What is Kamala Harris' appeal?

[MM876]

She seems almost universally touted as a 2020 candidate, and yet the only three things I ever hear about her are that she's a minority, she's young, and she's progressive. Seeing as there are plenty of other prospective young candidates and plenty of progressive candidates--most 2020 candidates could be called progressive--her only uniquely qualifying attribute seems to be the identity politics argument that she's black, Asian, and a woman, so she has the broadest appeal.

She doesn't have the national profile of Bernie or Warren; she doesn't have the experience of Cuomo or Gillibrand; she doesn't have the demographic appeal that dems might need after losing the Rust Belt of Brown or Franken, can someone explain what her appeal is as a candidate in a field with any of the likely competitors?

Edit: Changed title from "What is Kamala Harris' qualification to be president"

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Being a minority is not a "qualification" but certainly an advantage, as proved by Obama. If Obama were white, he would've lost a large part of his appeal.

As of qualifications, her resume is quite impressive.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Any supposed strengths of hers look as fake as Marco Rubio's to me. I could see her having a similar debate meltdown too.

[Jesus save us]

She doesn't have the national profile of Bernie or Warren;

In fairness, Obama and Sanders didn't have much of a national profile until they built one through their campaigns;by contrast plenty of candidates who should be appealing on paper tank during the campaign for one reason or another.

So basically, throw politicians at the wall and see which ones stick.

[henster]

Doesn't she have more experience than Warren or Booker? DA, State AG for Cali, US Senator.

[MAINEiac4434]

Minority, woman, smart as heck.

[Illini Moderate]

She's charismatic and could get the Obama coalition of minorities and young people out to vote in full. She comes off as intelligent and down to Earth as well.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Minority, woman, smart as heck.

The way she behaved during some confirmation hearings shows otherwise. She mostly asked the CIA Director candidate about gay marriage and adoption.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Any supposed strengths of hers look as fake as Marco Rubio's to me. I could see her having a similar debate meltdown too.

Well, there are a lot of candidates who looked excellent of paper while turning out pathetic once they started running. I suspect Booker would fit this category once fully scrutinized. Unsure about Harris.

[Mr. Morden]

She seems almost universally touted as a 2020 candidate, and yet the only three things I ever hear about her are that she's a minority, she's young, and she's progressive. Seeing as there are plenty of other prospective young candidates and plenty of progressive candidates--most 2020 candidates could be called progressive--her only uniquely qualifying attribute seems to be the identity politics argument that she's black, Asian, and a woman, so she has the broadest appeal.

She doesn't have the national profile of Bernie or Warren; she doesn't have the experience of Cuomo or Gillibrand; she doesn't have the demographic appeal that dems might need after losing the Rust Belt of Brown or Franken, can someone explain what her appeal is as a candidate in a field with any of the likely competitors?

Edit: Changed title from "What is Kamala Harris' qualification to be president"

I’m confused about the nature of the question.  Are you asking about what people here on this forum personally like about Kamala Harris, or about why people rate her highly on “most likely to win the nomination” lists?  The former is about our own personal opinion of who should be president, while the latter is about what we think will happen with regular voters.

As for why she’s high on my list of people likely to win the nomination….

Well, I *don’t* rank as being as likely to be nominated as, say, Warren or Sanders or Gillibrand.  But more likely than Brown and Franken?  Yes, but that’s purely because of probability of running in the first place.  Harris is on my top ten list of people most likely to run, whereas Brown and Franken aren’t.

At this early stage, there isn’t much to go on (since few are taking the O’Malley path of visiting an early primary state every other week), but Harris is speaking at the first 2020 “cattle call” next month (the CAP “Ideas Conference”), and she hired Hillary Clinton’s Iowa spokeswoman to be her communications director.  That isn’t much, but it’s more of an indication of presidential ambition than we’ve gotten from Brown and Franken.  Franken’s even given a Shermanesque denial of interest (though it’s too early to read that as the final word, and he’ll surely be asked about it again several times next month when his book comes out, so maybe we should revise predictions at that time).

But there are other candidates who’d also be in my “top ten most likely to run” list, like Cuomo and O’Malley, who I’d also rank as less likely to actually win the nomination than Harris.  And yes, the main reason is that she’s black.  Or rather, like Obama, she’s black and also (unlike, say, Al Sharpton) a conventional politician, who isn’t just running as the black identity politics candidate.  The black vote is big in Democratic primaries, it often (but not always) block votes for one candidate, and black candidates always do at least somewhat better with black voters than they do with white voters.  So I’ve got to take her seriously as a potential primary winner.  No, that itself won’t be enough, but it gives her one advantage that merits putting her high on the list at a time when we don’t have much to go on.

[Mr. Morden]

Minority, woman, smart as heck.

The way she behaved during some confirmation hearings shows otherwise. She mostly asked the CIA Director candidate about gay marriage and adoption.

In fairness, while Harris took that farther than others, there was a lot of that sort of thing going on, especially from folks with national ambitions, like Booker and Gillibrand.  They were shoehorning in domestic political fights into their questions for foreign policy-related appointees.

As I’ve said here before, while Hillary Clinton really did her homework on foreign policy and national security issues when she got onto the Armed Services Committee, this new crop of presidential aspirants hasn’t really followed suit.  They’ve gotten themselves onto committees like Armed Services and Foreign Relations, because that’s what you’re supposed to do to get national security cred before a presidential run.  But then once there, they don’t display much interest in actually learning about foreign policy.

