Why on earth would Kamala Harris out perform Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, or Florida? I understand Michigan because that was a bit flukish and I understand why GA / AZ could be had if she all ins on them but I'm having a hard time seeing why Harris had any appeal to the Midwest in any of these scenarios. Sure she could campaign more in them than Hillary did but she will be less popular there (and they will have drifted right for four more years) - I just don't see how she (or Warren, or Booker) is going to claw back ground in Scranton PA or Eau Claire WI
This, except I would exclude FL from that list. Harris certainly has the potential in FL. I could see her (assuming she's actually a good candidate, which obviously is a big "if" at this point), bringing the margin in Palm Beach Cty back to Obama levels, increasing turnout to Obama levels in places like Volusia Cty, flipping back Pinellas, etc.
PA, I'd agree with you though. I am completely befuddled as to why people keep making maps with PA in it. Harris has a route to the White House, but it doesn't go through PA. To win PA, the Dems have to win back places like Wilkes-Barre and Erie. I don't see Harris as a great fit for these counties, unless she surprises us all and it turns out she's basically the female Obama. And there isn't some secret magical hidden cache of blacks in PA that Harris can tap into either. I went into this above- Clinton actually exceeded Obama's turnout in Philly and still managed to lose the state. Of course, the myth will continue that somehow the Dems lost PA due to black turnout, no matter what the numbers say. :shrug:
Hillary did tremendously in Florida though (actually not being sarcastic here). She turned out 400k more voters than Obama got only four years earlier, and ran up huge margins all the places she had to. The fact that maybe she could've done a bit better in Volusia or Pinellas probably wouldn't even have swing the state though, due to Trump's crazy margins and absurd gain of voters over Romney. I very much doubt Kamala Harris would have the ground operation Clinton did in a state where the early vote is so essential, and I doubt she would drive up turnout in Broward, Palm Beach, or Miami. She could win. Florida if Trump is unpopular and loses a portion of his own voters, but so could any other Democrat.
My questions stands: what does Harris have that other Democrats do not that would give her a better chance at Florida than Hillary Clinton? Hillary ran strong with Hispanic voters and minority voters in general, but even if you boost her minority turnout to Obama levels she doesn't beat Trump last year. Meanwhile, I doubt Harris would have the infrastructure and money to try to bury Trump there (if Clinton hadn't been up 250k going in to Election Day courtesy of her massive spending lead, the state would have been a blowout).
Anyway I think people are underrating Clinton's campaign and assuming any Democrat would do better than she did almost universally. While that may end up being the case, if it is then Trump will lose no matter who the nominee is so who cares. The question is, if he performs decently and gets the same voters with a 36% approval rating as he got with a 36% approval rating in 2016, then who can beat him? That's is the operative question to answer, and while there are good answers (cough Bernie cough Sherrod Brown) I don't think Harris is one of them.
