The new Kamala Harris book: 107 Days

[SomewhereonNeptune]

Excerpts have been revealed in various sources from Kamala's new book, "107 Days". For someone who wants another bite at the apple in '28, she seems to have stepped in it. Among the more interesting revelations:

• Tim Walz was not her first choice for VP.
• She wanted Pete Buttigieg but thought the country couldn't handle a "black woman candidate, her husband being a Jew, and a gay VP" but would have chosen him if he was straight.

Nothing like throwing people under the bus to start a campaign, eh?

So here are some topical questions:

• Should she even run again? She currently places a distant third in a hypothetical primary campaign, behind Newsom and (even though she called Americans racist as an excerpt when referring to) Buttigieg. 
• Has she stepped in it and killed her chances for political notoriety due to writing the book?
• Do the identity considerations in selecting a running mate (race, gender, sexual orientation) along with her other comments portray Americans as racists, or is Harris projecting her racism upon the voters?

Some controversial questions to kick things off, but anyway...discuss.

[Pozzible]

I haven’t read any excerpts other than a brief bit about Tim and Pete.

I’m agnostic on whether she should run again. I thought, all things considered, she was excellent. In fact, after her debate I thought she was sure to win. From the convention until the VP debate things were sailing along. But all of the air went out of the campaign when Tim stepped onto the stage. He had shown such promise. Perhaps he was over-coached in debate prep. Perhaps we had all been too pumped up and expectations were too high. Pete would have definitely done better in the debate. 

Between the VP debate and Election Day all the energy was lost. I don’t personally believe the candidates were the problem. Consultants and staff seemed to drag them down.

Kamala’s comment about whether voters would accept a Black woman and a gay man was likely correct. I don’t see it as racist at all. Just a political calculation. And Buttigieg didn’t seem to connect with Black women in the primaries  And they are the heart of the party.

There are several good potential candidates. Josh Shapiro, Wes Moore, Buttigieg, Pritzker (he’s been on fire lately). Whitmer and Newsom both feel a bit packaged and polished (just a gut feeling). AOC would be a brilliant, exciting candidate. The primary debates should be terrific. (Oh, maybe Marianne Williamson, RFKjr, and Tulsi Gabbard will hop in the race, too.🙄)

But all of this assumes we will actually still have real elections in ‘28. Scares me. 

[viking8x6]

14 hours ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

For someone who wants another bite at the apple in '28

If I were Kamala, I'd rather juggle live squid in a confessional booth than run in '28.

[hntnhole]

18 hours ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

Should she even run again?

I'm not at all sure she wants to run again.  If she did, there would be more exposure in the media, and she's been really quiet since.  That's really uncharacteristic of a hungry pol.  

18 hours ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

Has she stepped in it and killed her chances for political notoriety due to writing the book?

I haven't read it yet, so I can't really comment on that.  I'll get around to it at some point ... 

18 hours ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

Do the identity considerations in selecting a running mate (race, gender, sexual orientation) along with her other comments portray Americans as racists, or is Harris projecting her racism upon the voters?

Now THAT's a really interesting question, and worth a well-thought-out response.   I'll put that in the "stew-pot' in the back of my head and set the oven on "simmer".

[SomewhereonNeptune]

18 hours ago, Pozzible said:

I don’t personally believe the candidates were the problem. Consultants and staff seemed to drag them down.

Kamala’s comment about whether voters would accept a Black woman and a gay man was likely correct. I don’t see it as racist at all. Just a political calculation. And Buttigieg didn’t seem to connect with Black women in the primaries  And they are the heart of the party.

Ok, so my thoughts, and bear in mind my own political stance. I agree with you that consultants dragged them down and I don't think they've done the reckoning on "why" they lost. They seemed to get the voters they always have, albeit less than previously, the swing states all moved right, and they banked on the same policies that didn't connect with voters. When inflation is critically high and employment is sagging -- which the adjusted numbers showed around 2 million fewer jobs created -- voters care more about kitchen table issues and less about trans-rights or far left ideology. That didn't land as they expected.

And in "the significance of the passage of time", Kamala's word salads didn't do her favors. 

I think she underestimated voters. We've had diverse cabinets under both Biden and Trump, so I'm not buying that voters cared about Buttigieg's bedroom preferences. We have a current Treasury secretary who is gay and people don't care.  Let's see how Winsome Sears does in the Virginia governor's race and then we can conjecture on how people feel about a black woman. But I think she doesn't give much credit to the American voters and the excerpt from her sounds...well, pretty bigoted.

18 hours ago, Pozzible said:

There are several good potential candidates. Josh Shapiro, Wes Moore, Buttigieg, Pritzker (he’s been on fire lately). Whitmer and Newsom both feel a bit packaged and polished (just a gut feeling). AOC would be a brilliant, exciting candidate. The primary debates should be terrific. (Oh, maybe Marianne Williamson, RFKjr, and Tulsi Gabbard will hop in the race, too.🙄)

My thoughts on your list.

