Kamala Harris, Booker Are Early 2020 Favs Among Black Leaders

[Possiblymaybe]

Kamala Harris, Booker Are Early 2020 Favs Among Black Leaders
by JONATHAN ALLEN and CHANDELIS R. DUSTER
SHARE

WASHINGTON — Sen. Kamala Harris is the potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidate generating the most excitement among the black political elite, according to participants at this year’s Congressional Black Caucus Foundation policy forum in Washington.

It’s still way too soon for endorsements — none of the major potential candidates are even in the race yet and elected officials say they’re more focused on the 2018 mid-terms than the next presidential contest — but Harris, a California Democrat who is in her first year in the Senate, has emerged at the center of attention.

In interviews with more than a dozen political insiders and CBC members here, Harris’ outreach to other political leaders, her attention to issues of importance to voters of color, her perceived ferocity, and even her status as a graduate of a historically black college — Howard University — were cited as reasons she’s emerged as an early, if far from prohibitive, favorite.
"You’re hearing Kamala, and Cory’s a distant second," James Williams, director of federal relations for Wayne State University and a former longtime congressional aide, said, referring to Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J.

The early leanings of the black political influencers are important because a mostly unified African-American electorate has helped push the victors of the last two open Democratic presidential primaries — Barack Obama in 2008 and Hillary Clinton in 2016 — to the party’s nomination.

Those contests highlighted the way party rules award more Democratic convention delegates to parts of the country that most reliably support Democratic candidates — meaning a black voting bloc can have outsized influence in picking the party’s nominee.

That dynamic isn’t lost on white politicians who are considering presidential runs.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who lost to Hillary Clinton in 2016, has been reaching out to the African-American community since his defeat, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., recently visited Martin Luther King Jr.’s Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, and New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu garnered attention among Democrats, including many black voters, by removing Confederate statues from his city.
There’s some division of opinion among black elected officials as to whether Harris or Booker would necessarily command the support of black voters if one of them ran.

One potential African-American candidate who was an afterthought at the gathering this week was former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.

Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., said “without a doubt” African-American voters would strongly favor Harris or Booker if one of them makes a serious bid and that he expects only one of the two would run. "I don’t think you’d get both," he said.

But black voters won’t necessarily support a single candidate, said Rep. G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C.

"Booker and Harris are visionary leaders who enjoy broad support and respect in the African-American community," he said. "The black community is not monolithic, so political thought needs to develop on the next presidential campaign. We will look at the totality of candidates and seek to reach consensus on who can beat the Republican nominee."

Many of the elected officials here would not discuss prospective candidates in depth on the record. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., who worked on Shirley Chisholm’s 1972 presidential campaign, would only allow this much when asked about Harris: "I like her a lot, but I like a lot of the candidates. … It’s very early."

One characteristic that might help Harris in a Democratic primary in the wake of Clinton’s loss: Her gender.

"Due to artificial encumbrances, the nation was deprived of its first female president," said Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., pointing out that Harris is one of several women who might run for the White House. "Perhaps that can be addressed in the 2020 election."
Because black women are more likely to vote than black men, they are especially important to Democratic presidential candidates, according to Andra Gillespie, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta.

"You have to win over African-American voters, particularly African-American women, to be viable in a primary because they are going to be the ones who are going to be decisive in terms of allocating delegates to the convention," Gillespie said.

However, support for Democrats among black women has fallen by 11 percentage points over the past year, according to a recent Power of the Sister Vote poll.

Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J., attributed the slide to black women being upset about the outcome of the 2016 election and wanting more from the Democratic party.

"Black women are saying, ‘Look, we’re not going to be taken advantage of anymore. We know we’re integral to this party. This party better maintain its core values and speak to us in a way that empowers, and you better make room for us at the table at all levels,'" Coleman said.

Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, agreed Democrats have a lot of work to do to knit their political coalition back together. There’s "a real crisis in the Democratic party, and people gotta be more candid about 2016," he said.

