Is Kamala Harris nationally electable?

[SingingAnalyst]

Yes, I believe she is electable. I don't know much about her, but circa 2004 a columnist for a Detroit alternative newspaper opined that if Obama were the nominee, he would win DC and not much else. And we all know what happened in 2008.

[Technocracy Timmy]

She's no Obama.

Obama was a senator for Illinois and his strength among wwc voters in the Midwest was very clear in 2008 and 2012. In 2008, he not only swept the rust belt but also managed to win Indiana (which few people expected) along with a congressional district in Nebraska. In 2012, Obama's support in the Midwest stayed strong which gave him an electoral advantage even when it looked as though Romney winning the popular vote was an increasingly likely outcome.

What does Harris provide? A guaranteed popular vote victory by padding California's numbers? I don't really see her appeal beyond that. Maybe she'll win the Iowa caucus and prove me wrong but I doubt it given who's likely to run. And if she ditches the rust belt for a sunbelt strategy who's to say that those trends will be ready by 2020? I'm not seeing it here.

[Mr. Smith]

She's no Obama.

Obama was a senator for Illinois and his strength among wwc voters in the Midwest was very clear in 2008 and 2012. In 2008, he not only swept the rust belt but also managed to win Indiana (which few people expected) along with a congressional district in Nebraska. In 2012, Obama's support in the Midwest stayed strong which gave him an electoral advantage even when it looked as though Romney winning the popular vote was an increasingly likely outcome.

What does Harris provide? A guaranteed popular vote victory by padding California's numbers? I don't really see her appeal beyond that. Maybe she'll win the Iowa caucus and prove me wrong but I doubt it given who's likely to run. And if she ditches the rust belt for a sunbelt strategy who's to say that those trends will be ready by 2020? I'm not seeing it here.

She's no Hillary or Gore or Kerry or Dukakis either.

[Technocracy Timmy]

She's no Obama.

Obama was a senator for Illinois and his strength among wwc voters in the Midwest was very clear in 2008 and 2012. In 2008, he not only swept the rust belt but also managed to win Indiana (which few people expected) along with a congressional district in Nebraska. In 2012, Obama's support in the Midwest stayed strong which gave him an electoral advantage even when it looked as though Romney winning the popular vote was an increasingly likely outcome.

What does Harris provide? A guaranteed popular vote victory by padding California's numbers? I don't really see her appeal beyond that. Maybe she'll win the Iowa caucus and prove me wrong but I doubt it given who's likely to run. And if she ditches the rust belt for a sunbelt strategy who's to say that those trends will be ready by 2020? I'm not seeing it here.

She's no Hillary or Gore or Kerry or Dukakis either.

She'd likely be quite similar to those candidates in that her support will be primarily concentrated on the coasts. Unless Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida are flipping to the Democrats by 2020 then I don't see how she wins the general election beyond just the GOP being incompetent.

How does she break through during the primaries? Warren is likely to run and will win NH, Brown/Franken/Biden/etc. will likely run and take Iowa. Her path forward is to basically take SC and rack up delegates in the south and west coast.

[The Mikado]

At this point, I'm not ruling anyone out. Harris has a lot of potential. I don't see why she'd be considered any less electable than any other member of the Democratic Senate caucus, and more so than some because she's new to it and has taken fewer controversial votes. Long tenures in the Senate are political poison, so someone in her first term has a huge advantage there.

[Mr. Smith]

She's no Obama.

Obama was a senator for Illinois and his strength among wwc voters in the Midwest was very clear in 2008 and 2012. In 2008, he not only swept the rust belt but also managed to win Indiana (which few people expected) along with a congressional district in Nebraska. In 2012, Obama's support in the Midwest stayed strong which gave him an electoral advantage even when it looked as though Romney winning the popular vote was an increasingly likely outcome.

What does Harris provide? A guaranteed popular vote victory by padding California's numbers? I don't really see her appeal beyond that. Maybe she'll win the Iowa caucus and prove me wrong but I doubt it given who's likely to run. And if she ditches the rust belt for a sunbelt strategy who's to say that those trends will be ready by 2020? I'm not seeing it here.

She's no Hillary or Gore or Kerry or Dukakis either.

She'd likely be quite similar to those candidates in that her support will be primarily concentrated on the coasts. Unless Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida are flipping to the Democrats by 2020 then I don't see how she wins the general election beyond just the GOP being incompetent.