• Shapiro - I honestly didn't think he wanted to run in '24 on a VP ticket and probably would wait until '28 or '32 for his turn. I suspect he saw the mess it became and decided to stay away. He'd be a great candidate. Honest. I actually like him.
• Wes Moore - no opinion.
• Buttigieg - East Palestine, Ohio and being a lackluster mayor of South Bend, IN will probably come back to haunt him, fairly or not.
• Pritzker - his record as governor of Illiniois is too assailable. Crime is a huge problem in Chicago, and he and Brandon are ignoring his citizens' own pleas for help. High taxes and dwindling population don't do him any favors. He's also another big billionaire, so it's a glass house for him to avoid throwing stones.
• Whitmer - polished, but is Michigan doing that well? Asking for a friend. 😉
• Newsom - oh boy! Make America California Again? If Pritzker was assailable, Newsom is style over substance. LA and SF both have crime and homeless crises that aren't changing despite their solutions; taxes are outrageous and causing outward flight like Illinois; the Palisades Fire was a complete mess, exacerbated by hydrants that didn't work and subsequent bureaucracy that seems to be holding residents' land from redevelopment to become potential low-income housing? If I were a swing voter, I don't think I'd be sold.
• AOC - tell me what she's actually doing other than cultivating sound bites for the 24-hour news cycle. Has she done anything for her district? Oh yeah! She chased Amazon's HQ2 away from considering NYC. 
• RFK Jr. - I don't think Dems are appreciating his efforts in HHS and are being sold on the notion of him being an anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist that they're not hearing the efforts to remove chemicals from our food so we're closer to Europe than DuPont or Monsanto. Plus, the Democrats locked him out of any potential primaries in '24, so no love lost for the party from his view, especially after serving in the Trump administration.
• Tulsi Gabbard - I like Tulsi. She's smart, polished, competent, and she left the Democratic Party complaining that they've left most voters behind and is now a Republican. She'd be a great candidate. But I don't think the Dems would have her.

[Pozzible]

It’s just too early for me to allow myself to get emotionally bogged down in political prognostications about ‘28. But I will remark on a couple of things.

My mention of Gabbard and Kennedy were totally tongue in cheek. I think they’re both just abominable, dangerous human beings.

And you mention how horrible the crime situations are in Chicago, LA, and SF. While we’re at let’s throw DC into the mix. Note where each off those cities rank on the list of the 25 most dangerous cities in the US:

[think before following links] https://realestate.usnews.com/places/rankings/most-dangerous-places

Cheers!

[PozBearWI]

It is interesting that the rushed axing of Jimmy Kimmel was the night he was to have had Kamala Harris as his guest.  

[hntnhole]

Of perhaps ancillary interest, Harris will be on MSNBC this coming Monday evening (Rachel Maddow's guest) at 9;00 pm, Eastern US time. 

Maddow is known for asking "no bullshit" questions, and putting up with none in answers.  If Harris has any answers to give, Maddow will pry them out of her.  

                                                              ________________________________________________________ 

To the "why she lost" question:

Much of her campaign was a bit prosaic.  Then, there's the fact that she's a woman (with a beautiful smile), and and of African American descent to boot.  And, while her choice of VP is a good and decent man, he didn't generate much in the way of coattails, which is the primary duty of any VP candidate.  There was precious little of a potential for hard-nosed negotiations with other world leaders, and that lovely smile just isn't enough when one runs for President.  There are plenty of misogynist's in the electorate, for whom that would be enough to vote for someone else.  

Then, there's the racism problem.  There are far too many Americans still infused with racism, and that hill would be a tough climb.  While Biden's physical decline was obvious, she apparently felt that stepping into her VP role a bit too forcefully might turn some voters off even more, that die has already been cast.  I still think that Jill Biden is mostly to blame for pushing Joe too far, which also means she pushed to keep Harris out of doing more.  

Put the two together (racism and misogyny) and Harris has two mountains to climb, as well as putting forth viable proposals for the American people.  

I'm no Maddow fan, but I'll be watching on Monday night.  

 

[SomewhereonNeptune]

20 hours ago, Pozzible said:

My mention of Gabbard and Kennedy were totally tongue in cheek. I think they’re both just abominable, dangerous human beings.

And you mention how horrible the crime situations are in Chicago, LA, and SF. While we’re at let’s throw DC into the mix.

Camden, NJ has fallen from its #1 ranking? Wow times have changed, but it's still no great prize. Used to live in the same county and have been back to visit since. I can believe Baltimore, Memphis and Oakland because they've always been 💩but some of the others in that list are peculiar. And some of those missing are odd. Philadelphia's Kensington neighborhood is a drug supermarket with junkies in every corner and very open dealing that has been beyond police control for some time.