[catographer]

Harris has time to prove herself. At this point she's at the same point Ted Cruz was in 2013 or Obama was in 2005. Both were seen as rising stars, potential future Presidents. Remains to be seen whether she's more of a Cruz or an Obama.

[Figueira]

Her victory speech was pretty strong.

Also correction, she isn't really all that young. If she won, she would be the oldest newly elected Democratic President since James Buchanan.

[Blue3]

Idk, maybe it's just me, but I'm naturally skeptical of people who come from a criminal justice/district attorney kind of background.

[Fuzzy Bear]

She's a female Obama.  She's not what's going to carry the day against Trump in 2020, however. 

Trump can only be beaten if the 2020 electorate views him as incompetent.  In that case, beating him will require a Democrat with significantly more experience at the Governor/Senator/Cabinet level than Kamala Harris has. 

[DK_Mo82]

Carol Moesly Braun is no longer only black female senator!!

[Figueira]

She's a female Obama.  She's not what's going to carry the day against Trump in 2020, however. 

Trump can only be beaten if the 2020 electorate views him as incompetent.  In that case, beating him will require a Democrat with significantly more experience at the Governor/Senator/Cabinet level than Kamala Harris has. 

It's hard to argue that Harris is inexperienced, considering she was attorney general of California for six years, and district attorney before that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Stupid identity politics really.

[Shadows]

She's a female Obama.  She's not what's going to carry the day against Trump in 2020, however. 

Trump can only be beaten if the 2020 electorate views him as incompetent.  In that case, beating him will require a Democrat with significantly more experience at the Governor/Senator/Cabinet level than Kamala Harris has. 

It's hard to argue that Harris is inexperienced, considering she was attorney general of California for six years, and district attorney before that.

She has 0 Legislative experience at a high level. She should atleast serve out 1 term as a Senator if not 2 & then think of challenging. Everyone is not Obama, the whole nostalgia of the 1st Black president has gone !

[SoLongAtlas]

AA woman, very liberal Californian. Identity politics.

[MM876]

Harris has time to prove herself. At this point she's at the same point Ted Cruz was in 2013 or Obama was in 2005. Both were seen as rising stars, potential future Presidents. Remains to be seen whether she's more of a Cruz or an Obama.

See, this is what I find objectionable: in 2005 Obama was newly elected and had given a brilliant speech that elevated his national profile, in 2013 Cruz was elevating his profile by filibustering ACA funding, but what has Harris done to warrant the same level of attention other than win election in one of the bluest states in the union?

[Mr. Morden]

Harris has time to prove herself. At this point she's at the same point Ted Cruz was in 2013 or Obama was in 2005. Both were seen as rising stars, potential future Presidents. Remains to be seen whether she's more of a Cruz or an Obama.

See, this is what I find objectionable: in 2005 Obama was newly elected and had given a brilliant speech that elevated his national profile, in 2013 Cruz was elevating his profile by filibustering ACA funding, but what has Harris done to warrant the same level of attention other than win election in one of the bluest states in the union?

I don't think she has gotten the same level of attention.  Regular voters (at least outside of California) don't know who she is.  She's gotten some attention from political nerds like us looking ahead to a wide open 2020 race, as a possible contender in that race in large part for "identity politics" reasons, and because (like I said) she's doing things like speaking at the Ideas Conference next month along with Booker, Gillibrand, and Warren, but even most political reporters aren't talking much about such things yet.  She isn't talked about that much on mainstream mass media sources like CNN in the way that Cruz was four years ago when he was involved in the government shutdown.

[SoLongAtlas]

Also, to follow up, any appeal she has to the Dem base will be utterly destroyed by the right and centrist ads if she gets the nom in 2020. She has supported taking away pro-life citizens' property (laptops, etc.) in the video case, not seeking the death penalty for a known killer then waffling on the death penalty, and filing an amicus brief to the Heller case opining that the Second Amendment grants no rights to individuals at all to own a firearm. The ads would write themselves and she would be Dukakis'd like nothing before.

Dems would be absolutely insane to nominate or even run her.

[Fuzzy Bear]

She's a female Obama.  She's not what's going to carry the day against Trump in 2020, however. 

Trump can only be beaten if the 2020 electorate views him as incompetent.  In that case, beating him will require a Democrat with significantly more experience at the Governor/Senator/Cabinet level than Kamala Harris has. 

It's hard to argue that Harris is inexperienced, considering she was attorney general of California for six years, and district attorney before that.

She has political experience, but those credentials are the credentials of someone being proposed for a lesser Cabinet post, or something like Solicitor General.  Presidential candidates who have careers in politics are expected to have served at the level of Senator or Governor, and (usually) for at least one full term. 

We have seen folks like Rubio, Cruz and Obama being boosted early in their careers based on racial/ethnic factors.  This worked for Obama due to the time of his candidacy.  It didn't work for Cruz and Rubio because they came up against a candidate with a lifetime of executive experience who was, actually, a gamechanger.

Harris isn't Michelle Bachmann, but she's not someone who'll oust Trump on the basis of competence.  Trump is, slowly but surely, moderating his style and demonstrating "leadership".  The "resistance" to Trump is being crystallized; the "resisters" are seen as in the minority versus a "silent majority".  If Trump is going to be beaten in 2020, it will take the perception that he is incompetent, coupled with the perception of extreme competence by the Democrat, who will be expected to "right the ship".   

[Figueira]

The "resistance" to Trump is being crystallized; the "resisters" are seen as in the minority versus a "silent majority".

...Have you seen his approval ratings?