Has Obama endoresed Kamala Yet?
- Thread starter i am herdman
- Start date
You morons don't understand basic business intelligence.
It is prudent for him not to immediately jump in and see how it is accepted. That way, if something were to happen negatively within the party regarding Kamala, he could be an unbiased mediator and unite the party. More, the initial excitement, backing, and increase in donations will eventually fall off. By waiting to announce his endorsement, he will help give what will eventually be a much needed boost.
It is prudent for him not to immediately jump in and see how it is accepted. That way, if something were to happen negatively within the party regarding Kamala, he could be an unbiased mediator and unite the party. More, the initial excitement, backing, and increase in donations will eventually fall off. By waiting to announce his endorsement, he will help give what will eventually be a much needed boost.
This isn’t business intelligence. This is political necessity. He knows she’s such a terrible candidate that the only hope is to jump in as Kamala keeps talking and the faux excitement of “anyone but Joe” dissipates.
Her likability is as low as Biden’s. Obama knows that. Her main advantage is we are fairly close to the election and the media can rewrite the narrative of what they said about her in 2020 (she runs a terrible campaign, she was incompetent in her other elected positions and is completely unlikeable.)
Frankly, replacing Joe with her was the Dem machines plan all along. It’s just been delayed because a) joe didn’t die during his first term like they hoped b) if he did make it, even his family wouldn’t put a senile old man through the grinds of another campaign and she could be at the top of the ticket right away. Kamala’s best hope for winning is picking a likable competent VP candidate.
Actually the best intelligent business decision of this whole thing is someone saved “Kamala for president” signs and were able to post them within 24 hours of Biden being pushed out.
Her likability is as low as Biden’s. Obama knows that. Her main advantage is we are fairly close to the election and the media can rewrite the narrative of what they said about her in 2020 (she runs a terrible campaign, she was incompetent in her other elected positions and is completely unlikeable.)
Frankly, replacing Joe with her was the Dem machines plan all along. It’s just been delayed because a) joe didn’t die during his first term like they hoped b) if he did make it, even his family wouldn’t put a senile old man through the grinds of another campaign and she could be at the top of the ticket right away. Kamala’s best hope for winning is picking a likable competent VP candidate.
Actually the best intelligent business decision of this whole thing is someone saved “Kamala for president” signs and were able to post them within 24 hours of Biden being pushed out.
rifle, you always say negative things about Trump in terms of turnover from people who worked under him. Have you seen and read about Kamala and her relationship with people who work for her and with her?
It's hard for Obama who is an intelligent man to vote for such an ignorant person. He knows she can't run the country and it would be dishonest for him to endorse her. Hate Hillary or not endorsing her was easy for Obama. Endorsing such a unqualified person probably keeps Obama up at night..
Yeah, let's compare. You go first. and I'll even give you one:
"40 years ago when she was in college, she was promiscuous."
Your turn.
Her communication director, national security advisor, chief of staff all quit within a year.
National security advisor left due to a serious family medical issue. Chief of Staff left after 15 months which was 11 months longer than Pence's first communications director lasted.
So sure, we can compare sheer numbers. We can also compare what those who departed trump's team said with what those who left Harris' team said. Then, we can compare what trump said about those who left and what Harris said about those who left (all positive praise).
It absolutely is business intelligence. It's the same reason why you don't have your best presenter/speaker go at the beginning or middle of a VC presentation. It's why when a company has their quarterly investor call, they don't have the CEO handle the beginning other than a possible introduction. You don't lead with your biggest push. You finish stronger than you start, and that is what Obama is doing.
He isn't opposed to Kamala. He's been very close friends with her for many years.
Nope. Not under trump. Many of them had horrible things to say about him, and he did the same about them. How come that wasn't the case from either side with Kamala?
A simple google searc will show you otherwise. This is just one example
Ex-Kamala Harris staffers have bad memories of a toxic culture in her past offices and are texting each other about it
Ex-aides to Kamala Harris say she's often led offices with low morale. They see similarities in news reports about internal VP staff dysfunction.
www.businessinsider.com
How about an article that you don't have to take time to sign up for and pay?A simple google searc will show you otherwise. This is just one example
Ex-Kamala Harris staffers have bad memories of a toxic culture in her past offices and are texting each other about it
Ex-aides to Kamala Harris say she's often led offices with low morale. They see similarities in news reports about internal VP staff dysfunction.
Now, compare "low morale" to trump's far more departures. Like I said, compare the comments from both sides of each politician's depatures. Why such a drastic difference?
I dunno the guys she works for always seem pretty pleased
This is a terrible take.