I've watched some of the more independent reporting on how residents are responding to the DC swarming and they've been pleased with it. Of perhaps ancillary interest is the protest in DC to remove the Federal law enforcement and National Guards recently -- not only was it an almost entirely "white" affair, precious few were actually from DC itself. Protestors for hire yet again.

I had a feeling you were sarcastic on RFK Jr and Gabbard. From your position on the left I can see RFK not being appealing, but what was it about Gabbard that you thought was disturbing?

6 hours ago, hntnhole said:

To the "why she lost" question:

Much of her campaign was a bit prosaic.  Then, there's the fact that she's a woman (with a beautiful smile), and and of African American descent to boot.  And, while her choice of VP is a good and decent man, he didn't generate much in the way of coattails, which is the primary duty of any VP candidate.  There was precious little of a potential for hard-nosed negotiations with other world leaders, and that lovely smile just isn't enough when one runs for President.  There are plenty of misogynist's in the electorate, for whom that would be enough to vote for someone else.  

Then, there's the racism problem.  There are far too many Americans still infused with racism, and that hill would be a tough climb.  While Biden's physical decline was obvious, she apparently felt that stepping into her VP role a bit too forcefully might turn some voters off even more, that die has already been cast.  I still think that Jill Biden is mostly to blame for pushing Joe too far, which also means she pushed to keep Harris out of doing more.  

C'mon, @hntnhole, who doesn't love a yellow school bus? 🤣 Actually I mostly agree with you (surprise). However, I don't know that we can call the racism card after 8 years of Obama. We've elected black leaders, had diverse cabinets, and have had a progressive increase in women in leadership positions in government.  Nikki Haley was of Indian ancestry. Tulsi Gabbard is part Samoan. Patel is American born of Indian decent. Elon Musk took time out to do DOGE, and he's a great example of a successful African American. 😀 Both Buttigieg and Bessant are gay. Sorry, don't agree that we can cry racism any longer, I sure don't see protests about "Oust the queers", and not a single person protesting Tesla is doing so because they have a problem with African Americans.

So yes, she's multi-racial and racially ambiguous. It felt disingenuous that she'd make appearances in black venues and suddenly change from her normal diction into a more vernacular sounding accent that really made you wonder: Did she really think she needed to do that? And how much does she really hold in common with most blacks in the US? The cackling, the word salads, all made it seem like the college kid who didn't do the reading for the assignment but insisted on talking about it. Like you, I didn't think she had the mettle for going toe-to-toe with world leaders, but she was also an example of 'failing up'. She went from prosecutor in San Francisco to Attorney General of California, then Senator, then VP. And when she was VP, Biden made her "Border Czar", and we could see how that went.

I suspect we might differ on the border control situation and CBP/ICE so I won't do a tangent there, but we need to address criminal illegals.

As for pushing her VP role too far, so many are coming forward to say that Biden was losing faculties for the last couple years. Jill could have been largely to blame, but we have a 25th Amendment for just those situations. 

[viking8x6]

12 hours ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

And some of those missing are odd. Philadelphia's Kensington neighborhood is a drug supermarket with junkies in every corner and very open dealing that has been beyond police control for some time.

Philadelphia isn't in the FBI statistical report that was the basis of the US News list. 

FWIW, the FBI has this to say about ranking the list: 

Quote

Each year when Crime in the United States is published, many entities—news media, tourism agencies, and other groups with an interest in crime in our Nation—use reported figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rankings, however, are merely a quick choice made by the data user; they provide no insight into the many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city, county, state, region, or other jurisdiction. Consequently, these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/caution-against-ranking

 

 

[hntnhole]

Thanks for your erudite and detailed commentary. 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree re: the racism situation; I don't believe that completely dealt with, as it should be by now. 

I didn't compare Obama to Harris intellectually, since there's no comparison to be made.  The way I see it, The choice McCain made for Veep was a ridiculous choice, considering some of Palin's public utterances.  Obama is/was far more intellectually adept, and won the election based on his estimable abilities. 

To your point about national origin, unless one happens to be of Native American descent, we're all either immigrants, or descendants of immigrants.  Some "emigration" was by choice, of course, but for far too many it was anything but. 

As to the "gay" quotient in public service, as the public education system continues to churn out poorly-prepared graduates, the brightest potential leaders that happen to be gay are more and more acceptable (so long as they're "regular" persons, and not "flaming" gays.  That might be attributable to less discriminating public policy advocated by Liberals, as opposed to those who espouse racialized ideals re: who is most able among us.  

12 hours ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

And how much does she really hold in common with most blacks in the US?

