of retaliatory Leon. Or are angling for that Donnie tax break, based on a historically unreliable promise.

Like yeah sure Jeff Bezos is historically afraid of Elon Musk. Or Jeff Bezos historically believes Finals Trump's promises. Does that sound right?

Or, Jeff Bezos fears the stupidity of voting Americans?

---

Anyways yeah naah man, you don't want billionaires to tell you how to think or how to vote. That's sketchy as hell.

[davidaugust]

Harrison Ford Endorses Kamala Harris

[contemplatingoutlander]

It has fallen to me, the humor columnist, to endorse Harris for president

Isn’t this what a newspaper is supposed to do?

I love that The Washington Post satirist Alexandra Petri took it upon herself to endorse Harris for her paper after Bezos pulled the plug on the editorial board doing so. This is a gift🎁link, so feel free to read the entire article. Below are some excerpts:

The Washington Post is not bothering to endorse a candidate in the 2024 presidential election. (Jeff Bezos, the founder of Blue Origin and the founder and executive chairman of Amazon and Amazon Web Services, also owns The Post.) We as a newspaper suddenly remembered, less than two weeks before the election, that we had a robust tradition 50 years ago of not telling anyone what to do with their vote for president. It is time we got back to those “roots,” I’m told! Roots are important, of course. As recently as the 1970s, The Post did not endorse a candidate for president. As recently as centuries ago, there was no Post and the country had a king! [...] But if I were the paper, I would be a little embarrassed that it has fallen to me, the humor columnist, to make our presidential endorsement. I will spare you the suspense: I am endorsing Kamala Harris for president, because I like elections and want to keep having them. Let me tell you something. I am having a baby (It’s a boy!), and he is expected on Jan. 6, 2025 (It’s a … Proud Boy?). This is either slightly funny or not at all funny.  [...] Well, that world [the baby will be born into] will look very different, depending on the outcome of November’s election, and I care which world my kid gets born into. I also live here myself. And I happen to care about the people who are already here, in this world. Come to think of it, I have a lot of reasons for caring how the election goes. I think it should be obvious that this is not an election for sitting out. The case for Donald Trump is “I erroneously think the economy used to be better? I know that he has made many ominous-sounding threats about mass deportations, going after his political enemies, shutting down the speech of those who disagree with him (especially media outlets), and that he wants to make things worse for almost every category of person — people with wombs, immigrants, transgender people, journalists, protesters, people of color — but … maybe he’ll forget.” “But maybe he’ll forget” is not enough to hang a country on! [...] I’m just a humor columnist. I only know what’s happening because our actual journalists are out there reporting, knowing that their editors have their backs, that there’s no one too powerful to report on, that we would never pull a punch out of fear. That’s what our readers deserve and expect: that we are saying what we really think, reporting what we really see; that if we think Trump should not return to the White House and Harris would make a fine president, we’re going to be able to say so. That’s why I, the humor columnist, am endorsing Kamala Harris by myself! [color/ emphasis added]

How far The Washington Post has fallen into the "darkness" it used to work so hard to ward off to help keep our democracy alive.

[edited]

[dawnsiren]

Fun Fact: the pic Taylor Swift used in her endorsement post?

Not only is it with her cat, to diss Vance

That picture? That’s from her TIMES Person Of The Year article!! That Trump was super pissed and jealous about lmao

[ryansmokeshow]

Hey guys it's Ryan and I have an important message for you. I know you guys don't follow me for politics but it's a big issue and it's really important to me this year. I don't care if anyone doesn't like this political post because I know I'll regret it forever if I don't make it. I'm a blue collar hard working American guy and I fully 100% endorse Kamala Harris and Tim Walz for President and Vice President this year. I have been really scared and depressed about the possible outcome of Trump winning again and I hope you guys take into consideration that Trump is an evil man with ideas to ruin this country. I hope you guys heed my plea and vote a Democratic ticket because it's time to put country over party and elect Harris-Walz. Thank you for reading this guys. Please vote blue 2024!

[aunti-christ-ine]

[tomorrowusa]

Tuesday night was not good to Donald Trump. First he loses the debate....

Debate Disaster: Trump’s Seething, Unhinged, Incoherent Onstage Meltdown

...then Taylor Swift endorses Kamala and Tim.