In last year’s election, Morial argued, Clinton didn’t lose just because then-FBI Director Jim Comey reopened an investigation into her email. Instead, a major factor was Democrats’ "failure to invest in African-American and Latino communities."

Regardless of their own race, candidates can’t afford to ignore voters of color, said Paul Brathwaite, a former executive director of the CBC.

"I think what folks are looking at is who is showing up and who is doing their homework," he said. "You need to be showing up and engaging in a genuine way in 2017, 2018 and 2019, not just 2020."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/kamala-harris-booker-are-early-2020-favs-among-black-leaders-n803636

[Rookie Yinzer]

Eh.... I don't think either will have a commanding insurmountable lead with black voters like Obama '08 and Clinton '16. Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren will not be as inept with black voters as Bernie Sanders was. And if either fail to make significant impact in Iowa and New Hampshire they're over.

[Mr. Morden]

Because black women are more likely to vote than black men

Anyone know the specific numbers on this?

[Jeppe]

Because black women are more likely to vote than black men

Anyone know the specific numbers on this?

I believe black women turnout is usually 10% higher than turnout among black men.

http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/genderdiff.pdf

[Possiblymaybe]

The black community is far more likely to vote for a black man from Newark New Jersey than they are to vote for a San Francisco liberal woman who questioned the CIA director about gay rights.

If Booker runs then he will pretty much destroy any chance Harris has of being the nominee.

Doubt that matters. At this point what people associate Harris with is her questioning of Jeff Sessions. Which, considering Sessions history didnt exactly play badly in the black community..

[Blair]

The black community is far more likely to vote for a black man from Newark New Jersey than they are to vote for a San Francisco liberal woman who questioned the CIA director about gay rights.

If Booker runs then he will pretty much destroy any chance Harris has of being the nominee.

IIRC African-American democratic primary voters have virtually just the same views on LGBT rights; and Booker arguably has a lot more holes in his record (his support for Bain, his support for Charter Schools, etc)

I think that Booker either won't run in 2020, or will flame out in the single digits.

[Lord Admirale]

The black community is far more likely to vote for a black man from Newark New Jersey than they are to vote for a San Francisco liberal woman who questioned the CIA director about gay rights.

If Booker runs then he will pretty much destroy any chance Harris has of being the nominee.

IIRC African-American democratic primary voters have virtually just the same views on LGBT rights; and Booker arguably has a lot more holes in his record (his support for Bain, his support for Charter Schools, etc)

I think that Booker either won't run in 2020, or will flame out in the single digits.

Don't underestimate Cory.

[Possiblymaybe]

The black community is far more likely to vote for a black man from Newark New Jersey than they are to vote for a San Francisco liberal woman who questioned the CIA director about gay rights.

If Booker runs then he will pretty much destroy any chance Harris has of being the nominee.

Doubt that matters. At this point what people associate Harris with is her questioning of Jeff Sessions. Which, considering Sessions history didnt exactly play badly in the black community..

Booker has a history of campaigning and working with black constituents. Harris doesn't. The black population in California is almost half the national average at roughly 6-7%. He's a much better messenger then she will ever be.

The black community is far more likely to vote for a black man from Newark New Jersey than they are to vote for a San Francisco liberal woman who questioned the CIA director about gay rights.

If Booker runs then he will pretty much destroy any chance Harris has of being the nominee.

IIRC African-American democratic primary voters have virtually just the same views on LGBT rights; and Booker arguably has a lot more holes in his record (his support for Bain, his support for Charter Schools, etc)

I think that Booker either won't run in 2020, or will flame out in the single digits.

The black community (51% opposed gay marriage in 2015) is very religious and votes pragmatically (they supported Clinton over Obama until he won the Iowa caucus). Booker is a stronger candidate than Harris and that'll be shown early on. She's good at questioning senators but her San Francisco liberal bubble  nature will be pretty obvious like it was when she questioned the CIA director about gays.

