How would this forum react if Kamala Harris won the presidency?

[heatcharger]

I'd give up on politics for a little while. It'd be clear to me at that point that the Democratic Party will never change in the way it should. Maybe I'll focus on local politics, see what I can do in Louisiana or Georgia regarding activism, but federal politics would be a sport I'd no longer want to spectate.

You’d be so dismayed by a president who supports single-payer that you’d stop caring about politics. You voted for Trump in a swing state. Why aren’t you a Republican again?

[heatcharger]

I'd give up on politics for a little while. It'd be clear to me at that point that the Democratic Party will never change in the way it should. Maybe I'll focus on local politics, see what I can do in Louisiana or Georgia regarding activism, but federal politics would be a sport I'd no longer want to spectate.

You’d be so dismayed by a president who supports single-payer that you’d stop caring about politics. You voted for Trump in a swing state. Why aren’t you a Republican again?

I wouldn't be dismayed, I'd simply be disappointed that the Democratic Party didn't nominate someone who pays attention to the issues that are the most important to me. What exactly is a prosecutor from Oakland, California going to do for rural folks? I'm not confident that she'll be any different from Trump, Obama, Bush or any other President we've had since the founding of the nation in regards to what will be done for the rural impoverished.

And let's not get into this "Why aren't you a Republican again?" business. That has to be the laziest line of critique in intra-party politics. Leave that to the actual Republicans.

You're talking about lazy critiques but have the audacity to imply Harris won't do anything for rural folks based on the city and state she comes from?

And if you think literally every president hasn't done anything different regarding the rural impoverished, why the hell would Kamala Harris and John Bel Edwards or whatever rural white Dem that'll satisfy you be any different? Jesus man.

[heatcharger]

I'd give up on politics for a little while. It'd be clear to me at that point that the Democratic Party will never change in the way it should. Maybe I'll focus on local politics, see what I can do in Louisiana or Georgia regarding activism, but federal politics would be a sport I'd no longer want to spectate.

You’d be so dismayed by a president who supports single-payer that you’d stop caring about politics.

Even apolitical dullards know better than to blindly take everything a politician says at face value. Harris only cynically came out in favor of Medicare for All after she was (rightfully) pressured to endorse it. There's absolutely no reason to think that she'd govern any differently than Obama did, and no, that's not a good thing.

Not even the point I'm making. White Trash has said in the past single-payer should be a litmus test for Democratic leaders, but he seems willing to throw it out the window if the person doesn't check off his demographic wishlist. If you want identity politics, at least be honest about it.

[heatcharger]

You're taking this way too seriously my man, in an election between Trump and Harris I will most certainly vote the latter. I'm just saying that it would be clear that rural Americans aren't getting the President they want per se.

Alright then, I just don't get why you'd stop caring about national politics if Harris were to become. The world doesn't stop moving once the person you want to win does or doesn't get elected, and politics will certainly go on.

[heatcharger]

Have you actually spent a lot of time in rural America?

Half of my family comes from the Corn Belt in the Midwest. I've been out to rural central and eastern VA plenty of times. One thing that I know for sure is that not all rural areas are homogeneous -- you may envision industrial towns in the Midwest but I also think about farming communities in the Central Plains and majority-black districts in the South. There are some rural areas that have thoroughly enjoyed the benefits of the modern agricultural economy; there are others that have historically never had the kind of education, health care, housing, and economic development one would like to see. This is part of why the casting of rural areas as decaying wastelands is hardly productive since it encompasses such a broad group of people.

My question is why is Kamala Harris not qualified to act on rural issues because she's from California, and specifically Oakland? I swear, left-wingers have now internalized the long-standing Republican talking point that Democrats from the coasts are "out-of-touch", and this is a very bad development considering a vast majority of voters in the coastal cities are loyal Democrats who show up and support liberal policies.

Why do you think Obama did so well in '08 and '12 in rural areas, even compared to Gore and Kerry? He won freaking Indiana! Obama could connect with working class and rural White voters. Trump would've lost to Obama in 2012 at the same rate Romney did or even worse.

Obama didn't do that well with working-class whites, he just didn't get obliterated which allowed him to focus on turnout in metropolitan areas and win key swing states. And while Obama did indeed provide the template for a modern Democrat to win the electoral college, I assure you that if Harris, Warren, or Gillibrand copied Obama's 2008 or 2012 campaign rhetoric verbatim it wouldn't have the same effect, even if Obama was pretty much a coastal liberal much like these three. I wonder why that is?