How is Kamala Harris a better candidate than Hillary Clinton

[GGover]

She has genuine emotions.

[Devout Centrist]

She was a solid AG who won on her own? I mean, I really like Hillary Clinton, but she had name recognition like you wouldn't believe for her NY Senate run.

[Rookie Yinzer]

No 25 year Republican witch hunt.

[Mr. Morden]

No 25 year Republican witch hunt.

I am kind of wondering to what extent highly unpopular presidential nominees is something that was peculiar to 2016, or if it’s “the new normal”.  Someone who is “new” to the national stage like Harris, who does not come in with Clinton-esque baggage, is she nonetheless doomed to end up with underwater favorability #s simply by winning the Democratic nomination, thereby prompting the GOP attack machine to savage her (just as any Republican nominee would get attacked by the Dems)?  Are the major party presidential nominees now symbols in the culture war on a level where they become super-polarizing regardless of how talented they are as politicians?  I don’t know, but I think it’s a possibility.

[Alabama_Indy10]

She isn't. A left coast loon wouldn't even be competitive in the southeast and rust belt

[SCNCmod]

I think Harris may eventually be a good candidate... but is currently very over-rated from what I've seen....

That said- I do think she has been treated horribly in Senate Hearings by her fellow (male Republican) Senators.

[Mister Mets]

She's a newer face, so she can run more effectively as a change candidate.

There isn't a perception that she succeeded due to a husband or powerful relatives.

She's a minority, so she doesn't have to try as hard to win those votes.

She's a younger progressive, so she'll have an "in" with the activists. But 13 years as a prosecutor, and 4 years as a Senator in the minority party will limit the amount of controversial votes that can scare centrists.

She has some disadvantages as well (no kids, a Californian might not appeal to voters in key rust belt/ southeastern swing states.)

[President Johnson]

She's a newer face, so she can run more effectively as a change candidate.

There isn't a perception that she succeeded due to a husband or powerful relatives.

She's a minority, so she doesn't have to try as hard to win those votes.

She's a younger progressive, so she'll have an "in" with the activists. But 13 years as a prosecutor, and 4 years as a Senator in the minority party will limit the amount of controversial votes that can scare centrists.

She has some disadvantages as well (no kids, a Californian might not appeal to voters in key rust belt/ southeastern swing states.)

Well, I thought this as well. But the people who say they don't vote for her because of this, wouldn't vote for her anyway.

You could argue the same about Obama as well. And if she selects a strong running mate from these regions or from middle-America that may change. Fine choices would be Bullock, Heinrich, Bennet, Hickenlooper or JBE.

[Mr. Morden]

While I mentioned recently how Amy Klobuchar is trying to emphasize her Midwestern-ness to separate herself from the rest of the Dem. primary field, this is really a strategy that (I think) she’s using because (at least as of right now) she has no other cards to play.  There’s nothing else that really separates her from the rest of the field.  (That is, assuming she doesn’t want to emphasize the fact that she’s the biggest foreign policy hawk in the field, which probably wouldn’t play too well.)

For the most part, I don’t think regional identity makes much difference.  It may make a slight difference in the primaries, where the candidates are running within their own party, and so they agree on most of the issues and there isn't as much to distinguish them, but I don’t see it as being very meaningful at all in the general election.  Sure, I could imagine some kind of regional considerations being one of many factors in the mix for the VP selection, but that’s about it.  My guess is that many voters wouldn’t even be able to tell you what the home states of the candidates are.

And so no, I don’t think Harris being from California makes much difference at all for her general election prospects, and people are only bringing it up so much in this thread because they haven’t seen her campaign yet, and so the only thing you have to go on is her biographical sketch.  Once she actually starts running, then her performance as a candidate will be much more important than what state she’s from.  Being from California will only matter in the indirect sense that her political positions have been shaped by the kind of electorate she’s been trying to appeal to.

[PragmaticPopulist]

Harris may be overrated, but she's certainly better than Hillary. No known baggage, hasn't been in the spotlight for 25 years, would probably excite the Democratic base, and might get near the levels of minority support that Obama did. Of course she'll be attacked by Republicans for being a "left coast liberal" but I think that line of attack is overrated. Kerry was a "Massachusetts Liberal", and still did better in the midwest than Hillary Clinton did, while Obama, who was a "Chicago liberal" had the best showing in the Midwest for a Democrat since Lyndon Johnson, IIRC, and manged to win North Carolina, once home to the infamous Jesse Helms.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Less people hate her..........for now

[Zioneer]

I'm sure the midwestern working class is just dying for some coastal elite who let Wall Street get away with breaking the rules and seems to have slept her way into power.

I get that you don't like any candidate, ever, besides Bernie, but cmon, seriously?

And yes, I saw the thing you posted about Willie Brown. Doesn't change the fact that Kamala Harris is actually pretty good at her job and likely would have achieved most of what she's achieved so far even without Willie Brown. Attributing it to "sleeping her way into power" is sexist and incredibly rude.

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

I think Harris may eventually be a good candidate... but is currently very over-rated from what I've seen....

That said- I do think she has been treated horribly in Senate Hearings by her fellow (male Republican) Senators.