LGBT rights had nothing to do with why black voters backed Hillary at first. Obama wasn't even especially liberal on LGBT when he first ran.

There not much of a difference between Harris and Booker on LGBT anyway. Harris is known for refusing to defend Proposition 8 when she was AG but it's not as if Booker is conservative on this issue.
He married gay couples in New Jersey and is very pro gay marriage.
http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2013/10/senate-elect_cory_booker_marries_seven_gay_and_lesbian_couples_in_newark.html
LGBT isn't an issue that will be be a deciding factor for black voters anyway, jobs, criminal justice reform and healthcare will be far more important.
The difference between Booker and Harris isn't so much on social justice it's on economic justice they part. He's more fiscally conservative than her.

[Possiblymaybe]

The black community is far more likely to vote for a black man from Newark New Jersey than they are to vote for a San Francisco liberal woman who questioned the CIA director about gay rights.

If Booker runs then he will pretty much destroy any chance Harris has of being the nominee.

Doubt that matters. At this point what people associate Harris with is her questioning of Jeff Sessions. Which, considering Sessions history didnt exactly play badly in the black community..

Booker has a history of campaigning and working with black constituents. Harris doesn't. The black population in California is almost half the national average at roughly 6-7%. He's a much better messenger then she will ever be.

The black community is far more likely to vote for a black man from Newark New Jersey than they are to vote for a San Francisco liberal woman who questioned the CIA director about gay rights.

If Booker runs then he will pretty much destroy any chance Harris has of being the nominee.

IIRC African-American democratic primary voters have virtually just the same views on LGBT rights; and Booker arguably has a lot more holes in his record (his support for Bain, his support for Charter Schools, etc)

I think that Booker either won't run in 2020, or will flame out in the single digits.

The black community (51% opposed gay marriage in 2015) is very religious and votes pragmatically (they supported Clinton over Obama until he won the Iowa caucus). Booker is a stronger candidate than Harris and that'll be shown early on. She's good at questioning senators but her San Francisco liberal bubble  nature will be pretty obvious like it was when she questioned the CIA director about gays.

LGBT rights had nothing to do with why black voters backed Hillary at first. Obama wasn't even especially liberal on LGBT when he first ran.

There not much of a difference between Harris and Booker on LGBT anyway. Harris is known for refusing to defend Proposition 8 when she was AG but it's not as if Booker is conservative on this issue.
He married gay couples in New Jersey and is very pro gay marriage.
http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2013/10/senate-elect_cory_booker_marries_seven_gay_and_lesbian_couples_in_newark.html
LGBT isn't an issue that will be be a deciding factor for black voters anyway, jobs, criminal justice reform and healthcare will be far more important.
The difference between Booker and Harris isn't so much on social justice it's on economic justice they part. He's more fiscally conservative than her.

Harris barely got 46% of the vote in a statewide race in California. She's a total light weight next to Booker. A black dude from New Jersey has ten times more steet cred with the black community than a San Francisco liberal woman.

That's inaccurate.She got 61.6% of the vote.
Bookers parents were IBM executives and he was raised in a white neighbourhood not sure how that is gonna give him street cred in the black community...

[YE]

Honestly starting to think Cory Booker will flame out and will poll at like less than 3%.

[Possiblymaybe]

The black community is far more likely to vote for a black man from Newark New Jersey than they are to vote for a San Francisco liberal woman who questioned the CIA director about gay rights.

If Booker runs then he will pretty much destroy any chance Harris has of being the nominee.

Doubt that matters. At this point what people associate Harris with is her questioning of Jeff Sessions. Which, considering Sessions history didnt exactly play badly in the black community..

Booker has a history of campaigning and working with black constituents. Harris doesn't. The black population in California is almost half the national average at roughly 6-7%. He's a much better messenger then she will ever be.