I don't see the point:  for too many Americans, she's black:  for too many Caucasian Americans, that's all it took/takes.  Folks who make judgements about others based on racialized preconceptions and nothing else don't need any other qualifier.  Actively being publicly "racist" has diminished in the US, thankfully, but that doesn't mean that underachieving Americans have stopped carrying that depravity within themselves.  The "ICE" raids on Home Depot's and the like across the country have proven that Caucasians are far more likely to be ignored, while Americans with a certain degree of melanin-content in their skin make the racism current, obvious, and deplorable.  We - as a polyglot of immigrants - have still not completely irradicated that curse.  

 

12 hours ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

many are coming forward to say that Biden was losing faculties for the last couple years.

Agreed, and it appears the situation was worse than we thought ... until that most regrettable debate.  I don't know anything more than anyone else about medically-caused deterioration, but whatever it is, all of us saw it clearly, bluntly, and obviously.  The person Biden was debating had/has nothing whatsoever to do with that.  I have come to believe that everyone in the Biden Administration was anguished by his abrupt decline, and did their best to "cover" for him.  The fact that he insisted on running again only brought the medical issues to the fore.  

And, in a lighter vein:  

13 hours ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

Both Buttigieg and Bessant are gay

Yeah, but one is clearly a Top and the other isn't.  Apparently, Studebaker-ville produces more Tops than Conway, SC.

Thanks for your most interesting and cogent thoughts.  It's the exchange of ideas, perceptions, beliefs like this that I most enjoy here on BZ.

[SomewhereonNeptune]

9 hours ago, viking8x6 said:

Philadelphia isn't in the FBI statistical report that was the basis of the US News list. 

FWIW, the FBI has this to say about ranking the list: 

[think before following links] [think before following links] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/caution-against-ranking

 

 

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

You can make almost any statistic seem bad by skewing the comparative groupings. If you base it on crime per capital, the most dangerous place in the US can be anything from a small town besieged by drugs in the backwater of somewhere to a major metro area. So Chicago, where a good weekend is more like anything less than a dozen murders, might look better that somewhere else with the right comparatives. To wit, I could roll through that Philly neighborhood and not be bothered, but when I rolled through say Belle Glade, Florida, I got tailed from entry to exit and it wasn't by police.  (Driving a Range Rover, but packing 2 pistols -- make my day, punk)

2 murders in a town of 1,000 looks worse on paper than a city with 1,500 murders and a population of 2.6 million.

8 hours ago, hntnhole said:

Thanks for your erudite and detailed commentary. 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree re: the racism situation; I don't believe that completely dealt with, as it should be by now. 

And I think there are a number of reasons. We are more inclined to locate with "our own kind" than ever before. In NY, I lived in a Village that was 91% white, about 2.5% black and 2.3% asian. By comparison, the next village over was 100% white, 100% ultra-orthodox Jewish, with no desire to assimilate with other cultures or neighboring communities. One example. Should we talk about Dearborn, Michigan for their overwhelming Muslim majority? In many ways, I think racism among other demographic groups may be, in fact, self-imposed. (Author note: In my subdivision, there are exactly two (2) black families, I'm sandwiched in between them both like an Oreo cookie, and it makes no difference to me -- the area is overwhelmingly white, followed by Hispanic).

8 hours ago, hntnhole said:

I didn't compare Obama to Harris intellectually, since there's no comparison to be made.  The way I see it, The choice McCain made for Veep was a ridiculous choice, considering some of Palin's public utterances.  Obama is/was far more intellectually adept, and won the election based on his estimable abilities. 

You mean Harris had an intellect? 🤣 We're of like mind on Palin. Now we could talk about whether his election left the country more united or divided, or whether black people benefitted by his presidency, which is another topic, but I digress.

8 hours ago, hntnhole said:

As to the "gay" quotient in public service, as the public education system continues to churn out poorly-prepared graduates, the brightest potential leaders that happen to be gay are more and more acceptable (so long as they're "regular" persons, and not "flaming" gays.  That might be attributable to less discriminating public policy advocated by Liberals, as opposed to those who espouse racialized ideals re: who is most able among us.  

Oh, you might be referring to that failed experiment called the Department of Education, which in 45 years has led us from first-to-worst in aptitudes and preparedness. Or might that be Randi Weingarten's teacher's union? In either case, or as I see it, the education system has focused away from actual teaching into a sociological experiment and forgotten their charge to 'teach kids'. They're as confused on the square root of 324 as they are biology. Look, we've accepted that people can be gay and not parade it in front of us but be competent and capable.

I disagree on the notion of a 'radicalized ideal' versus 'merit based hiring'. I don't care 'what' the person is if they're fully capable of their job, so if I'm going under the knife for a procedure, determining who gets the job based on DEI versus qualifications doesn't put me at ease. (Are you here because you're good at your job and fully qualified, or is it because we needed to hire a black lesbian cripple so we could check off 3 DEI boxes and get the trifecta?) That's as much hiding the underlying issue that education in some locations may not be funded as well as in others or needs to have more focus to lift minorities out of the cycle of welfare, for instance. fix the underlying issue.

