President Trump vs. Sen. Kamala Harris

[RI]

Harris isn't trying to win the theocratic transphobe vote so it really doesn't matter if you don't like her accomplishments.

I'm not in any danger of voting for her, but why should that matter for analyzing whether she's overhyped or not? There are plenty of candidates closer to myself who I think are extremely overhyped, too (*cough*Rubio*cough*).

And for the record, if you looked through Barack Obama's record before becoming President, my guess is a lot of you would say the same thing ("identity politics" is the new code word for colored, I guess), and he's been a solid President.

Obama was widely criticized for being rather unaccomplished; it's part of why he almost lost the 2008 primary. I also believe that's part of why he had so much trouble with Congress; he didn't know how to work to get things done.

[Devout Centrist]

Quoting the Wikipedia article I assume you didn't read -

As Deptuy D.A., ranked as one of the top 100 lawyers in California, which I assume would be pretty hard to do.

As D.A., started a program to help first time drug dealers earn a high school degree and find employment.

Despite all of the pressure, she avoided pursuing the death penalty for the murderer of Officer Isaac Espinoza. She stood by her principles.

She's made a platform of her career lowering the recidivism rate.

she got a better settlement for home owners after rejecting a deal that was too lenient.

There's more if you bothered to read her wikipedia page. You may not like what she's done, but she's done quite a bit. She's progressive, she's principled, she's bold. And the democrats here want to throw her name into the trash because "identity politics" and lololol she's a black woman that's "identity politics".

There's no need to be a condescending asshole. I read the Wikipedia page, which is why I mentioned it!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This means nothing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And as the next line says, it's graduated fewer than 300 people in over 8 years. Hardly impressive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Political posturing is not an accomplishment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above. Show me actual notable progress here that can be attributed to her.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, that's a minor thing that many other DAs have done. It's good, but hardly "noteworthy" for a talked-up presidential contender.

Did you read what I posted?

[RI]

Quoting the Wikipedia article I assume you didn't read -

As Deptuy D.A., ranked as one of the top 100 lawyers in California, which I assume would be pretty hard to do.

As D.A., started a program to help first time drug dealers earn a high school degree and find employment.

Despite all of the pressure, she avoided pursuing the death penalty for the murderer of Officer Isaac Espinoza. She stood by her principles.

She's made a platform of her career lowering the recidivism rate.

she got a better settlement for home owners after rejecting a deal that was too lenient.

There's more if you bothered to read her wikipedia page. You may not like what she's done, but she's done quite a bit. She's progressive, she's principled, she's bold. And the democrats here want to throw her name into the trash because "identity politics" and lololol she's a black woman that's "identity politics".

There's no need to be a condescending asshole. I read the Wikipedia page, which is why I mentioned it!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This means nothing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And as the next line says, it's graduated fewer than 300 people in over 8 years. Hardly impressive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Political posturing is not an accomplishment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above. Show me actual notable progress here that can be attributed to her.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, that's a minor thing that many other DAs have done. It's good, but hardly "noteworthy" for a talked-up presidential contender.

Did you read what I posted?

I'll give her credit for the foreclosure stuff, but that's about it.

[Figueira]

Harris isn't trying to win the theocratic transphobe vote so it really doesn't matter if you don't like her accomplishments.

I'm not in any danger of voting for her, but why should that matter for analyzing whether she's overhyped or not?

And for the record, if you looked through Barack Obama's record before becoming President, my guess is a lot of you would say the same thing ("identity politics" is the new code word for colored, I guess), and he's been a solid President.

Obama was widely criticized for being rather unaccomplished; it's part of why he almost lost the 2008 primary. I also believe that's part of why he had so much trouble with Congress; he didn't know how to work to get things done.

I think the Democrats should be focusing on beating Trump; as long as the candidate isn't basically a Republican (e.g. Jim Justice) or incredibly unqualified (e.g. Kanye West) I think electability should be the main priority. I'd rather have a President who is slightly bad at dealing with Congress than four more years of Trump or Pence.

[RI]

Harris isn't trying to win the theocratic transphobe vote so it really doesn't matter if you don't like her accomplishments.

I'm not in any danger of voting for her, but why should that matter for analyzing whether she's overhyped or not?

And for the record, if you looked through Barack Obama's record before becoming President, my guess is a lot of you would say the same thing ("identity politics" is the new code word for colored, I guess), and he's been a solid President.

Obama was widely criticized for being rather unaccomplished; it's part of why he almost lost the 2008 primary. I also believe that's part of why he had so much trouble with Congress; he didn't know how to work to get things done.

I think the Democrats should be focusing on beating Trump; as long as the candidate isn't basically a Republican (e.g. Jim Justice) or incredibly unqualified (e.g. Kanye West) I think electability should be the main priority. I'd rather have a President who is slightly bad at dealing with Congress than four more years of Trump or Pence.

