Who was a worse candidate: Kamala Harris or Hilary Clinton?

Question

abc3643 · Accepted Answer

Neither was all that bad. The problem is with the Democratic Establishment itself.

Trump is a populist and the DEMs underestimated the power of populism. They are idiots for that because it's been on the rise at least since 1993 as illustrated in the movie "Falling Down".

The DEMs __HAD__ a good populist in Bernie Sanders, but the DEM Establishment (led by women) pushed to have Hilary be the candidate in 2016. On her record, she was actually very good and better than Trump certainly. But, she had some negatives. Sanders was very popular with common people and especially the young. I would have voted for him and I was 53 in 2016. But the DNC conspired with the Clinton campaign and the Democratic apparatchiks like the NYTimes and Washington Post to sabotage Sanders chances. This was obvious. It alienated a lot of young people so they either didn't vote or voted for Trump - the other populist.

Biden did a fine job as president, but he was not a good communicator as one so the good his administration did was easy to miss. Ironically, he did more for red states than Trump ever did. Harris was a wallflower as a VP and that did her no favors when she was anointed to be the 2024 DEM candidate after Biden dropped out. It should have been an open convention.

Anyway, that's the #1 reason Trump was twice victorious: The Democratic Party/Establishment is as competent as the New York Jets.

The #2 reason is that Trump is Trump; he doesn't hide who he is and people like that no matter how ugly that is. Harris came across as duplicitous which is what many politicians do. And, people believe Trump's lies, pure and simple.

AviatorTom · Accepted Answer

Compared to Hilary, Kamala was worse. Hilary had the qualifications to be President, Kamala did not.

Hilary had both domestic and international experience, in particular as secretary of State; her experience as First Lady in DC and in Arkansas was also a plus. Most importantly, Hillary had the benefit of a longer campaign, and defeating her rivals in the primaries.

Kamala's only experience was as VP, where she did nothing memorable. Her experience as prosecutor and attorney genera , and one term in the Senate, was limited. That she was forced to be the Dem's candidate, and only campaigned for a few months, with no primary results, left her at a significant disadvantage.

You can also look at results. Hilary beat Trump in the popular vote by 3 million while Kamala lost by 5 million. In electoral votes, Kamala carried 28 states and lost by almost 100 votes, while Hilary carried 30 states and lost by 70 votes.

katiesmuff · Answer

I think they were both pretty sad choices. I would call myself an independent not totally following either major party, but I do think the dems got taken to the woodshed this time and I don't think it will get any better for them until they gather together and change so much of their ridiculous ideas. They all couldn't have been so stupid as not to see 4 years ago the general public is tired of all the illegals flowing into the US, the crime, and all the money give away projects they supported. We are not the stupid ones when it comes to knowing nothing is free and if we are giving to someone else, its coming from me.

BCRanger10 · Answer

I voted C, but upon further reflection, I think Kamala was much worse. Hillary Clinton was condescending and unlikeable as a person, but at least she was somewhat intelligent and experienced.

Kamala Harris though? I'm not sure I can think of someone more unintelligent than her. In addition to being absolutely politically incompetent, she was soulless, charmless, and tactless. Picking Tim Walz for VP? The "white dudes for Harris" ads, which desperately tried to avoid telling guys like me that we're trash, but couldn't help being passive-aggressive about it? Going on a podcast called "Call Her Daddy"? What was she thinking?

The more I think about it, the less I think that she would have been as bad as some people thought. Wow.

avery58 · Answer

Hillary Clinton had more experience as a politician and had a more professional approach but there's also something a lot more sinister about her. If both had been contenders for nomination to their party at the same time, I would have definitely preferred that it go to Kamala over Hillary

captain_voidwalker · Answer

I'd say Hilary, but both are terrible. It's kinda ironic that the 2 best thst the democrat party had. Bieng Tulsi Gabbard and Rober F Kenedy are both parties of trumps cabinet.

So for any of the level headed left leaning people out there you should be happy at the election results. Trumps cabinet is surprisingly bi partisan and that's a good thing. It will allow all voices a seat at the decision making table.

Now if we could just convince trump to make alex jones the press secretary purely for entertainment value that would be epic

Lliam · Answer

Hillary for sure because she is smart and ruthless and connected with the State Department, FBI, and entire deep state apparatus. I describe her as a megalomaniacal, mass murdering, psychopathic, mob boss.

Kamala is just an ambitious pawn who will do anything she is told if it makes her rich.

blueonblack22 · Answer

I disliked both but Kamala never had to work for anything. She never won an election outside of California.

At least HRC was a fighter. I don’t like her but I respected her tenacity. She had to fight and win the 2016 primaries.