8 hours ago, hntnhole said:

I don't see the point:  for too many Americans, she's black:  for too many Caucasian Americans, that's all it took/takes.  Folks who make judgements about others based on racialized preconceptions and nothing else don't need any other qualifier.  Actively being publicly "racist" has diminished in the US, thankfully, but that doesn't mean that underachieving Americans have stopped carrying that depravity within themselves.  The "ICE" raids on Home Depot's and the like across the country have proven that Caucasians are far more likely to be ignored, while Americans with a certain degree of melanin-content in their skin make the racism current, obvious, and deplorable.  We - as a polyglot of immigrants - have still not completely irradicated that curse.  

Actually, we agree on this point since you earlier stated that:

Quote

"I didn't compare Obama to Harris intellectually, since there's no comparison to be made. "

So I think we're agreeing that Harris had exceeded her competencies and running for President was as much of a stretch as being a Senator or a VP.

On your other point, ICE is going to Home Depots because that's where undocumented aliens are likely to be found as a statistical average. And because, well, people that are coming over the southern US border are, by and large, not caucasian. Bear in mind, everyone knew that the gates were open and little to no enforcement was being done, so over time anyone wanting to get in used that information. Chinese, Indians, Russians, Eastern Europeans, in addition to Hispanics were leveraging the wetter entry points across the Rio Grande. Again, hard to contend that problem if there was no enforcement and the overwhelming majority of entries and gotaways were hispanics. If it looks, quacks, waddles and flies like a duck, chances are it's not a cow. 

While we're on the topic, of perhaps ancillary interest is the overall lack of vetting that has resulted in tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors crossing and being put into living situations that were never properly vetted or that resulted in child exploitation/human trafficking. 

8 hours ago, hntnhole said:

I don't know anything more than anyone else about medically-caused deterioration, but whatever it is, all of us saw it clearly, bluntly, and obviously.  The person Biden was debating had/has nothing whatsoever to do with that.  I have come to believe that everyone in the Biden Administration was anguished by his abrupt decline, and did their best to "cover" for him.  The fact that he insisted on running again only brought the medical issues to the fore.  

We all saw the video of it right before our eyes, and what galled me (and others) is how the media tried to gaslight us until it became so obvious that the emperor had no clothes that it couldn't be avoided. Enter Mr. Wolf for instant damage control. (Pulp Fiction reference) What should have galled Democrats was the lack of anyone given the ability to primary him, or to select a candidate other than Harris. I made a comment elsewhere about RFK, Jr., who was locked out of the process by Democrats. Had they not done so, you'd have had a candidate and perhaps a different occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania. Recall in '68, after another RFK had been assassinated and they moved toward an open convention in Chicago that quickly became a backroom deal to front Humphrey to run against Nixon. Plus in 2020, there was this rush to get other primary opponents out of the way to make way for Biden to become the heir apparent.

Think about those when '28 rolls around and wonder why they're not letting the voters decide. 

8 hours ago, hntnhole said:

Yeah, but one is clearly a Top and the other isn't.  Apparently, Studebaker-ville produces more Tops than Conway, SC.

Thanks for your most interesting and cogent thoughts.  It's the exchange of ideas, perceptions, beliefs like this that I most enjoy here on BZ.

Anything specific to lead you to believe Bessent isn't a top, or are you privy to something we may not be?

And to think a few months ago I wasn't as inclined to post in here because it was more a shout-down of ideas and seemed less tolerant of other views. Very happy to see a free exchange of polite dialogue, even if some is tongue in cheek. Cheers!

Edited Monday at 01:18 AM by SomewhereonNeptune

[Pozzible]

On 9/20/2025 at 10:10 PM, SomewhereonNeptune said:

I've watched some of the more independent reporting on how residents are responding to the DC swarming and they've been pleased with it.

What did they like about it? National Guard can’t do law enforcement. They were reportedly picking up trash. 
 

On 9/21/2025 at 8:16 PM, SomewhereonNeptune said:

2 murders in a town of 1,000 looks worse on paper than a city with 1,500 murders and a population of 2.6 million.

It is. Have you ever lived in a town of 1000? Two murders would be an astonishing event. 

 

On 9/21/2025 at 8:16 PM, SomewhereonNeptune said:

Oh, you might be referring to that failed experiment called the Department of Education, which in 45 years has led us from first-to-worst in aptitudes and preparedness.