Would it not stand to reason that a more electable Democrat would be someone who can't be easily dismissed as just an "identity" candidate, especially if you're concerned about winning back the Rust Belt? Maybe Harris will have some big accomplishments in the Senate in the next four years, who knows, but for now I'm not seeing it.

[Maxwell]

this is about the time to remind everyone that Obama did better than Hillary in all of the areas we're supposedly yelling "identity politics" about.

[Figueira]

Harris isn't trying to win the theocratic transphobe vote so it really doesn't matter if you don't like her accomplishments.

I'm not in any danger of voting for her, but why should that matter for analyzing whether she's overhyped or not?

And for the record, if you looked through Barack Obama's record before becoming President, my guess is a lot of you would say the same thing ("identity politics" is the new code word for colored, I guess), and he's been a solid President.

Obama was widely criticized for being rather unaccomplished; it's part of why he almost lost the 2008 primary. I also believe that's part of why he had so much trouble with Congress; he didn't know how to work to get things done.

I think the Democrats should be focusing on beating Trump; as long as the candidate isn't basically a Republican (e.g. Jim Justice) or incredibly unqualified (e.g. Kanye West) I think electability should be the main priority. I'd rather have a President who is slightly bad at dealing with Congress than four more years of Trump or Pence.

Would it not stand to reason that a more electable Democrat would be someone who can't be easily dismissed as just an "identity" candidate, especially if you're concerned about winning back the Rust Belt? Maybe Harris will have some big accomplishments in the Senate in the next four years, who knows, but for now I'm not seeing it.

We've already explained why Harris isn't an "identity politics" candidate, and we've been comparing her to Obama, who was pretty clearly electable.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Warren would be ideal if she were ten years younger and from, say, Ohio; similarly, Harris would be ideal if she'd succeeded Feinstein in 2012 and had stayed in the East Bay and made her career there. 'San Francisco' pings at least as many people's 'identity candidate' alarm bells as Harris's sex or race do. There's nothing inherent to being mixed-race or from an urban area in general that's fatally compromising here, but (unfortunately) San Francisco specifically is a toponym for what a ton of people hate about the emerging ethos of the Democratic Party.

I'd also, however, push back against the idea that one necessarily needs to be on the left to win in the Bay Area, considering the preponderance of techbro assholes and fellow-travelers thereof.

[Dr. Arch]

I doubt Kamala Harris would win. I wouldn't know any rust belt voter that would vote for a San Francisco based uber liberal democrat.

<---

[Maxwell]

rust belt voters gave Barack Obama, a marxist, maoist, socialist, community organizing, Jeremiah Wright-loving, pacifist, traitorous CHICAGO ELITIST

[Figueira]

rust belt voters gave Barack Obama, a marxist, maoist, socialist, community organizing, Jeremiah Wright-loving, pacifist, traitorous CHICAGO ELITIST

Not to mention Trump who is from New York City.

[Intell]

Harris is overrated and only appeals to urban liberals. You need to combine Bernie's social democratism, to JBE's southern speaking style and appeal, with someone like Jon Tester, Stephyn Lynch to get a candidate that can appeal to every day Americans, and working class

Everyone one of whom is a white male.  I thought we're supposed to be foreswearing 'identity politics', or does that only apply to women and minorities?

A mix of Warren's social progressivism then, with other candidates, to make a good candidate, however it doesn't matter if the candidate is a white male or a black female, you just want to nominate a female, over a male, and you put white male candidates are 'Identity Politics', the candidate needs to be a good candidate. If charlotte pritt held considerable influence WV, she'd also be a good candidate, but she doesn't. I fail to see your point, if their is woman candidate that can appeal to the wider public, then of course she should be nominated.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

But newsflash: One doesn't win The Bay Area, especially not that specific part of the Bay Area without being progressive.  This isn't the 80's or even 2000's anymore where some Feinstein or Davis or Newsom can slip through.

The bay area has two conservadems, Khanna and Swalwell as representatives.

[Zioneer]

But newsflash: One doesn't win The Bay Area, especially not that specific part of the Bay Area without being progressive.  This isn't the 80's or even 2000's anymore where some Feinstein or Davis or Newsom can slip through.

The bay area has two conservadems, Khanna and Swalwell as representatives.

Conservadems by the standards of California, at least. In Arizona or Utah, those would still be pretty progressive Democrats.

[publicunofficial]

I will not vote for her. I'm sick of identity politics.

I don't dislike Harris, but she isn't the candidate the Democrats need if they want to improve their margins among working class voters. 

So we've pretty much decided that if the Democrats nominate anyone who isn't a white guy it's "identity politics" then, huh? What a great new buzzword.

[Intell]

I will not vote for her. I'm sick of identity politics.

