Kamala Harris 2020 campaign megathread

[lfromnj]

Racist voters: *are racist and sexist*
Populist Democrats: oh no we need to nominate a white male to win, a black woman would be identity politics!
Racist voters: *remain racist and sexist*
Populist Democrats:

This thread is funny. Acting as if nominating a white male who NEVER speaks about issues that disproportionally affect women and non-white people that he will get within spitting distance of the White House. Newsflash: The 90’s are over.

Uh clinton spoke about abortion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Burleigh#Personal_life

[lfromnj]

Let's be completely honest here, if she gets a decent amount of support, it'll ONLY be because of the boxes she checks for sjw Democrats, not because of anything she's done in her career.

Let's be completely honest here, any woman who runs for anything is ONLY winning because she's an SJW female Democrat who didn't work hard at all for where she is at now.

klobuchar wouldn't

[lfromnj]

Here in Georgia with a bunch of organizers and party people on my social media (more of them white than black I might add) and this announcement by far has gotten the biggest and most fervent reaction. She’s sweeping the South.

Same story in CA — word I’m getting is that her organizer and donor support here is nearly unanimous. And CA + the South + black support elsewhere is the nomination.

Couple problems:
1.CA is going to be heavily contested by everyone. She isnt likely to get a simple majority there.
2. The Black vote will be divided between other candidates like Booker, Biden, and Sanders
3. The South is only influential if she can get crazy margins out of it like Clinton/Obama did. See point 2 on how this would be difficult.

That plan, IMO, is highly risky, and requires no mistakes or losses for the Harris campaign.

Zero percent chance Harris doesn't win California by a landslide. Biden might win a couple counties, but she'll crush everyone in SoCal and especially in the Bay Area.

Homestate advantage aint that big, and with so many candidates, its unlikely she gets a landslide, or even a majority.

it depends on the size of state,how connected you are and other factors. eg vermont and deleware should be ez wins for Biden and Sanders. Then for texas Beto has like 99% name rec and 95% favorables among Texas Dems and they all remember what he did for the state democrats.

[lfromnj]

Here in Georgia with a bunch of organizers and party people on my social media (more of them white than black I might add) and this announcement by far has gotten the biggest and most fervent reaction. She’s sweeping the South.

Same story in CA — word I’m getting is that her organizer and donor support here is nearly unanimous. And CA + the South + black support elsewhere is the nomination.

Couple problems:
1.CA is going to be heavily contested by everyone. She isnt likely to get a simple majority there.
2. The Black vote will be divided between other candidates like Booker, Biden, and Sanders
3. The South is only influential if she can get crazy margins out of it like Clinton/Obama did. See point 2 on how this would be difficult.

That plan, IMO, is highly risky, and requires no mistakes or losses for the Harris campaign.

Zero percent chance Harris doesn't win California by a landslide. Biden might win a couple counties, but she'll crush everyone in SoCal and especially in the Bay Area.

Homestate advantage aint that big, and with so many candidates, its unlikely she gets a landslide, or even a majority.

it depends on the size of state,how connected you are and other factors. eg vermont and deleware should be ez wins for Biden and Sanders. Then for texas Beto has like 99% name rec and 95% favorables among Texas Dems and they all remember what he did for the state democrats.

Exactly. Beto is much more likely to win a 50%+1 majority because of this. Harris, however, doesnt have universal name rec in CA, nor the favorables to get such a majority, alongside the fact that the field will be pretty divided.

 I think she does have close to those numbers but I think its more a generic approval where it probably gives an advantage in a tiebreaker situation between 2 candidates but for Beto as long as he ones of the first 4 states he is basically handed a victory in texas. Also all his voter info he collected during 2018 must be very helpful to him.

[lfromnj]

Has Harris every actually done anything to connect with the black community?

They might consider her but Booker has been much more a pro black candidate.

She comes from San Francisco/Bay area which is mostly white and asian. Only a few black people are there. Meanwhile Booker comes from heavily black Newark so he has some idea on how to connect to black candidates

On criminal justice issues she was not a great candidate for the black community as she had many harsh policies as AG. Meanwhile Booker was one of the largest proponents of CJ reform working strongly with Rand Paul

Booker has also shown much more aptness to visit deep south states atm so this also helps him.

And no having an affair with Willie Brown does not count as connecting with the black community

[lfromnj]

Trump would defeat her soundly. Dems do not have a consensus unifying candidate in 2020.

Trump will not win solidly against anyone. Half the country hates his guts and he's one of the most unpopular presidents we've ever had! He won in 2016 against someone who was hated equally(or perhaps more) then he was! If Sanders, Biden or someone else had been the nominee, Trump would have lost in 2016
I'm not saying he can't win, but he's not going to win in a "Landslide" even against a weak candidate like Booker or Warren

[lfromnj]

Stop, it's already dead!!! I get that this is airheaded, but throwing policies out during a primary is not supposed to be a serious exercise that requires legitimate evaluation prior to election. How is literally everyone throwing a burn at this? What did Liz start in this endless series of less and less serious proposals?

https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1155603673332011009?s=19

Warren's proposals despite being economically sh**t actually make coherent sense.

[lfromnj]

Wait so her GOP opponent supported legalizing weed in 2014 but she couldn't?

There's a reasonable excuse she had to act tough on crime to win reelection but she couldn't even be attacked from this angle in 2014.

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1188823986182000640

[lfromnj]

Didnt harris say she was a top tier candidate and made fun of Gabbard?

[lfromnj]

If you were to characterize the trend in polled support for a Harris, it would be as follows: A near-overnight ascent to the top tier fueled by a strong debate during the summer that gradually dissipates over the next couple of months as the candidate fails to impress through an interminable series of negative news cycles and declining interest.

You might remember another candidate whose support followed that trajectory eight years ago. Her name was Michelle Bachmann.

Kamala Harris: Peaks at 15.2% in the RCP average on July 5th, flatlines at below 5% in the first week of October.

Michelle Bachmann: Peaks at 14.0% in the RCP average on July 20th, flatlines at below 5% in the first week of October.

     Spooooky!!!   

Does this mean California Senate 2022 is competitive?