How does she break through during the primaries? Warren is likely to run and will win NH, Brown/Franken/Biden/etc. will likely run and take Iowa. Her path forward is to basically take SC and rack up delegates in the south and west coast.

For the primary, she'll probably pull a Bill Clinton '92 comeback and wreck Super Tuesday. Then she'd make a line along the I-10 and eat up the West Coast...and that's without knowing who the likely rival is. Even Montana, Idaho, and Utah could go to her.

And as for the general, Hillary lost the Rust Belt because of black turnout dipping. Right of the bat, Harris would be guaranteed to net higher turnout from Detroit and Milwaukee because of that, even with a Sun Belt strategy. So that puts Michigan and Wisconsin back in play.

And with a Sun Belt Strategy, she probably would flip three of NC, GA, FL, and AZ, with one of them effectively being like Minnesota last cycle.

The only real caveats (if she were to run) are:

- Can she shake the "West Coast elitism" and prove reasonably progressive enough to do well in the primaries. (I'm skeptical of this given how she treated the Senate race, probably the hardest)

- Will Trump continue to stay where he is, or will he pull a Truman or even Reagan [another example given how dismal his approvals were for much of Term 1]? Heck, what if Trump gets replaced by someone more charismatic? (This caveat would probably be the easiest to overcome)

- Will there be a YUGE "whitelash" that's so big that it clouds even Obama's numbers? (Least predictable, but most devastating if proven true)

[McGovernForPrez]

- Will there be a YUGE "whitelash" that's so big that it clouds even Obama's numbers? (Least predictable, but most devastating if proven true)

There will be. The idea of demographics is destiny failed in large part due to the white vote slipping further and further away from the Democratic party. She's not from the midwest so she can't put together the Obama coalition. Nominating someone from the coasts, especially a black woman from California would almost certainly not lead to any meaningful gains among white voters from 2016.

She's not the weakest coastal candidate, but I inherently think all liberal coast candidates are flawed. The Democratic party can't win without serious efforts to reach out to middle America. The Al Gore technocratic brand of liberalism isn't the type of public face the Democratic party needs right now.

[Bojack Horseman]

I don't see why not. She'd take the whole "Law and Order" argument away from the Republicans because she's a former prosecutor and attorney general.

[Mr. Smith]

- Will there be a YUGE "whitelash" that's so big that it clouds even Obama's numbers? (Least predictable, but most devastating if proven true)

There will be. The idea of demographics is destiny failed in large part due to the white vote slipping further and further away from the Democratic party. She's not from the midwest so she can't put together the Obama coalition. Nominating someone from the coasts, especially a black woman from California would almost certainly not lead to any meaningful gains among white voters from 2016.

She's not the weakest coastal candidate, but I inherently think all liberal coast candidates are flawed. The Democratic party can't win without serious efforts to reach out to middle America. The Al Gore technocratic brand of liberalism isn't the type of public face the Democratic party needs right now.

Southern Conservative Republicans were out of reach once too. Western, Northern [Bush Sr was fundamentally this] or Die b*&ches! Then Bush Jr happened and he gave Yankeeland the middle finger by taking Ohio.

No Northern Democrat! Period! was the idea after Humphrey (or if you consider Missouri a Southern State, then JFK was the big exception after FDR), then Gore lost, Kerry was one state away from giving the Confederacy the middle finger, and then Obama happened.

Oh, and before LBJ, no Southerners! Period!

See, that's the problem with counting out locations, it is...until it isn't!

I don't disagree that she wouldn't be the best candidate by any means (wouldn't be my first choice in a primary) and would have a lot more hoops to jump through, but I find the idea of anyone [besides Cuomo, Hillary, and Booker] being outright unelectable and without a path to be laughable.

[McGovernForPrez]

- Will there be a YUGE "whitelash" that's so big that it clouds even Obama's numbers? (Least predictable, but most devastating if proven true)

There will be. The idea of demographics is destiny failed in large part due to the white vote slipping further and further away from the Democratic party. She's not from the midwest so she can't put together the Obama coalition. Nominating someone from the coasts, especially a black woman from California would almost certainly not lead to any meaningful gains among white voters from 2016.

She's not the weakest coastal candidate, but I inherently think all liberal coast candidates are flawed. The Democratic party can't win without serious efforts to reach out to middle America. The Al Gore technocratic brand of liberalism isn't the type of public face the Democratic party needs right now.

