Is Kamala Harris nationally electable?

[President Johnson]

I'm really a big fan of Kamala Harris (though my first choice is Steve Bullock), but is she nationally competitive? She belongs to the progressive wing of the party and I don't know how being an African-American woman may affect some voters. But she's definitely able to energize the base, has an interesting career and no baggage like Hillary. Any thoughts?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

She belongs to the progressive wing of the party

No

[President Johnson]

She belongs to the progressive wing of the party

No

She's at least as progressive as Obama

[Mr. Smith]

Not yet, and she's no Obama or JFK, and the Party isn't as corrupt as the 1920 GOP. Ergo, methinks otherwise to such a new Senator period.

She belongs to the progressive wing of the party

No

She's at least as progressive as Obama

That says nothing at all.

[Rookie Yinzer]

No.

[Mister Mets]

Against current Trump? Yes.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yes, she is very well liked, and she has charisma.  She is a lawyer just like Obama did, when the Dems captured the House in 2006, she will bring in coattails if Nancy Pelosi, which I expect her to, in 2018, becomes Speaker again.

[Figueira]

Everyone is nationally electable.

Will she win? Maybe.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I think she's electable. She oozes competence and is likable enough. On the other hand, her stance against a nationwide requirement for body cams on police was very disappointing.

[NHI]

She belongs to the progressive wing of the party

No

[Liberalrocks]

Yes but 2020 is too soon

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yes but 2020 is too soon

Its a census year, and Latinos will be coming out in a census year and would be thrilled to vote for her or Cory Booker.  She is from a rationally diverse state like California. And she can pick Bullock or a moderate Veep to appeal to Virginia working class and win the 279 votes needed to win.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Everyone is nationally electable.

Will she win? Maybe.

[Orser67]

Yes. She's roughly in the center of the party ideologically, and her "demographic box-checking" will be a huge asset in 2020, especially in the primaries. I also think it's probably safe to assume that, as the Senator from California, she'd probably be able to raise funds pretty well in the primary.

It would be better if she had 10 years in the Senate instead of four, but Obama had just four years in the Senate and Bush II had just six years as governor. In the current political climate, her relative newness might actually be a positive (as it was for Obama).

[Beet]

Maybe, but I still fail to see what's so great about her. Obama was new, sure, but he had his DNC speech in 2004 where he talked about bringing together Red America/Blue America, and that was his thing, his vision. So far not seeing that out of any of the 2020ers except Warren and maybe Gabbard.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Maaaaaaybe.

[Pericles]

Maybe-she could be the next Obama or she could easily be an empty suit or an otherwise flawed candidate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think she's electable. She oozes competence and is likable enough. On the other hand, her stance against a nationwide requirement for body cams on police was very disappointing.

She's so electable that she got a 0.8 point win while the 7 other Democrats each had double digit wins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_elections,_November_2010

[catographer]

After Trump, any candidate is theoretically electable.

[Lachi]

I think she's electable. She oozes competence and is likable enough. On the other hand, her stance against a nationwide requirement for body cams on police was very disappointing.

She's so electable that she got a 0.8 point win while the 7 other Democrats each had double digit wins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_elections,_November_2010

Are you seriously using a republican wave year and trying to use it against a year which will not be one?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think she's electable. She oozes competence and is likable enough. On the other hand, her stance against a nationwide requirement for body cams on police was very disappointing.

She's so electable that she got a 0.8 point win while the 7 other Democrats each had double digit wins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_elections,_November_2010

Are you seriously using a republican wave year and trying to use it against a year which will not be one?

Every statewide seat went Democrat, the others all by double digits.  Democrats picked up the governor's seat. They didn't lose any house or state legislature races. The wave really missed California.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Millineals will be looking for a Ivy leagued educated black woman like Kamela Harris so long as she can come to the middle on Immigration, unlike Obama did in 2008-2010, which caused the Dems to lose the House without passing comprehensive immigration reform, when he had the House and 60votes in the senate.

[Jeppe]

I think she's electable. She oozes competence and is likable enough. On the other hand, her stance against a nationwide requirement for body cams on police was very disappointing.

She's so electable that she got a 0.8 point win while the 7 other Democrats each had double digit wins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_elections,_November_2010

She was running against a very popular Republican district attorney from Los Angeles who was expected to win easily. Instead she ended up beating him on his home turf and won in a huge upset. She was basically running against the Californian Charlie Baker/Larry Hogan, but because she was a strong candidate, she ended up winning.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

If there is a Democratic wave in 2018, 2020 and in 2022, like the GOP wave in 2010, 2014 and 2016, then any Democratic nominee will win the Obama coalition lost under Trump and Ryan years.

[tallguy23]

If Trump was electable nationwide then yes, Harris is too.