Kamala was a DEI recipient for Biden’s VP role and then coronated for the presidential nominee. She was given that without even winning one primary vote.

genericname85 · Answer

clinton at least had an identity. a criminally corrupt identity after all but let's be real, trump has that too. harris however has nothing. nobody likes her, not even her own party. was a surprise to nobody that she lost. cause everyone who voted for her, voted for her cause they hated trump even more. not cause they liked her.

SixFootSexy · Answer

They were both "middle class" (midwits) who thought they could force their degen values on the rest of the country and that mean tweets and J6 were a bigger threat than inflation or starting WWIII

Anonymous · Answer

Trump is the all time biggest embarrassment.  Nobody else is in the running That light shines too bright

Anonymous · Answer

They were both equally bad, but in different ways. Hillary was smart and qualified, but she was also supremely unlikeable. Harris was somewhat more likeable, but horribly unqualified. She because VP only because she was a woman of color, and then she proceeded to do nothing for four years. Her ineptitude and lack of action caused the worst border crises in US history.

WintersDaughter · Answer

Harris, at least Clinton TRIED. She actually had policies. Her entire campaign wasn't "I'm not Trump, vote for me!"

LazerBean · Answer

Honestly I think Hillary was worse. Kamala is a blithering idiot, but at least she is not actively evil like Hillary is.

sawno · Answer

Policy wise it doesn't matter but hillary could at least defend her positions.

exitseven · Answer

Kamala was worse. At least Hillery was smart. Harris is a dunce

Avicenna · Answer

Equally bad. Both had no respect for the electorate and thought they had to barely campaign, treating it as a coronation.

bobby_bush_eater · Answer

Hilary was far more qualified and competent. She lost because deep down we knew she and her family are the devil itself

SolitarySolace · Answer

Both. They both ran on feminism, abortion, hatred, antagonization and demonization of men.

Zack-Bann · Answer

I don’t see any difference between them They all parrot the same tired old talking points

ShadezMcgee · Answer

Both were terrible. However between the two of them, Hillary was at least more competent

NYCQuestions1976 · Answer

Worst person? Clinton. Worst candidate? Harris. Clinton somehow managed to win the popular vote in 2016.

Joshydavid25 · Answer

Kamala is mostly a liar and a bit incompetent when it came to running for President.. She was still scummy, not far behind Hilary but Hilary was still worse because she was a bit smarter than Kamala..

Cubus · Answer

One of them lost the popular vote while the other isn't. That's the answer.

Dargil · Answer

Kami was George Carlin's dictum: Stupid, full of shit and fucking nuts! None of these are sins. Hillary is  Evil   and she will  burn.

FunkyMonkee · Answer

Skamala was worse, but only by a cunt hair or two. At least Hitlery had SOME experience!!

strateguy632 · Answer

Harris was even worse and that is saying something!

seeyounexttuesday · Answer

Kamala was a puppet, and empty suit. Hilary is actively evil.

Jltakk · Answer

Oof, this is tough. Kackling Harris literally didn't have a platform and two seconds is all it takes to find her horrendous history with jailing black people for the dumbest crap.

Anonymous · Answer

Both are war criminals who should go to jail for their involvement in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and other countries overseas, they should go to hell when they expire on earth.

soe11 · Answer

Kamala Harris, but she is attractive and attention seeker, I love her smile.

robocop666 · Answer

kamala is a dingbat who says nothing just laughs

skidawgkc22 · Answer

Let me put it this way: I was able to put my misgivings on Hillary aside to vote for her. Harris did not have that luxury - she has always come across as corporatist AF and completely not genuine.

Anonymous · Answer

Hilary won her election by 3 million votes.

thenerdone · Answer

Harris is a puppet, Clinton is properly evil. Harris' campaigning was worse.

RedInnocent69 · Answer

Difficult. Kamala received more votes, but Hillary won the popular vote 🤔

Deserter2 · Answer

Kamala is dumb and has done bad things. But Hillary Clinton is an evil genius with no soul.

Vegasrunner · Answer

Neither, both were uniquely qualified however they ran in one if the most historically racist and misogynistic countries on earth.

Anonymous · Answer

I hate both equally but Kamala is lucky if she has IQ higher than 60

shortster · Answer

Kamala, at least Hilary won a primary.

Jerre · Answer

They were both terrible

noohair · Answer

Kamala was an empty suit.

SmokinAces2000 · Answer

The better candidate was Kamala

Staximus · Answer

Hilary is a psychopath, Kamala is just fake

paledreams · Answer

Hilary made those comments

Idkaus3r88 · Answer

They both suck and so does Trump.

Slim57 · Answer

That's like comparing dog shit to chicken shit

Iron_Man · Answer

it looks like a tie

Tomisworthless · Answer

Trump stays dominating women

Anonymous · Answer

Kamala

Anonymous · Answer

Equally terrible.

Kelly6 · Answer

Harris

Who was a worse candidate: Kamala Harris or Hilary Clinton?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said