The black community is far more likely to vote for a black man from Newark New Jersey than they are to vote for a San Francisco liberal woman who questioned the CIA director about gay rights.

If Booker runs then he will pretty much destroy any chance Harris has of being the nominee.

IIRC African-American democratic primary voters have virtually just the same views on LGBT rights; and Booker arguably has a lot more holes in his record (his support for Bain, his support for Charter Schools, etc)

I think that Booker either won't run in 2020, or will flame out in the single digits.

The black community (51% opposed gay marriage in 2015) is very religious and votes pragmatically (they supported Clinton over Obama until he won the Iowa caucus). Booker is a stronger candidate than Harris and that'll be shown early on. She's good at questioning senators but her San Francisco liberal bubble  nature will be pretty obvious like it was when she questioned the CIA director about gays.

LGBT rights had nothing to do with why black voters backed Hillary at first. Obama wasn't even especially liberal on LGBT when he first ran.

There not much of a difference between Harris and Booker on LGBT anyway. Harris is known for refusing to defend Proposition 8 when she was AG but it's not as if Booker is conservative on this issue.
He married gay couples in New Jersey and is very pro gay marriage.
http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2013/10/senate-elect_cory_booker_marries_seven_gay_and_lesbian_couples_in_newark.html
LGBT isn't an issue that will be be a deciding factor for black voters anyway, jobs, criminal justice reform and healthcare will be far more important.
The difference between Booker and Harris isn't so much on social justice it's on economic justice they part. He's more fiscally conservative than her.

Harris barely got 46% of the vote in a statewide race in California. She's a total light weight next to Booker. A black dude from New Jersey has ten times more steet cred with the black community than a San Francisco liberal woman.

That's inaccurate.She got 61.6% of the vote.
Bookers parents were IBM executives and he was raised in a white neighbourhood not sure how that is gonna give him street cred in the black community...

No no no I'm talking about 2010. She got 61% last year running against a fellow mediocre Democrat. Big whoop. When she had to run against a Republican in Titanium blue California she barely won with 46% of the vote.

Booker's story of how he was able to get raised in that neighborhood had everything to do with a civil rights journey and lawsuit in NJ to desegregate housing. If anything that's a boost for him.

Also Booker has charisma. Harris is boring.

The black community is far more likely to vote for a black man from Newark New Jersey than they are to vote for a San Francisco liberal woman who questioned the CIA director about gay rights.

If Booker runs then he will pretty much destroy any chance Harris has of being the nominee.

Doubt that matters. At this point what people associate Harris with is her questioning of Jeff Sessions. Which, considering Sessions history didnt exactly play badly in the black community..

Booker has a history of campaigning and working with black constituents. Harris doesn't. The black population in California is almost half the national average at roughly 6-7%. He's a much better messenger then she will ever be.

The black community is far more likely to vote for a black man from Newark New Jersey than they are to vote for a San Francisco liberal woman who questioned the CIA director about gay rights.

If Booker runs then he will pretty much destroy any chance Harris has of being the nominee.

IIRC African-American democratic primary voters have virtually just the same views on LGBT rights; and Booker arguably has a lot more holes in his record (his support for Bain, his support for Charter Schools, etc)

I think that Booker either won't run in 2020, or will flame out in the single digits.

The black community (51% opposed gay marriage in 2015) is very religious and votes pragmatically (they supported Clinton over Obama until he won the Iowa caucus). Booker is a stronger candidate than Harris and that'll be shown early on. She's good at questioning senators but her San Francisco liberal bubble  nature will be pretty obvious like it was when she questioned the CIA director about gays.

LGBT rights had nothing to do with why black voters backed Hillary at first. Obama wasn't even especially liberal on LGBT when he first ran.