That’s not DOE’s fault. Each state sets its own curriculum and standards. DOE programs have made substantial contributions to students and schools. It ensures that public schools don’t discriminate against children with disabilities and sets standards for schools to meet when educating these kids, including Individualized Education Programs (IEP) for each of these children. (As a classroom teacher, these add a lot of work to adapt curriculum for each of these students.  Not fun at all, but important. I do wonder if there’s a better way though.) In addition to providing for children with disabilities, DOE enforces civil rights laws to ensure that schools don’t discriminate against race, national origin, gender, age. There’s much, much more the DOE does, including providing money for schools and programs. But unfairly, DOE gets a bad rap. There are TONS of issues that contribute to our schools’ weaknesses. I’ve not been a classroom teacher for 25 years and things are much worse for teachers now. Nowadays classroom management is a nightmare. Cell phones, computers in classrooms (important, but nearly impossible to ensure all students are on task), overcrowded classrooms mostly due to decreases in state funding, increased focus on state-mandated testing, and distance learning. (I can’t imagine being a teacher trying to adapt to entirely new instruction methodologies to teach online.)

If you look at the amount of each state’s funding per student, you shouldn’t be surprised to learn that it’s highly correlative to the states’ academic outcomes. And it also shouldn’t surprise you that red states provide significantly lower funding and have poorer academic outcomes. Massachusetts is #1.

On 9/21/2025 at 8:16 PM, SomewhereonNeptune said:

You mean Harris had an intellect? 🤣

She’s a smart cookie. How about comparing her to Trump?

On 9/21/2025 at 8:16 PM, SomewhereonNeptune said:

We're of like mind on Palin. Now we could talk about whether his election left the country more united or divided

It seems to me that Palin normalized the acceptance of incompetent candidates. You can draw a pretty straight line from Palin to MAGA.

On 9/21/2025 at 8:16 PM, SomewhereonNeptune said:

Actively being publicly "racist" has diminished in the US, thankfully,

[Actually, @hntnhole wrote that.]

I kinda disagree here. Seems to me that the racism went underground during Obama administration. I see a huge resurgence of public racism since then. 

On 9/21/2025 at 8:16 PM, SomewhereonNeptune said:

So I think we're agreeing that Harris had exceeded her competencies and running for President was as much of a stretch as being a Senator or a VP.

How much have you watched her? For real, not on a Newsmax story or a Trump commercial. Did you watch the Trump/Harris debate? Personally, I’ve never heard word salad from her. But I tried to avoid Trump commercials and Fox News “reporting.”

On 9/21/2025 at 8:16 PM, SomewhereonNeptune said:

On your other point, ICE is going to Home Depots because that's where undocumented aliens are likely to be found as a statistical average.

But Trump says that he’s deporting the worst of the worst. The criminals. That’s not who ICE is rounding up in these raids. They are among the ones who want work. Hard work. Low paying work. Vital-to our-economy work. 

On 9/21/2025 at 8:16 PM, SomewhereonNeptune said:

I have come to believe that everyone in the Biden Administration was anguished by his abrupt decline, and did their best to "cover" for him.  The fact that he insisted on running again only brought the medical issues to the fore.

[Again, @hntnhole wrote that.] I’ve assumed that was the case too. However, last night Harris insisted he was perfectly capable of governing, he just couldn’t manage the rigors of a national campaign. This actually makes a lot of sense to me. We saw Biden give a terrific State of the Union address. Yes, he was reading from a teleprompter, but he also went off script multiple times and bantered with the legislators. He looked and sounded sharp. It’s hard to reconcile that with what we saw in the debate. (And while we’re at it, compare Biden’s SOTU address to DJT’s speech at UN today. WOW.  What an embarrassment. One commentator said it was reminiscent of Castros speeches there.)

On 9/21/2025 at 8:16 PM, SomewhereonNeptune said:

I made a comment elsewhere about RFK, Jr., who was locked out of the process by Democrats. Had they not done so, you'd have had a candidate and perhaps a different occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania.

On Earth 2, is RFKjr loved by Democrats?!?! On Earth 1, few Democrats can do anything but roll our eyes at him. There’s no way in hell he would have been the nominee. Ever. He’s a very bad joke. Just reprehensible. 

On 9/21/2025 at 8:16 PM, SomewhereonNeptune said:

What should have galled Democrats was the lack of anyone given the ability to primary him, or to select a candidate other than Harris.

it did bother some Democrats. I think it would have been a disaster. There were about two months to plan format, and then organize and conduct debates. Other candidates had no staff in place. Additionally, funding for running the convention and fall campaign was a huge barrier. As I understand it, campaign funds for Biden/Harris could be transferred to Harris who was already on the ticket. Other candidates couldn’t have access to that money. It just wasn’t a realistic option. Sure, in an ideal world, we would have preferred a process. She wouldn’t have been my choice, but I would have been wrong. And when Kamala was announced as nominee, the enthusiasm from me, my friends, and the party as a whole was remarkable.

On 9/21/2025 at 8:16 PM, SomewhereonNeptune said:

Anything specific to lead you to believe Bessent isn't a top, or are you privy to something we may not be?

OMG, I really don’t want to know think about that <shuddering>.