I don't dislike Harris, but she isn't the candidate the Democrats need if they want to improve their margins among working class voters.  

So we've pretty much decided that if the Democrats nominate anyone who isn't a white guy it's "identity politics" then, huh? What a great new buzzword.

Of course fycking not, but Harris an Urban liberal from fycking San faransico, does not appeal to working class voters, you need someone who sympathies with the concerns of the working class, and speaks like them. Trump had a message that resonated with the working classes, so it didnt matter that he wasn't from there. In 08' Clinton's brand of ideology and her campaign of working families, resonated in working Class areas as she understood their concerns, I maintain the fact that Obama's New Democratic Party, ruinied its roots to poorer white citizens, to more urban based candidates, which caused a defeat to trump in 2016.

A women like Warren can run in 2016, but someone who is seen more as not seen as an elitist academic, but still left wing, populist and fights against big business, and yes free trade, neo liberalism, and have an American-wrapped campaign, if trump fails many of his policies on free trade policies, understanding concerns of immigration and illegal immigration, to the established lower-middle or working class families in essential, as well as how modern-day america haven't been good for all Americans, and the problems with a proffesional based economy and a globalised world. Concerns which are disregarded because of more SJW identity politics, instead of class politics, and because GLoBALisAtIOn because new cultures, and disregarding problems with immigration, because identity politics and Multiculturalism (which is good don't get me wrong). The style of how the democratic politics campaigns for well-educated upper middle class voters, instead of working families in rural areas, and in many cases participates in demougary against them.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

But newsflash: One doesn't win The Bay Area, especially not that specific part of the Bay Area without being progressive.  This isn't the 80's or even 2000's anymore where some Feinstein or Davis or Newsom can slip through.

The bay area has two conservadems, Khanna and Swalwell as representatives.

Conservadems by the standards of California, at least. In Arizona or Utah, those would still be pretty progressive Democrats.

The last two Democratic Senators from Idaho were WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more progressive.

[Zioneer]

But newsflash: One doesn't win The Bay Area, especially not that specific part of the Bay Area without being progressive.  This isn't the 80's or even 2000's anymore where some Feinstein or Davis or Newsom can slip through.

The bay area has two conservadems, Khanna and Swalwell as representatives.

Conservadems by the standards of California, at least. In Arizona or Utah, those would still be pretty progressive Democrats.

The last two Democratic Senators from Idaho were WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more progressive.

Same for the last Democratic Senators from Utah. But that was 40 and 54 years ago, for us.

[Figueira]

Jay Rockefeller was also surprisingly progressive for a Senator from West Virginia, and he was last elected only eight years ago.

[m4567]

this is about the time to remind everyone that Obama did better than Hillary in all of the areas we're supposedly yelling "identity politics" about.

Good post.

[publicunofficial]

"This Obama guy is an urban Harvard elitist liberal from Chicago, he has absolutely no appeal in white-working class America. BAYH/LIEBERMAN '08"

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Look, Hillary didn't run that much of an identity-politics campaign. It's the other figures in her party that are hurting it among working-class whites. The party will likely continue to hemorrhage working-class whites until it gets rid of the SJWs. Yeah, totally writing off rural areas probably did Hillary in, but unless Harris were to do something to further exacerbate the problem, I don't see how she runs worse than Generic D at this point.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Look, Hillary didn't run that much of an identity-politics campaign. It's the other figures in her party that are hurting it among working-class whites. The party will likely continue to hemorrhage working-class whites until it gets rid of the SJWs. Yeah, totally writing off rural areas probably did Hillary in, but unless Harris were to do something to further exacerbate the problem, I don't see how she runs worse than Generic D at this point.

Counter point there were a good number of Obama voters who stayed home so say a more generic D with not even half the baggage of Hillary runs they probably win in 2016 so this garbage about "identity-politics" doesn't tell the real story

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Look, Hillary didn't run that much of an identity-politics campaign. It's the other figures in her party that are hurting it among working-class whites. The party will likely continue to hemorrhage working-class whites until it gets rid of the SJWs. Yeah, totally writing off rural areas probably did Hillary in, but unless Harris were to do something to further exacerbate the problem, I don't see how she runs worse than Generic D at this point.

Counter point there were a good number of Obama voters who stayed home so say a more generic D with not even half the baggage of Hillary runs they probably win in 2016 so this garbage about "identity-politics" doesn't tell the real story

Fair point. There are also a ton of 2x Obama voters who voted Trump.

[Intell]

"This Obama guy is an urban Harvard elitist liberal from Chicago, he has absolutely no appeal in white-working class America. BAYH/LIEBERMAN '08"

That was 4 years ago, and the democratic brand was as toxic to the Democratic Party as I think is now, and Obama had horrible numbers in white working class America, in 2012 then other democratic candidates.