Southern Conservative Republicans were out of reach once too. Western, Northern [Bush Sr was fundamentally this] or Die b*&ches! Then Bush Jr happened and he gave Yankeeland the middle finger by taking Ohio.

No Northern Democrat! Period! was the idea after Humphrey (or if you consider Missouri a Southern State, then JFK was the big exception after FDR), then Gore lost, Kerry was one state away from giving the Confederacy the middle finger, and then Obama happened.

Oh, and before LBJ, no Southerners! Period!

See, that's the problem with counting out locations, it is...until it isn't!

I don't disagree that she wouldn't be the best candidate by any means (wouldn't be my first choice in a primary) and would have a lot more hoops to jump through, but I find the idea of anyone [besides Cuomo, Hillary, and Booker] being outright unelectable and without a path to be laughable.

I generally agree with what you're saying but there's a fundamental problem going on in politics currently that really only became pronounced in the 2000's and further. Ever since Gore the Democratic party has really tried to embrace this brand of technocratic liberalism. Middle American voters saw these coastal liberals as people looking down on them. The way Gore treated Bush during the debates for example really exemplifies that. Clinton also did this one quite badly. The "basket of deplorables" comment largely crystallized the divide in this country.

I think that Kamala Harris almost certainly an electable Democratic candidate, I don't think Democrats should be merely settling for electable. There's no long term future for the party without sending an olive branch out to Middle America. Democrats should be finding a way to redefine themselves. Trump is the perfect opportunity to do so. He's a coastal elite himself. He was able to get away with painting himself as a hero of the working class because was up against Hillary, but against an actual heartland candidate it would be much more difficult. Kamala is like an A+ VP to me, but I don't think she'll be able to market herself to people outside the coasts and major urban centers.

[McGovernForPrez]

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.

In what world does this analysis make sense? Democrats lost the house in 2010 because of Obamacare backlash and the Tea Party movement. I also don't necessarily think Millennials are looking for an Ivy educated Black Woman, when they overwhelmingly chose the old white guy from Vermont over Ivy educated Hillary.

[The Mikado]

I really think people are putting way too much emphasis on candidate geography, and even if they weren't, the most important state to the future of the Democratic Party is still Florida, not Ohio or whatever, so I'm not sure that a Californian is any bigger turnoff than anything else (given Florida's horrible tendency to be unable to produce talented local Democratic politicians)

[Technocracy Timmy]

She's not gonna win Iowa or NH given whose likely to run (Warren, Brown, Franken, etc.) and she's gonna be competing with Cory Booker (who's almost certainly gonna run) for southern states.

She has almost no path to victory. She's most likely setting herself up to run in 2024/2028 if anything.

[Mr. Morden]

I really think people are putting way too much emphasis on candidate geography...

Yep.  Now I grant that there are candidates like Amy Klobuchar, who when speaking to a national audience references her Midwestern background in every other sentence.  But most candidates aren't going to do that.  Voters just aren't going to pay *that* much attention to candidate home states, if they can even remember what the candidates' home states are.  But because candidates like Harris haven't launched their presidential campaigns yet, and many folks here are trying to extrapolate from limited information as to what kind of candidate she'd be, they're hyping up biographical details as if those are going to be the defining traits of her campaign.

[hopper]

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.

In what world does this analysis make sense? Democrats lost the house in 2010 because of Obamacare backlash and the Tea Party movement. I also don't necessarily think Millennials are looking for an Ivy educated Black Woman, when they overwhelmingly chose the old white guy from Vermont over Ivy educated Hillary.

She is Black and Asian.

Democrats lost because the economy wasn't that good and they were overexposed in Republican Seats in addition to the reasons you listed for the Dems getting shellacked" in 2010.

[McGovernForPrez]

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.

In what world does this analysis make sense? Democrats lost the house in 2010 because of Obamacare backlash and the Tea Party movement. I also don't necessarily think Millennials are looking for an Ivy educated Black Woman, when they overwhelmingly chose the old white guy from Vermont over Ivy educated Hillary.

She is Black and Asian.

Democrats lost because the economy wasn't that good and they were overexposed in Republican Seats in addition to the reasons you listed for the Dems getting shellacked" in 2010.

As to Kamala's race, yes you're right but I was just responding to the phrasing of the guy I was responding to.

I also agree with your explanation for the 2010 losses. They also certainly contributed to the loss. I'm certain however that the losses weren't the result of "low millennial turnout due to a lack of immigration reform". You can blame the 2010 losses on a number of things but I don't think that's one of the more reasonable explanations.

