As regards Trump’s baggage and some candidate not having such. It will be invented. See Sarah Palin.

Might just be me, but some of what Trump does and says seems almost endearing. For example, the garbage truck thing. He and the rest of the repubs were saying the dems are so unimportant that even their insults are funny.

Still, I wish he’d control his mouth, although he seems to have tightened up recently.

So, possibly, his baggage is a net positive.

I suspect the next, or the one after that, election will hang on the which side gets out their stay-at-homes.

If Kamala as Kamala motivated anything, I suspect it was causing some folks who generally voted dem to stay home. Won’t vote for Trump, can’t get excited about her.

Kamala will probably fade away, but there are dozens more that won’t, and who have abetted the worst presidency in our history. Get them.

I can’t imagine that Trump, at his age, will remain relevant past 2028 or 2030.
After that, we’ll have to see how many NeverTrumpers come home. My guess is not that many, but perhaps enough to make a difference.

In one party states, it’s often assumed that there’s a clear upward path to higher office and that one only has to follow the path to climb the next rung. Among Massachusetts Democrats, for example, time in the Middlesex County District Attorney’s office followed by winning the state Attorney General’s office has been considered the likely path to the governorship or the Senate. That’s how the current governor got where she is now. One of her predecessors both in Middlesex and in the AG’s office was Martha Coakley who was running for the US Senate in 2009.

Coakley committed a number of gaffes during the campaign. When criticized for leaving the state for a Washington fundraiser instead of campaigning, Coakley responded by saying “As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?”

Coakley lost. She thought the Senate seat was hers by right. I don’t think it was so much that Harris assumed that she was going to win or that she subconsciously feared winning and undermined herself, as it was that her easy path upward didn’t allow her to develop good political instincts and skills. Something was missing in Harris’s character from the beginning — how could she think that being appointed to offices by her boyfriend was something that would escape scrutiny and criticism later on? — but she wasn’t helped by the lack of serious opposition in her later races.

I disagree as to the voters voting for Kamala. No. The huge majority of votes which were counted as “for” her were actually votes for the dem candidate–qualified for office being irrelevant as was the actual identity–and against Trump.

The scary thing is that even a slightly more competent campaigner–carrying the radical Obama/progressive program out in front where everybody can see it–might get elected. Or the same person with a more competent campaign.

Perhaps it’s true that the celebrity appearances–paid for with huge amounts of campaign cash–didn’t appeal to people who couldn’t afford a ticket to a performance. Failing to work Pennsylvania as hard as the state dems thought would be necessary might have been a goodish-sized mistake.

But having the Trump team’s lawyers watching the voting process up close and in real time might have been the difference. That’s really scary.

I guess I’m saying a number of issues independent of Kamala’s qualifications were acting to keep her out and if such issues had been managed more competently, she’d have won.

As to the notion that she feared the work load and responsibility of being president, well, give me a break.

She has never in her life needed to take any of her jobs seriously because she always had people very influential people around her that put her into positions of power and would make needed decisions for her. As president she would be surrounded by Obama-people that would make all decisions for her as well.

If she became president, it would have been a vacation for her.

She would have been instructed what to say or read, what to sign, what appearances to make, what to do or not – all of which would have been facilitated by the democrat propaganda organ (the MSM).
Of course, the latter would have been ordered to supply, in advance, all questions posed to her at any interview or news conference, been instructed not to ask follow up questions if they expected to have any future access to her.

Her “presidency” would have been an analogue of a Potemkin Village; she knew it and the democrat power brokers knew it. Her presidency would have been Obama’s 4th term in office.

The finger pointing amongst her supporters, re: post-election-results, in case you have not noticed it, never, ever mention the fact that no matter what venue she was placed in by her handlers, no matter how friendly the venue, she could not hide her stupidity and ignorance. This, IMHO, was the major factor in her defeat.

Are we to believe that her handlers had not prepped her how to respond to questions?? Of course they did. But she still F’d it up.
Why?
Because she literally is too stupid and dumb; she is a moron.

And still about 49% of the voters cast their vote for her.
This election was no blow-out. It was very close and she came within a hair’s breathe of prevailing.
I am still astonished that so many voters cast their vote for an individual that clearly was totally unqualified to be president.