 

Anyway, Harris was on with Maddow last night to talk about her book. I’ve got it loaded in my Kindle and can’t wait to read it. Do I want her to run in ‘28? I don’t know. I don’t even know if we’ll have real elections. And the other night I heard someone (Garry Kasparov, maybe?) say that there’s one reason Hillary and Kamala didn’t win. America isn’t ready for a female president. I’m afraid that’s right even though Hillary won the popular vote by millions. Sadly, I think Dems should probably run a straight, white male. 

I’ll be voting by mail. Probably from Mexico. 

[SomewhereonNeptune]

Interesting points. I can understand some of them from your perspective, but in saying that, I'll respectfully disagree on many. I think you'd expect that.

20 minutes ago, Pozzible said:

What did they like about it? National Guard can’t do law enforcement. They were reportedly picking up trash. 

You're cherry picking. ATF, FBI, other federal law enforcement has been deployed to Washington. The National Guard cannot do law enforcement, but they can be a sort of neighborhood watch and advise the other patrolling agencies. The immediate impact on crime has been a reduction, which is what DC residents have stated they liked.

23 minutes ago, Pozzible said:

That’s not DOE’s fault. Each state sets its own curriculum and standards. DOE programs have made substantial contributions to students and schools. It ensures that public schools don’t discriminate against children with disabilities and sets standards for schools to meet when educating these kids, including Individualized Education Programs (IEP) for each of these children. (As a classroom teacher, these add a lot of work to adapt curriculum for each of these students.  Not fun at all, but important. I do wonder if there’s a better way though.) In addition to providing for children with disabilities, DOE enforces civil rights laws to ensure that schools don’t discriminate against race, national origin, gender, age. There’s much, much more the DOE does, including providing money for schools and programs. But unfairly, DOE gets a bad rap. There are TONS of issues that contribute to our schools’ weaknesses. I’ve not been a classroom teacher for 25 years and things are much worse for teachers now. Nowadays classroom management is a nightmare. Cell phones, computers in classrooms (important, but nearly impossible to ensure all students are on task), overcrowded classrooms mostly due to decreases in state funding, increased focus on state-mandated testing, and distance learning. (I can’t imagine being a teacher trying to adapt to entirely new instruction methodologies to teach online.)

If you look at the amount of each state’s funding per student, you shouldn’t be surprised to learn that it’s highly correlative to the states’ academic outcomes. And it also shouldn’t surprise you that red states provide significantly lower funding and have poorer academic outcomes. Massachusetts is #1.

I don't disagree with you on this point, but...wouldn't the individual states do better with deciding how to administer that money since they can direct that funding at a local level? I'm more a believer that there can be some type of minimal Federal standard and then leave it to the individual states to apply additional standards as needed, or change the formulas on a state level to apply the newly received funding that has been decentralized to address their own deficiencies - special education, disabilities, behavioral challenges, using it as a lever to fund underfunded programs in inner cities.  I'm not a big believer that we need layers and layers of bureaucrats in DC that are far removed from communities to do that.

The current funding equations don't always make sense. You live in affluent area, the schools are generally better funded (not always). Urban area? They suck. Money in the hands of the states can directly address based on voters. Keep in mind that tax equations don't always result in better outcomes.

34 minutes ago, Pozzible said:

She’s a smart cookie. How about comparing her to Trump?

It seems to me that Palin normalized the acceptance of incompetent candidates. You can draw a pretty straight line from Palin to MAGA.

We'll agree to disagree there. Just as we likely disagree on MAGA, or Jimmy Kimmel, the double-standard applied on censorship when it applies to Republicans (Dems seem to think that's fine, see the stories on Google today, the admissions by Zuckerberg on Facebook, the list goes on) versus Democrats (see the outrage applied to Jimmy Kimmel versus Rosanne Barr, both suspended by the same network). Sorry mate. Palin was...how shall we say this...not terribly bright. Just like Harris who isn't a god communicator unless she memorized her lines, just as she did making the book tour rounds the last couple days (MSNBC, GMA, The View). I'll assume you watched Maddow last night?

I'm not disputing that Trump tends to ramble on about similar points, but after he's made a statement there's not much confusion about it, right, wrong, or indifferent. Again, we'll politely agree to disagree.

44 minutes ago, Pozzible said:

I kinda disagree here. Seems to me that the racism went underground during Obama administration. I see a huge resurgence of public racism since then. 

How much have you watched her? For real, not on a Newsmax story or a Trump commercial. Did you watch the Trump/Harris debate? Personally, I’ve never heard word salad from her. But I tried to avoid Trump commercials and Fox News “reporting.”

But Trump says that he’s deporting the worst of the worst. The criminals. That’s not who ICE is rounding up in these raids. They are among the ones who want work. Hard work. Low paying work. Vital-to our-economy work. 

Re: Racism. So how do we explain the rise of anti-Semitism? I see a definite rise in that, but it's perfectly fine to be pro-Palestinian, which is absurd if you're part of the LGB community...unless you like being thrown off roofs.