[Mr. Smith]

She's not gonna win Iowa or NH given whose likely to run (Warren, Brown, Franken, etc.) and she's gonna be competing with Cory Booker (who's almost certainly gonna run) for southern states.

She has almost no path to victory. She's most likely setting herself up to run in 2024/2028 if anything.

While I believe this is more likely the case, assuming she doesn't just try to raise the state of California overall in Senate by gaining seniority, I wouldn't count out victory paths.

I'm no longer a believer in Sherrod Brown 2020, so that leaves Franken, Warren, and Booker as likely leads here (though this could change)

She could probably place second in IA and NH, while Warren and Franken trade 1st and 3rd respectively, while Booker would likely be put into 4th with the only hope being in The South.

Then comes NV most likely, which she'd easily have the advantage in in such a case simply by being a neighbor.

So she's 2nd in IA, NH, and won NV

Then comes SC, Booker's hopeful card. This could go to him or Harris all depending on who is more critical of Trump's policies.

Then cometh Super Tuesday, which will likely wipe Franken out, and end with Harris and Booker splitting The South and Warren eating up the Northeastern states. The rural Northeast would likely see Harris take 2nd, while the urban Northeast would likely see Booker take 2nd.

And if California's request is approved, then it'll like be dropped into this place from June, and Harris will likely clean house. And given how expensive the state is, either Warren or Booker would probably get wiped out.

Whomever is left would have a hard time maintaining Montana against her, Booker's not populist enough, and Warren's likely to be a whipping girl as is...Trump wants her as the opponent and if he's still popular in Montana, that's to Harris' advantage.

The same Montana problem is also likely to be a problem in Idaho too.

Oklahoma's probably the one plains state she wouldn't take against Warren or Booker for this precise reason.

Michigan would be hers against Booker, but not if Warren. Florida would likely be the reverse.

So then there's the Accela path, which'd probably be her one weak spot.

But if she stays competitive still, the final Plains states would likely be hers by default against Warren the Ivy League Professor and Booker the Elite.

So yeah, it's a path, but it'd rely heavily on letting the others destroy each other and keeping an optimistic, but sufficiently "in touch" leftist message.

And without California getting the move from June to an earlier spot, it'd be even harder to pull off.

[Sir Mohamed]

I think she’s absolutely electable, and I don’t say that as a staunch supporter of her. She’s in the Democratic mainstream and probably acceptable for most Berniebros as well as establishment or moderate Dems. She’s also a charismatic and good looking woman and her vita somewhat tells the American dream; daughter of immigrants and hard work that paid off. She would definitely energize the Democratic base, especially minorities. As a former prosecutor, the GOP can’t play the law-and-order card. Harris has also not the flaws Clinton had (at least in the eyes of many voters, what actually counts). She has no children, but the ones who see that as an obstacle wouldn’t vote for her either way. However, I would strongly recommend that, if nominated, she picks a moderate white man with appeal to white working-class voters. Steve Bullock, Roy Cooper, John Hickenlooper, Michael Bennet or John Bel Edwards would be great choices for ticket balance.

If Trump doesn’t recover, it should be possible to beat him. If he continues to be grossly incompetent, he’ll have almost no real accomplishments after four years and the patience of Republicans will fade away. At least the establishment GOPers.

[Vern]

Yes she is, but not in 2020, only due to other Democrats running and taking her votes. I can see her becoming President in the 2030s. If I was her, I would stay in the Senate and work my way up into leadership and build a name for myself, beside being "the young black woman". 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Cory Booker, is leading the Democratic cause in the Senate against Trump.  Cory Booker, is gonna be the nominee in 2020. Both, have the charisma to be president, though, but 2020 is too early for her.

[The Other Castro]

I've laid out what I believe to be a somewhat plausible path for her to the nomination in my TL. It mostly involves delegate rule changes, a lot of 2nd place wins, strength in the West, and capitalizing on the voids left by other candidates.

[Da2017]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HKJY9uoEKI Just found this hypothetical match between Harris and Trump. Interesting analysis. She will probably win Michigan because of turn out Wayne County. I think she will gain in Flint. Wisconsin is a tough call. I can't see her winning Wisconsin if she loses Pennsylvania. If she wins Wisconsin it would by the skin of her teeth,assuming the WOW counties continue to not like Trump and she gets Obama 2012 Milwaukee numbers.  She would need some rural support in Pennsylvania.