There not much of a difference between Harris and Booker on LGBT anyway. Harris is known for refusing to defend Proposition 8 when she was AG but it's not as if Booker is conservative on this issue.
He married gay couples in New Jersey and is very pro gay marriage.
http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2013/10/senate-elect_cory_booker_marries_seven_gay_and_lesbian_couples_in_newark.html
LGBT isn't an issue that will be be a deciding factor for black voters anyway, jobs, criminal justice reform and healthcare will be far more important.
The difference between Booker and Harris isn't so much on social justice it's on economic justice they part. He's more fiscally conservative than her.

Harris barely got 46% of the vote in a statewide race in California. She's a total light weight next to Booker. A black dude from New Jersey has ten times more steet cred with the black community than a San Francisco liberal woman.

That's inaccurate.She got 61.6% of the vote.
Bookers parents were IBM executives and he was raised in a white neighbourhood not sure how that is gonna give him street cred in the black community...

No no no I'm talking about 2010. She got 61% last year running against a fellow mediocre Democrat. Big whoop. When she had to run against a Republican in Titanium blue California she barely won with 46% of the vote.

Booker's story of how he was able to get raised in that neighborhood had everything to do with a civil rights journey and lawsuit in NJ to desegregate housing. If anything that's a boost for him.

Also Booker has charisma. Harris is boring.

We discussed this before. The republican opponent had far bigger name recognition, massively outspent her and was the favourite all the way through. It was described by the LA times as "the race Steve Cooley blew".The only race Harris was the front runner in was her senate seat. When she ran for DA and AG she started out as the underdog. Both times she came from behind to win, sometimes trailing far behind at the beginning of the race.

I see what you're saying re the housing issue but you talked about "Street cred", not quite the same. Also with regards to framing their story in a civil rights perspective, Harris parents were literally active in the movement and she talks about being part of only the second class that was integrated in Oakland. Tbh I found her charismatic and authentic on melbers show and besides black women vote by a much higher % than black men and thats more than likely going to favour Harris.
 

[mijan]

The black community is far more likely to vote for a black man from Newark New Jersey than they are to vote for a San Francisco liberal woman who questioned the CIA director about gay rights.

If Booker runs then he will pretty much destroy any chance Harris has of being the nominee.

Doubt that matters. At this point what people associate Harris with is her questioning of Jeff Sessions. Which, considering Sessions history didnt exactly play badly in the black community..

Booker also testified against Sessions.

[SoLongAtlas]

Kamala would get destroyed by Trump and I don't understand Atlas's infatuation with her candidacy. She is a one term senator from CA, from SF, very far left, waffled on prosecutions for MS-13 convicts, put up an amicus brief saying the 2nd Amendment doesn't extend to average citizens, battered Sessions on social issues, no children, married to a rich white lawyer (that will play well to the black vote for sure - sarcasm), among many other things. Trump and the RNC would love it if they had to run against her, the ads would write themselves, even more so than running against Warren. It's bad optically and politically to run her as the Dem nominee, esp. if you want to win over WWC Americans who you need to make sure they don't vote Trump again.

Booker would be a better candidate for the Dems by far and he has his own issues.

[PoliticalJunkie23]

Are we sure Kamala Harris is black?

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Kamala would get destroyed by Trump and I don't understand Atlas's infatuation with her candidacy. She is a one term senator from CA, from SF, very far left, waffled on prosecutions for MS-13 convicts, put up an amicus brief saying the 2nd Amendment doesn't extend to average citizens, battered Sessions on social issues, no children, married to a rich white lawyer (that will play well to the black vote for sure - sarcasm), among many other things. Trump and the RNC would love it if they had to run against her, the ads would write themselves, even more so than running against Warren. It's bad optically and politically to run her as the Dem nominee, esp. if you want to win over WWC Americans who you need to make sure they don't vote Trump again.

Booker would be a better candidate for the Dems by far and he has his own issues.

Honestly, that entire statement was pulled out of your a**. None of that is even remotely true and is probably the most pathetic anti-harris statement I have seen on Atlas yet. No democrat, besides maybe a Hillary rematch, will get destroyed by Donald Trump. Cory Booker is one of the most out-of-touch politicians in Washington and his acceptance of funds from big pharmaceutical companies shows that. He even took money from Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, thats is going to go over SWELL with already p*ssed off Democratic voters. He depresses the base, Harris doesn't.

