I did not, but I think a lot of people are so desperate for change that any change at some point is better than the status quo. The DNC undermining Sanders in 2016 was a big mistake.
It's strange to me because it seemed like the dominating issues should have been recovering from the economic destruction wrought by covid monetary policy and dealing with the overt Russian threat.
Why would people think his VP would suddenly be different.
Add in her proven unpopularity and the fact that they didn’t run a primary and you have a perfect recipe for a total disaster.
Famously, Kamala Harris said in an interview on The View that she was a biggest part of the impactful decisions in the Biden administration AND that there’s nothing she would have done differently! https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/08/politics/video/kamala-harris-...
Making matters worse, when she went on Colbert she said nothing would change other than she would be president rather than Biden: https://youtu.be/6eZw3GzmPGc?feature=shared
Trump has already done many things very differently than in his own first term, and undoubtedly different from the prior administration.
Trump has definitely done many things differently but the rhetoric wasn't any different in the campaign - immigration, transgender athletes, and the bigliest prosperity you have every seen.
At the 30s mark:
Colbert: “under a Harris administration, what would the changes be, and what would stay the same?”
Harris: “sure, we’ll obviously I’m not Joe Biden, and so, uhm, that would be one change, but also it is important to say with 28 days to go I’m not Donald Trump and so when we think about the significance of what this next generation of leadership looks like were I to be elected president, it is about frankly, I love the American people…”
So the only thing she said would change under Harrris administration is that she would be president, and then she deflected into aspirational outcomes with no specific ideas as to how to accomplish.
Further, The View interview was on 10/8/2024 and the Colbert interview one day later. So she even had a chance to originate a recover from the “no change” statement.
> aspirational outcomes with no specific ideas
That's typical for this interview format, no? I mean, you can be critical of the lack of information density but we're talking about her agenda relative to Biden's - and, to an extent, the status quo Trump created (inflation, diminished foreign influence) since that dictated much of what Biden could do.
I would concede that one cannot, from these two public statements, conclude with 100% confidence that she didn’t have plans for a change in direction.
It is telling, however, that this is the only public information we have on the matter and nothing concrete from her or her campaign ever created a different framing or message (I searched but couldn’t find anything).
I’m open to be proven wrong, and perhaps her autobiography will reveal OR it will confirm what voters interpreted.
At the very least, the whole saga confirmed for me a lack of self-awareness, taking things for granted, and a certain arrogance.
IMHO, the elephant in the room is capitalism, but it’s like the church, so sacrosanct you aren’t allowed to question it, so instead people take their anger out on those with less power.
Trump tried hard to be perceived as an outsider candidate when trying to return to office. Logically, that makes no sense, but I'm sure their research showed it was important.
That‘s not change but destruction
This was a common argument in some of the poorest and most EU-dependent parts of the UK (these generally voted for Brexit). Well, they got change, alright.