I've watched Harris. I do watch a variety of news sources, not simply sitting in front of Fox or Newsmax, but I often can't say that for my friends on the left where sources like The NY Times have repeatedly tossed fact checking aside and bury their corrections the next day on page 26. We've lost a lot when the fairness doctrine was repealed. It'd be a real refreshing change to see the media forced to eschew opinion-based programming and focus on reporting "news". Like CNN used to do. 

As for deportations, I'll agree that the net has been very wide and not always 100% precise, but let's talk about the activism of judges who are more intent to legislate from the bench as seen through the lens of people like "Maryland Man". As a liberal, let me ask this:

Is this the hill that progressives are intent to die on? 
Do liberals really want to keep criminals in this country when they've entered illegally and committed crimes here?
And is the best answer to provide that we need to go back to the Democrats of 1861 who demanded to keep slavery ("Who'll pick our cotton?") to justify illegal immigrants to stay in our country despite their illegal entry ("Who'll pick our vegetables?")?

There is a way to get migrant workers. It's through a specific visa for the purpose. And they should be paid something more than slave wages. The 1861 ethic needs to change, or Americans need to take on that work. We need to not pay Americans for sitting around without some obligations (or illegal aliens, for that matter).

1 hour ago, Pozzible said:

[Again, @hntnhole wrote that.] I’ve assumed that was the case too. However, last night Harris insisted he was perfectly capable of governing, he just couldn’t manage the rigors of a national campaign. This actually makes a lot of sense to me. We saw Biden give a terrific State of the Union address. Yes, he was reading from a teleprompter, but he also went off script multiple times and bantered with the legislators. He looked and sounded sharp. It’s hard to reconcile that with what we saw in the debate. (And while we’re at it, compare Biden’s SOTU address to DJT’s speech at UN today. WOW.  What an embarrassment. One commentator said it was reminiscent of Castros speeches there.)

First, don't know why it was attributing me versus @hntnhole. But I disagree that he was capable of governing. Several sources from people who worked in the West Wing cited Biden to be out of it. Or taking a nap. On the debate prep, he was clearly tired and in cognitive decline, so several times he was reported to go off and take a nap. You're setting a very low standard on what Biden was doing. Hell, he fell UP stairs and by the time he'd gotten to the debate, it was clear to anyone with a functioning brain cell that he was unable to even act as President. We still don't know who was actually running the autopen.

And I'm assuming that you watched either MSNBC or CNN commentary on the UN speech, which I found self-serving. As to the points that he made on the state of the UN, I'm afraid I need to agree that the entire UN is feckless. Which is also a term I apply to congress and the senate.

1 hour ago, Pozzible said:

it did bother some Democrats. I think it would have been a disaster. There were about two months to plan format, and then organize and conduct debates. Other candidates had no staff in place. Additionally, funding for running the convention and fall campaign was a huge barrier. As I understand it, campaign funds for Biden/Harris could be transferred to Harris who was already on the ticket. Other candidates couldn’t have access to that money. It just wasn’t a realistic option. Sure, in an ideal world, we would have preferred a process. She wouldn’t have been my choice, but I would have been wrong. And when Kamala was announced as nominee, the enthusiasm from me, my friends, and the party as a whole was remarkable.

I feel sorry for people who feel somehow tied to the party, only because you think that they're going to respect you, your vote, or what the public wants. Let's be honest. They don't care and haven't for decades, and they're simply changing their positions because...well, it's Trump. Not surprisingly, the same positions they took just a few years ago or even as recently as the Biden administration are the ones they're trying to rewrite now. The problem is the Internet: It's forever. Seriously, let's look at Jasmine Crockett. She's not from the 'hood and was educated at some of the most expensive schools in the US and lived in a very privileged area in suburban St. Louis, not the 30th Texas district in south Dallas.

I pity that you didn't get an option to choose. That choice was preordained for you like that would be absolutely fine to people and you shouldn't care who it is. Humphrey wasn't on the ticket in '68 before he was put onto it. And as for money, they had $1.4 billion of it, so where was that spent? Celebrity appearances!? How much was Beyonce paid to shill for an appearance for Harris? Oprah? It doesn't seem to me that it made any difference in the outcomes, did it? 

Ok, I grant that you were enthusiastic about Harris, but after the debate, you have to admit the bar was lowered quite far. But we can't change the past, and hopefully for your party, you can come to terms with why you lost before '28. Instead, it seems like they haven't quite reconciled the reasons for losing, or where that 80% of the voting public that sits in the middle of those fringes that vote in primaries. For their sake, please don't double-down on open borders, free housing/healthcare/SNAP/Cell phones for illegal immigrants, trans-rights, men in women's locker rooms, and trans women/biological men competing in women's sports. That didn't help with middle America. "We're not Trump" won't work next time.

Glad we can banter productively on here.