Let us also highlight the fact that her take down of Sessions actually gained her favorability. Sessions isn't popular.

[SoLongAtlas]

Kamala would get destroyed by Trump and I don't understand Atlas's infatuation with her candidacy. She is a one term senator from CA, from SF, very far left, waffled on prosecutions for MS-13 convicts, put up an amicus brief saying the 2nd Amendment doesn't extend to average citizens, battered Sessions on social issues, no children, married to a rich white lawyer (that will play well to the black vote for sure - sarcasm), among many other things. Trump and the RNC would love it if they had to run against her, the ads would write themselves, even more so than running against Warren. It's bad optically and politically to run her as the Dem nominee, esp. if you want to win over WWC Americans who you need to make sure they don't vote Trump again.

Booker would be a better candidate for the Dems by far and he has his own issues.

Honestly, that entire statement was pulled out of your a**. None of that is even remotely true and is probably the most pathetic anti-harris statement I have seen on Atlas yet. No democrat, besides maybe a Hillary rematch, will get destroyed by Donald Trump. Cory Booker is one of the most out-of-touch politicians in Washington and his acceptance of funds from big pharmaceutical companies shows that. He even took money from Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, thats is going to go over SWELL with already p*ssed off Democratic voters. He depresses the base, Harris doesn't.

Let us also highlight the fact that her take down of Sessions actually gained her favorability. Sessions isn't popular.

http://smartgunlaws.org/law-center-and-attorney-general-harris-defend-california-law-in-pivotal-ninth-circuit-concealed-weapon-case-peruta/

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Edwin-Ramos-won-t-face-death-penalty-3218429.php
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Ramos

http://heavy.com/news/2017/06/kamala-harris-husband-douglas-emhoff-california-senator-lawyer-age-kids-family-bio/

She may be a very nice person but as I have said in other threads and here, she is not an ideal candidate and the neo-Willie Horton ads will write themselves. The RNC, NRA, and other groups will have a field day if KH is the Dem nominee.

[Mr. Smith]

It should be noted that where Harris started off has a very large black population, the largest west of the Mississippi, the hot-bed of the Black Panthers themselves. And San Francisco is not exactly lacking with a black population.

And Cooley was kinda a "last of his kind" moderate in 2010, AND that was a wave year anyway.

[henster]

Both Harris and Booker running would be ideal for the rest of the field Warren, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Bullock etc., because they would split up the black vote and be unable to build a big delegate lead in the South.

[Possiblymaybe]

Kamala would get destroyed by Trump and I don't understand Atlas's infatuation with her candidacy. She is a one term senator from CA, from SF, very far left, waffled on prosecutions for MS-13 convicts, put up an amicus brief saying the 2nd Amendment doesn't extend to average citizens, battered Sessions on social issues, no children, married to a rich white lawyer (that will play well to the black vote for sure - sarcasm), among many other things. Trump and the RNC would love it if they had to run against her, the ads would write themselves, even more so than running against Warren. It's bad optically and politically to run her as the Dem nominee, esp. if you want to win over WWC Americans who you need to make sure they don't vote Trump again.

Booker would be a better candidate for the Dems by far and he has his own issues.

Honestly, that entire statement was pulled out of your a**. None of that is even remotely true and is probably the most pathetic anti-harris statement I have seen on Atlas yet. No democrat, besides maybe a Hillary rematch, will get destroyed by Donald Trump. Cory Booker is one of the most out-of-touch politicians in Washington and his acceptance of funds from big pharmaceutical companies shows that. He even took money from Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, thats is going to go over SWELL with already p*ssed off Democratic voters. He depresses the base, Harris doesn't.

