(10-08-2024, 10:05 AM)mikesez Wrote:

(10-08-2024, 07:56 AM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: Sure.  That's probably true for most candidates.  It's their pocket of mega donors vs the other guys mega donors.  I just don't think Kamala has the mega donors' allegiance more than Gavin or the Obamas do.  And mega donors aren't writing checks without certain assurances on policy positions or the ability of their guy/gal to get their specific agenda done.  And if you're a player in the Democratic party with Presidential aspirations, a Kamala win very likely means you're waiting at minimum 8 years to run and maybe longer depending on if she endorses someone else on her way out 8 years from now.  A Trump win means you're definitely running in 4 years.  The media's allegiance to the left and to specific individuals on the left is sickening though.  We deserve better.

It's preposterous that any DNC donor would rather lose the next 4 years just to get their favored candidate installed for 2028.

Says the "Republican" that wants to see the Republican candidate lose.

It's not all about the donors.  I don't believe these guys and gals are 100% puppets as p_rushing does.  They may be beholden to these donors to an extent, but you still wield immense political power as President and unless a donor has incriminating info on you, they don't hold full sway over that power once it's assumed by the candidate.  The larger point is we had a very open internal party fight over getting Joe to step aside and then reports of internal strife within the party of Kamala being the uncontested replacement candidate.  Then we have an historically sympathetic media playing hardball with that replacement candidate.  Dem candidates don't go to unsympathetic media outlets to do interviews for a reason.  I mean, you'll have lower tier guys who are insulated by representing dark blue districts or states go on fox news from time to time, but I can't recall a time where either Barry or Joe did a sit down interview with Fox News and if they did it was super rare and after they were already President.  

There's just too much at stake to have some opposition journalist take you out before you cross the finish line.  This isn't a stretch at all to think someone else in the Democratic party who has more powerful connections and political cachet than she does wants to see her fail and is pulling strings to help make that happen so they have a clear path to run 4 years from now.  Individuals who make their way into the conversation to be President are generally much more self-serving than "for the good of the party" type people.  Do you think Gavin has Presidential aspirations? If so, do you think he would have preferred to be the nominee this time? Do you think the Newsome/Pelosi families have more wide reaching connections than Kamala does?  Do you think he would rather see Kamala win now?  For me, it's pretty clear it's yes, yes, yes, no.  Then the question becomes: Would he use those connections to help facilitate her defeat?  Yes, I believe he would.  Her being a complete word salad tossing ditz very likely exacerbates the desires of Gavin or whomever to make their move rather than try to carve out a role for themselves within a potential Harris administration.  And they can still negotiate to carve out a role after the fact if she happens to win.  Politics is a dirty business, even internal party politics. There were reports of dirty tricks being played by the Bush campaign against McCain during the 2000 primaries many, many years ago.  It's not exclusive to the Democratic party.

---