‘I’ve Made My Choice’: Taylor Swift Endorses Kamala Harris for President

[m-a-d-e-l-e-i-n-e]

This is why I hate group projects

[thashining]

Kamala Harris, will protect your right to disagree with her

[aanews69]

Harris loses Support #JoeManchin #KamalaHarris #PresidentialEndorsement #SenateFilibuster #AbortionRights #Democracy #RoeVsWade #PoliticalDecision Subscribe👇: https://sub.dnpl.us/AANEWS/ Get Gear 👉: https://vist.ly/3mh98ee

[justinspoliticalcorner]

The choice for president has seldom been starker. On one side is Donald Trump, a felonious and twice-impeached conman, raring to finish off the job of dismantling American democracy. On the other is Kamala Harris, a capable and experienced leader who stands for traditional democratic principles. Nevertheless – and shockingly – the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post have decided to sit this one out. Both major news organizations, each owned by a billionaire, announced this week that their editorial boards would not make a presidential endorsement, despite their decades-long traditions of doing so. There’s no other way to see this other than as an appalling display of cowardice and a dereliction of their public duty. At the Los Angeles Times, the decision rests clearly with Patrick Soon-Shiong, who bought the ailing paper in 2018, raising great hopes of a resurgence there. At the Post (where I was the media columnist from 2016 to 2022), the editorial page editor David Shipley said he owned the decision, but it clearly came from above – specifically from the publisher, Will Lewis, the veteran of Rupert Murdoch’s media properties, hand-picked last year by the paper’s owner, Jeff Bezos. Was Bezos himself the author of this abhorrent decision? Maybe not, but it could not have come as a surprise. All of this may look like nonpartisan neutrality, or be intended to, but it’s far from that. For one thing, it’s a shameful smackdown of both papers’ reporting and opinion-writing staffs who have done important work exposing Trump’s dangers for many years. It’s also a strong statement of preference. The papers’ leaders have made it clear that they either want Trump (who is, after all, a boon to large personal fortunes) or that they don’t wish to risk the ex-president’s wrath and retribution if he wins. If the latter was a factor, it’s based on a shortsighted judgment, since Trump has been a hazard to press rights and would only be emboldened in a second term. [...] Some news organizations upheld their duty and remained true to their mission. The New York Times endorsed Harris last month, calling her “the only patriotic choice for president”, and writing that Trump “has proved himself morally unfit for an office that asks its occupant to put the good of the nation above self-interest”. The Guardian, too, strongly endorsed Harris, saying she would “unlock democracy’s potential, not give in to its flaws”, and calling Trump a “transactional and corrupting politician”.

Margaret Sullivan at The Guardian on the cowardly abdication of the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times by refusing to endorse a Presidential candidate (10.25.2024).

The egregious and cowardly actions done by both the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times deciding to sit out the Presidential endorsements process this election is craven and cowardly, as both papers were set to endorse Kamala Harris (D). Even the New York Times, for all their faults, got it right by endorsing Kamala Harris.

[itsallpoliticsstupid]

The US Presidential Election 2024 - A mini Deep Dive into what went wrong for the Democrats

I would say this will be my last post on the US Presidential Election of 2024, but we all know it won't be.

I wanted to bring all my thoughts together as to what I perceive the biggest issues for the Democrats were, and how this needs to be rectified in 2028. Well, they won't listen to some random person on a Politics blog with *checks* 44 followers (oh hi, thanks for following), but this is my opinion.

And interestingly, it all starts with the sale of a certain social media platform.

October 2022 - Elon Musk buys Twitter

In my personal opinion the acquisition of Twitter was a major contributing factor to how the election was won. Elon Musk has never been quiet about his Political leanings being closer to the Conservative ideology and how he believed that it was wrong to silence those on the right for their views. So Trump et al. Going as far as to reinstate their accounts.

We all know that Twitter has now become a very toxic place. With extreme ideological views. I feel it was easy to use this platform to peddle a more Trump ideal for the election. It's still one of the biggest platforms out there, why wouldn't it be used to try and win an election. And without it, it would have made things significantly harder for the Republicans to reach a larger audience.

Anyway, this isn't just me twitter bashing. This is me actually analyzing what the situation is.