Let us also highlight the fact that her take down of Sessions actually gained her favorability. Sessions isn't popular.

http://smartgunlaws.org/law-center-and-attorney-general-harris-defend-california-law-in-pivotal-ninth-circuit-concealed-weapon-case-peruta/

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Edwin-Ramos-won-t-face-death-penalty-3218429.php
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Ramos

http://heavy.com/news/2017/06/kamala-harris-husband-douglas-emhoff-california-senator-lawyer-age-kids-family-bio/

She may be a very nice person but as I have said in other threads and here, she is not an ideal candidate and the neo-Willie Horton ads will write themselves. The RNC, NRA, and other groups will have a field day if KH is the Dem nominee.

Booker and Harris have the same NRA F-rating
People seem to just assume he's more conservative on certain things like gay marriage and gun control without checking his record.
The latest CNN polls also suggest Booker doesn't poll well with women. He's getting 5 times the male support as he's getting female support. Harris polls much more balanced in terms of gender. Booker isn't gonna win the nomination without black women or just women in general getting behind him. This thread wasn't really about the GE but the same is true in a GE, Hillary didn't do anywhere near as well as Obama with (white) women.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Ugh

these 2 are my least favorite candidates for Democrat nomination in 2020 out of every single commonly speculated candidate there is.

[JonHawk]

Both of them will probably have something coming out if they run in the primaries or general that will ruin them ala Clinton emails.. Probably finance related.

[7,052,770]

Don't underestimate Cory.

Did whoever made that image photoshop his eyes brown?

[Possiblymaybe]

Booker and Harris have the same NRA F-rating
People seem to just assume he's more conservative on certain things like gay marriage and gun control without checking his record.
The latest CNN polls also suggest Booker doesn't poll well with women. He's getting 5 times the male support as he's getting female support. Harris polls much more balanced in terms of gender. Booker isn't gonna win the nomination without black women or just women in general getting behind him. This thread wasn't really about the GE but the same is true in a GE, Hillary didn't do anywhere near as well as Obama with (white) women.

See this is exactly the problem you're having here. You're using really nerdy permavirgin atlas logic to justify somebody being liberal or conservative. Look at who's the POTUS right now for proof that people vote based on their feefees. If their feefees tell them that Booker is more conservative then guess who the more socially conservative black community is going to vote for? There's your answer.

I thought you were capable of discussing without resorting to insults. Look the fact that you use white women who voted for trump as evidence in a thread about the black community really isn't helping.. at all.

94% of black women voted for Hillary, they vote at a 10% higher rate than black men, and at a higher rate than any other demographic or gender so it goes without saying that any viable primary candidate would need their backing. You're suggesting that they are conservative when research shows that black women are much more liberal than black men.Younger black voters are increasingly more left leaning and i don't think that will change under the trump administration.

You don't like "nerdy statistics" ( quite ironic btw considering you seem to be basing your entire argument on some gay marriage statistics)? At the CBC there was a line stretching down the hall of people trying to take pics and talk to Harris after she spoke. This wasn't happening for Booker. The same thing happened at a (non black) criminal justice reform conference in June where they both spoke. Like this article says, right now she excites people more than he does, but this might change of course, we are only in 2017.

[Kingpoleon]

The black community is far more likely to vote for a black man from Newark New Jersey than they are to vote for a San Francisco liberal woman who questioned the CIA director about gay rights.

If Booker runs then he will pretty much destroy any chance Harris has of being the nominee.

Doubt that matters. At this point what people associate Harris with is her questioning of Jeff Sessions. Which, considering Sessions history didnt exactly play badly in the black community..

Booker has a history of campaigning and working with black constituents. Harris doesn't. The black population in California is almost half the national average at roughly 6-7%. He's a much better messenger then she will ever be.

The black community is far more likely to vote for a black man from Newark New Jersey than they are to vote for a San Francisco liberal woman who questioned the CIA director about gay rights.

If Booker runs then he will pretty much destroy any chance Harris has of being the nominee.