She asked lightweight questions to nominees, which put pandering on display.  She's a freshman Senator, and we're talking about the Presidency?  If she were a white male, we wouldn't be having this discussion about Kamala Harris and her 6 months of Federal Experience.

[Cynthia]

More charismatic, while holding significantly less the baggage that HRC has. Although Harris has more of a leftist message than Clinton seems to have, but voters have already demonstrated in Trump that they don't care.

[GoTfan]

The left doesn't like either of them. The fact that she refused to prosecute Mnuchin when he was foreclosing on elderly people in California may be a bit of a hit. Just saying.

[Tender Branson]

She's not a horribly flawed robot, which adds the extra 3% that are needed to win an election.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

No email scandal, would motivate blacks, didn't spend eight years sleeping in the Senate. (Almost none of the bills that Hillary cosponsored were signed into law, and in most cases they didn't even pass the senate.)

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

She's a newer face, so she can run more effectively as a change candidate.

There isn't a perception that she succeeded due to a husband or powerful relatives.

She's a minority, so she doesn't have to try as hard to win those votes.

She's a younger progressive, so she'll have an "in" with the activists. But 13 years as a prosecutor, and 4 years as a Senator in the minority party will limit the amount of controversial votes that can scare centrists.

She has some disadvantages as well (no kids, a Californian might not appeal to voters in key rust belt/ southeastern swing states.)

I agree with pretty much all of this, but I feel a liberal San Franciscan would be just as successful in the Midwest as a born-to-wealth New York billionaire. It's mostly about the issues

[DPKdebator]

She's a newer face, so she can run more effectively as a change candidate.

There isn't a perception that she succeeded due to a husband or powerful relatives.

She's a minority, so she doesn't have to try as hard to win those votes.

She's a younger progressive, so she'll have an "in" with the activists. But 13 years as a prosecutor, and 4 years as a Senator in the minority party will limit the amount of controversial votes that can scare centrists.

She has some disadvantages as well (no kids, a Californian might not appeal to voters in key rust belt/ southeastern swing states.)

I agree with pretty much all of this, but I feel a liberal San Franciscan would be just as successful in the Midwest as a born-to-wealth New York billionaire. It's mostly about the issues

Remember that you have to get people to vote for you, and a Midwestern progressive would do this more naturally in the Rust Belt than a Californian or New Yorker.

[Badger]

I'm sure the midwestern working class is just dying for some coastal elite who let Wall Street get away with breaking the rules and seems to have slept her way into power.

The critiques of coastal elitism and her relationship with Wall Street are valid, but I don't see how accusing her of "sleeping her way into power" is anything but sexist

“Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, continuing his rush to hand out patronage jobs while he retains his powerful post, has given high-paying appointments to his former law associate and a former Alameda County prosecutor who is Brown’s frequent companion.

“Brown, exercising his power even as his speakership seems near an end, named attorney Kamala Harris to the California Medical Assistance Commission, a job that pays $72,000 a year.

“Harris, a former deputy district attorney in Alameda County, was described by several people at the Capitol as Brown’s girlfriend. In March, San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen called her ‘the Speaker’s new steady.’ Harris declined to be interviewed Monday and Brown’s spokeswoman did not return phone calls.

“Harris accepted the appointment last week after serving six months as Brown’s appointee to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, which pays $97,088 a year.”

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-11-29/news/mn-2787_1_brown-associates

Good point Jfern. Assuming this is true, we all know the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board is a prime stepping stone to state AG and the US Senate.

Capital job proving Harris got where she was on her back. Equally capital job not posting at all like a sexist putz.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

I'm sure the midwestern working class is just dying for some coastal elite who let Wall Street get away with breaking the rules and seems to have slept her way into power.

I understand that you're annoyed by the stereotype that Bernie supporters are sexist, but you're not helping your case.

[Mr. Smith]

She's a newer face, so she can run more effectively as a change candidate.

There isn't a perception that she succeeded due to a husband or powerful relatives.

She's a minority, so she doesn't have to try as hard to win those votes.

She's a younger progressive, so she'll have an "in" with the activists. But 13 years as a prosecutor, and 4 years as a Senator in the minority party will limit the amount of controversial votes that can scare centrists.

She has some disadvantages as well (no kids, a Californian might not appeal to voters in key rust belt/ southeastern swing states.)

I agree with pretty much all of this, but I feel a liberal San Franciscan would be just as successful in the Midwest as a born-to-wealth New York billionaire. It's mostly about the issues

Remember that you have to get people to vote for you, and a Midwestern progressive would do this more naturally in the Rust Belt than a Californian or New Yorker.

Worked out great for Al Gore back when being from The South was all the rage after all.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

She probably doesn't live in a make-belief bubble.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm sure the midwestern working class is just dying for some coastal elite who let Wall Street get away with breaking the rules and seems to have slept her way into power.

Leave Willie Brown out of this.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm sure the midwestern working class is just dying for some coastal elite who let Wall Street get away with breaking the rules and seems to have slept her way into power.

I understand that you're annoyed by the stereotype that Bernie supporters are sexist, but you're not helping your case.

Calling everyone who mentions that her boyfriend appointed her to some well paid jobs at taxpayer expense while she was still in her 20s sexist is really not going to help her case.