By Hodari Brown, Contributing Columnist On November 25, 2025, the National Park Service (NPS), under the direction of the U.S. Department of the Interior overseen by Donald Trump, announced its 2026 “fee-free” days. Gone from the list: Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Juneteenth. Added instead: June 14 — the birthday of Donald Trump, which […]
By Hodari Brown, Contributing Columnist On November 25, 2025, the National Park Service (NPS), under the direction of the U.S. Department of the Interior overseen by Donald Trump, announced its 2026 “fee-free” days. Gone from the list: Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Juneteenth. Added instead: June 14 — the birthday of Donald Trump, which […]The post COMMUNITY VOICES: Trump Removes MLK Day & Juneteenth as Free National Park Dates, Adds His Birthday appeared first on Atlanta Daily World.
Honestly I don’t think it would have made a difference. The Harris campaign made it clear she doesn’t care for her voter base - it’s more important not to step on the Biden administrations’ toes than to properly represent the people and win. What’s the best that could have happened? Harris would have gone on stage with even more Republicans?
They would have found a way to tank it either way.
The “Harris” campaign was a continuation of Biden’s ongoing campaign under a new candidate. They never had a chance to set their own messaging nor policy priorities. And although I too doubt it would have ultimately stopped Trump, it certainly would have allowed them to try to target younger demographics with their policy.
I also fear that the Democratic party’s takeaway from the whole ordeal may be that America is not yet ready for a woman president. But any candidate would have lost under Harris’s circumstances. And Hillary was just a terrible candidate. Yet because those are the only two woman candidates we’ve had for President and both lost horribly, it’s easy to draw the wrong conclusion here that those are related.
The “Harris” campaign was a continuation of Biden’s ongoing campaign under a new candidate. They never had a chance to set their own messaging nor policy priorities.
I don’t see why the campaign being a continuation meant they couldn’t set their own messaging or policy priorities. As far as I know, donations etc. can’t be taken back if a campaign changes policies. Could you explain what you mean here?
I mean that planning a presidential campaign takes years, years which they didn’t have. And beyond the time required to plan and refine the campaign messaging, the candidate needs time to train how to answer questions following it. They had no choice but to reuse all of Biden’s preparation for these, and even then it still looked hastily done.
Sorry, but that’s not an acceptable answer. If you can’t pivot your campaign even though your polling research shows you that individual, divisive topics are causing you to lose, something is broken enough that you definitely shouldn’t have ever been a valid candidate. How can you expect to win against a populist if it takes years to listen to your voters?!
I knew that Harris will lose the second she stepped on stage, was asked how things will change with her, and she answered that nothing will fundamentally change if she’s elected. All while the other candidate keeps telling people that he understands they are hurting, and that he’ll improve everything. I don’t care who was responsible for that strategy - everyone involved should be banned from having influence on another campaign.
By Hodari Brown, Contributing Columnist On November 25, 2025, the National Park Service (NPS), under the direction of the U.S. Department of the Interior overseen by Donald Trump, announced its 2026 “fee-free” days. Gone from the list: Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Juneteenth. Added instead: June 14 — the birthday of Donald Trump, which […]The post COMMUNITY VOICES: Trump Removes MLK Day & Juneteenth as Free National Park Dates, Adds His Birthday appeared first on Atlanta Daily World.
Honestly I don’t think it would have made a difference. The Harris campaign made it clear she doesn’t care for her voter base - it’s more important not to step on the Biden administrations’ toes than to properly represent the people and win. What’s the best that could have happened? Harris would have gone on stage with even more Republicans?
They would have found a way to tank it either way.
The “Harris” campaign was a continuation of Biden’s ongoing campaign under a new candidate. They never had a chance to set their own messaging nor policy priorities. And although I too doubt it would have ultimately stopped Trump, it certainly would have allowed them to try to target younger demographics with their policy.
I also fear that the Democratic party’s takeaway from the whole ordeal may be that America is not yet ready for a woman president. But any candidate would have lost under Harris’s circumstances. And Hillary was just a terrible candidate. Yet because those are the only two woman candidates we’ve had for President and both lost horribly, it’s easy to draw the wrong conclusion here that those are related.
I don’t see why the campaign being a continuation meant they couldn’t set their own messaging or policy priorities. As far as I know, donations etc. can’t be taken back if a campaign changes policies. Could you explain what you mean here?
I mean that planning a presidential campaign takes years, years which they didn’t have. And beyond the time required to plan and refine the campaign messaging, the candidate needs time to train how to answer questions following it. They had no choice but to reuse all of Biden’s preparation for these, and even then it still looked hastily done.
Sorry, but that’s not an acceptable answer. If you can’t pivot your campaign even though your polling research shows you that individual, divisive topics are causing you to lose, something is broken enough that you definitely shouldn’t have ever been a valid candidate. How can you expect to win against a populist if it takes years to listen to your voters?!
I knew that Harris will lose the second she stepped on stage, was asked how things will change with her, and she answered that nothing will fundamentally change if she’s elected. All while the other candidate keeps telling people that he understands they are hurting, and that he’ll improve everything. I don’t care who was responsible for that strategy - everyone involved should be banned from having influence on another campaign.