IIRC African-American democratic primary voters have virtually just the same views on LGBT rights; and Booker arguably has a lot more holes in his record (his support for Bain, his support for Charter Schools, etc)

I think that Booker either won't run in 2020, or will flame out in the single digits.

The black community (51% opposed gay marriage in 2015) is very religious and votes pragmatically (they supported Clinton over Obama until he won the Iowa caucus). Booker is a stronger candidate than Harris and that'll be shown early on. She's good at questioning senators but her San Francisco liberal bubble  nature will be pretty obvious like it was when she questioned the CIA director about gays.

LGBT rights had nothing to do with why black voters backed Hillary at first. Obama wasn't even especially liberal on LGBT when he first ran.

There not much of a difference between Harris and Booker on LGBT anyway. Harris is known for refusing to defend Proposition 8 when she was AG but it's not as if Booker is conservative on this issue.
He married gay couples in New Jersey and is very pro gay marriage.
http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2013/10/senate-elect_cory_booker_marries_seven_gay_and_lesbian_couples_in_newark.html
LGBT isn't an issue that will be be a deciding factor for black voters anyway, jobs, criminal justice reform and healthcare will be far more important.
The difference between Booker and Harris isn't so much on social justice it's on economic justice they part. He's more fiscally conservative than her.

Harris barely got 46% of the vote in a statewide race in California. She's a total light weight next to Booker. A black dude from New Jersey has ten times more steet cred with the black community than a San Francisco liberal woman.

That's inaccurate.She got 61.6% of the vote.
Bookers parents were IBM executives and he was raised in a white neighbourhood not sure how that is gonna give him street cred in the black community...

No no no I'm talking about 2010. She got 61% last year running against a fellow mediocre Democrat. Big whoop. When she had to run against a Republican in Titanium blue California she barely won with 46% of the vote.

Booker's story of how he was able to get raised in that neighborhood had everything to do with a civil rights journey and lawsuit in NJ to desegregate housing. If anything that's a boost for him.

Also Booker has charisma. Harris is boring.

Note: Harris won because of the absolute backing from Obama, Biden, Brown, Newsom, and the state party.

[Possiblymaybe]

Booker and Harris have the same NRA F-rating
People seem to just assume he's more conservative on certain things like gay marriage and gun control without checking his record.
The latest CNN polls also suggest Booker doesn't poll well with women. He's getting 5 times the male support as he's getting female support. Harris polls much more balanced in terms of gender. Booker isn't gonna win the nomination without black women or just women in general getting behind him. This thread wasn't really about the GE but the same is true in a GE, Hillary didn't do anywhere near as well as Obama with (white) women.

See this is exactly the problem you're having here. You're using really nerdy permavirgin atlas logic to justify somebody being liberal or conservative. Look at who's the POTUS right now for proof that people vote based on their feefees. If their feefees tell them that Booker is more conservative then guess who the more socially conservative black community is going to vote for? There's your answer.

I thought you were capable of discussing without resorting to insults. Look the fact that you use white women who voted for trump as evidence in a thread about the black community really isn't helping.. at all.

94% of black women voted for Hillary, they vote at a 10% higher rate than black men, and at a higher rate than any other demographic or gender so it goes without saying that any viable primary candidate would need their backing. You're suggesting that they are conservative when research shows that black women are much more liberal than black men.Younger black voters are increasingly more left leaning and i don't think that will change under the trump administration.

You don't like "nerdy statistics" ( quite ironic btw considering you seem to be basing your entire argument on some gay marriage statistics)? At the CBC there was a line stretching down the hall of people trying to take pics and talk to Harris after she spoke. This wasn't happening for Booker. The same thing happened at a (non black) criminal justice reform conference in June where they both spoke. Like this article says, right now she excites people more than he does, but this might change of course, we are only in 2017.

The White male privledge in your argument is unbearable.

I am not white, bro...