Kamala is supposed to be the “biggest push”. Obumma isn’t running for office. Kamala is. She IS in effect the CEO now and wants to continue in that role. The fact she needs someone else to come in and reenergize her base that supposedly loves her tells us what we need to know. She isn’t likable. She’s largely incompetent. It’s not GOOD business, it’s political necessity because she’s a dud.
biden gave the stupid bitch one thing to do and she totally fukt it up.
biden gave the stupid bitch one thing to do and she totally fukt it up.
I'm being told today by Axios and other mainstream organizations she apparently was NOT in fact the border czar. IT's being memory holed. The media wing of the DNC is going to distance her from that job.
The narrative on her real record of leadership started to be rewritten the moment Joe Mush shuffled to Reheboth Beach.
Mark it down, if this woman is elected a major catastrophe(not natural) will happen to this country. It is not because she is a woman nor black(or whatever race she claims that day) but, she is dumb and couldn't lead an Eskimo to an ice cube. She will be the most destructive president ever and that includes Mush Brain. She is someone anybody with common sense would not hire to do anything. This country will suffer greatly. And, remember, I am batting Hall of Fame like on my predictions.
sign here, coward >>>> ________________________
extragreen signature>>>> extragreen
landslide definition: 304 electoral votes or better by either of the nominees
Caught more people than ever at the border?biden gave the stupid bitch one thing to do and she totally fukt it up.
Let’s see how the completely trustworthy NYT “disinformation” experts have to say…
Not only is that not the saying, but it doesn't even make sense. Why would an "Eskimo" need led to an ice cube? They have plenty of ice all around them.
Not even close. As I recently said, you do one of three things: predict something that everybody knows will eventually happen, predict something outlandish and then claim "I told you so" when 1% of it happens, or predict something that inevitably will happen during civilization but be entirely off on your prediction of when and to what extent.
Not a terrible take. Just terrible intelligence by you.
She was a huge push by setting a record for the largest single-day fundraising amount in U.S. political history according to her campaign. But considering she is still very unknown in terms of policies, the biggest push is Obama. Obama is the known and beloved figure of the party and will be the one to solidify, unite, and reenergize after the initial lusters dissipates.
Nobody is claiming that she is a great candidate. In other words, the luster of her announcement will inevitably wear off, which means they need something with more value behind it. And that is Obama.
As I said, it's basic business intelligence by how you market, present, and fundraise. Have you ever watched an Apple presentation? They do the same strategy: they introduce something/somebody (Kalama), present a teaser video of what is it come (Kamala's ideas/platform), identify the issues, then bring the home run at the end (Obama) after the luster from the teaser wears off.
This article was just posted today, so I couldn't have used it in my post two days ago. Odd how this article touches on things that I said:
That's the point moron, they are already at the ice and she still wouldn't be able to lead them there.
Imagine a current CEO presenting a lackluster quarter/financial outlook or trying to overcome the street's perception of their inadequacy, and in that effort, they roll out an old former CEO that retired 8 years ago to ease Wall St nerves.... yeah. Not happening.
She's either got the goods or she doesn't. She's either strong and can articulate the message or she cant. The luster shouldn't wear off if the candidate is worthy of winning an election.
Bringing in Obama isn't a business intelligence decision. A business intelligence decision would be to put out a candidate that's demonstrated successful skills at running a campaign, competed in primaries and is savvy enough to keep their luster. Business intelligence is Obumma reinforcing a good candidate, not bailing out a bad one. Obumma's involvement with her campaign will be a political necessity to overshadow her weaknesses. Like the Wall St example I provided, it reeks of desperation.
Last edited:
But the issue, moron, isn't if she is a good candidate or not. Nobody is arguing that she is the second coming of Bill Clinton. The issue we have been discussing is why hasn't Obama endorsed her yet. And the reasons why he hasn't is exactly why I said. So why do you keep trying to change the argument to if Kamala is a quality candidate? That's not the discussion nor is it the reason you tried refuting what I said, so stop trying to run away from that.
It makes sense for Obama to have waited for the reasons I listed, which are business intelligence reason. This isn't an argument about if Kamala is a good candidate or not, moron.
Why do you deplorables have such trouble following a discussion and with reading comprehension?
Damn, I'm not trying to change the argument. I'm staying right with it. You're the one that introduced the business reason discussion: CEO, Company, Apple discussion into the thread. Now you want to run from it when it doesn't make sense.
I'm telling you why I believe the reason he hasn't endorsed her yet. He KNOWS she's not capable of keeping the base fired up. I've explained why it isn't a "business intelligence" reason and why it's a "political" one. Reading comprehension and following the discussion is your issue with this one.