So back to what the Democrats did wrong.

Joe Biden confirms he will run for President

I believe the election was lost from the moment that Joe Biden made the decision to stand as President for a second term.

This is where everything fell apart, and set a tone for the remainder of the election. Joe Biden was not medically fit to run for the Presidency, and it had been so clear towards the end of his first term as President. You could see he was struggling in front of camera. Getting words wrong. Forgetting the most basic of things. It was a bad look for the Democrat's, and something that the Republican's could easily jump on.

It meant they could capitalize on it and make the Democrat's look like a party of weak leadership.

By the time he dropped out, Kamala Harris had approximately 100 days of campaigning. It wasn't enough. It didn't allow her to really put herself forward as an ideal candidate.

Which leads me to...

Kamala Harris - what did she stand for?

Outside of the right to healthcare/abortions I can't name what Kamala Harris stood for in this election. To me she was a status quo candidate at a time where American's needed assurances due to the increase in cost of living; terrible wars in the Middle East and Ukraine; and high levels of immigration.

Regardless of how bad Trump's policies were (and as we are seeing they are BAD) they were offering an alternative. One that people have been crying out for because they're struggling with the most basic things in their life.

Unfortunately the alternative is likely to make things significantly worse for the American people. But when somebody is saying they will lower costs for you, it's something you take at face value. Especially if you don't necessary understand the impact of raising tariffs or the removal of the affordable care act.

It's just sad that the Democrat campaign was so bad and didn't offer an alternative, it allowed this to happen.

Celebrity Endorsements

I was in two minds about what to put next. This or negative campaigning. But I think this one works.

Whilst Trump was backed by people like Elon Musk, I don't believe he had anywhere near the level of celebrity endorsements that Kamala had, and it very often doesn't work in a persons favor for a couple of reasons.

The first is I think there was a heavy reliance on people listening to their favorite celebrities when considering who to vote for. But in many cases, people will see an endorsement from Taylor Swift, or Misha Collins, or Bruce Springsteen and think 'well, what the hell do they know about what I am currently facing.' A lot of people will view celebrities as out of touch with the reality of today's world.

I'm not saying this is always the case. But that's what the average voter who has zero understanding of Politics will think. That somebody who has millions in the bank will never understand the struggles of having to hold down three jobs to feed your children, or pay your mortgage. And yes, there is a level of cognitive dissonance there because they don't think the same for Trump or Musk, but they seem them as a ruling elite who have the knowledge to make things better for the country. Not just a 'bleeding heart liberal' who just hates the right and has no business being in Politics.

I see the second that it took away from Kamala Harris as a candidate, and shielded a lot of the issues that she had. I think the endorsements worked for Obama because he had charisma. He offered something different. But for Harris, it was just a shield to show she had nothing.

And really, for the reasons above, it was a shield that didn't work as many people were turned off and inevitably chose not to vote.

Negative Campaigning

It never works. It's as simple as that. It never works.

And ultimately I feel that's what the Democrat campaign boiled down to. Being as negative as possible about the Republican's. About their views on abortion. About how many of them are Russian sympathisers. About Trump's health. And that always leaves people thinking 'they can't be that bad though.' And I think a lot of people got turned off by voting Democrat for that reason.

There is more. If I was to do more research I could continue for hours with this. Maybe I will come back with a part 2 when I have had more time to digest everything. But right now, these to me have been the biggest drivers behind the Democrat's losing the election.

And not the fact Kamala Harris was a woman like some people who like to believe.

It's time for the Democrats to stop burying their head in the sand and listen in time for the 2028 election.

[theblsckdog]

Taylor Swift you will ALWAYS have my support, i will never doubt you.

i've never charged anything from her unlike the swifties who NEVER give her the benefit of the doubt, i knew she would support Kamala, it was very obvious and if you didn't expect that from her i'm sorry to break that to you but we're not fans of the same person.

im so glad that i haven't been with false moralism here or on Twitter, as well with the issue of Austria, i just waited for the right moment and she positioned herself as she did with Kamala. people need to stop being so immediate, just learn to wait and live.

she's still the same person as she was and she stands with the same principles and that's not defined by who her friends are or who she's dating.

[sorryiwasasleep]