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

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

Every argument I've ever seen about Kamala Harris on this forum turns into just a massive clusterf**k about "identity politics" or some other bullsh!t, and doesn't even try to address her strength or traits as a candidate from either side. I've honestly never heard an actual argument in defense of her, just blind worship from posters who unironically call themselves things like "globalist" and "neoliberal" and say things like that George W. Bush was fundamentally a good guy but just misguided, and whose main method of responding to criticism of her is just to shout down the critic by calling them racist and/or sexist and accusing them of being a purist Bernie Bro.

The truth is her actual track record to me as a candidate is worse than Ted Cruz's. She barely won election in 2010 (and spare the "GOP wave year" talk, the Democratic candidates running at the top of the ballot in her state won easily), underperformed in 2014, and then beat a candidate of her own party who ran a terrible campaign. No sign of any special campaign skills or strengths. If she has no intention of being anything but a Senator from California, that's fine. But as a Presidential candidate, this is a horrible record. Does she have any special skills or strengths as a candidate that weren't displayed during those campaigns? If so, I'd argue the burden of proof on showing that is on her defenders.

And for that matter, what in her record makes her a candidate worthy of such attention? The thing she's most notable for in the Senate was grilling a CIA Director candidate about gay marriage. Now granted California Attorney General is very far from an unimportant or minor office, but I know of nothing she did during that that would lift her as a top pick for the Democrats for President.

So if Kamala Harris is elected President, that will not be due to anything of note from her campaign skills or strength, but simply because Trump continued to be as much as a disaster as he's been so far to the point where any random person off the street with a (D) next to their name can beat him. And if that happens, Harris' administration will likely end up being a disaster as well. It strikes me as pretty bizarre anyone thinks she is the best choice to move the Democratic Party forward out of truly many options. I don't even really care if the nominee is another "neoliberal"* as long as it's someone who can boost the party and actually do some things for people. I don't see any evidence that Harris is a candidate who can do that, much less the best option to do that.

*Using the definition of the word used here by both her defenders and as the generic epithet it is against any Democrat leftists don't like. An actual neoliberal as the Democratic nominee who be as horrifying as the thought of Donald Trump as President. Luckily that has about as much chance of happening as I do of being the Democratic nominee.

I think the reason why any conversation about Harris turns into an argument over identity politics is simple. Harris is only a favorite because she's a nonwhite woman. A white man with her record (in terms of both election results and legislative achievements...or lack thereof) would not be considered. Picking Harris seems to be a choice rooted in the cynicism of "she can get black turnout like Obama and feminist turnout like Hillary" that ignores her being the poster child (along with maybe Warren) of the classic GOP talking point "democrats are out of touch with Middle America."

If identity politics alone propels Harris to the top of the democrat ticket, perhaps she will boost minority turnout and win the general election. Just don't be surprised if it's also a boon for white identity politics.

People are trying to make Jason Kander a thing, and his only claim to political fame is being a personable white guy from Missouri. I don't see how that's any different from Harris, other than that she's much more qualified than him.

I've literally never heard Kander mentioned anywhere but here. Who are the people "trying to make him a thing?" Certainly not the pollsters or professional pundits or major donors or top party officials.

[Possiblymaybe]

Every argument I've ever seen about Kamala Harris on this forum turns into just a massive clusterf**k about "identity politics" or some other bullsh!t, and doesn't even try to address her strength or traits as a candidate from either side. I've honestly never heard an actual argument in defense of her, just blind worship from posters who unironically call themselves things like "globalist" and "neoliberal" and say things like that George W. Bush was fundamentally a good guy but just misguided, and whose main method of responding to criticism of her is just to shout down the critic by calling them racist and/or sexist and accusing them of being a purist Bernie Bro.

The truth is her actual track record to me as a candidate is worse than Ted Cruz's. She barely won election in 2010 (and spare the "GOP wave year" talk, the Democratic candidates running at the top of the ballot in her state won easily), underperformed in 2014, and then beat a candidate of her own party who ran a terrible campaign. No sign of any special campaign skills or strengths. If she has no intention of being anything but a Senator from California, that's fine. But as a Presidential candidate, this is a horrible record. Does she have any special skills or strengths as a candidate that weren't displayed during those campaigns? If so, I'd argue the burden of proof on showing that is on her defenders.

And for that matter, what in her record makes her a candidate worthy of such attention? The thing she's most notable for in the Senate was grilling a CIA Director candidate about gay marriage. Now granted California Attorney General is very far from an unimportant or minor office, but I know of nothing she did during that that would lift her as a top pick for the Democrats for President.

So if Kamala Harris is elected President, that will not be due to anything of note from her campaign skills or strength, but simply because Trump continued to be as much as a disaster as he's been so far to the point where any random person off the street with a (D) next to their name can beat him. And if that happens, Harris' administration will likely end up being a disaster as well. It strikes me as pretty bizarre anyone thinks she is the best choice to move the Democratic Party forward out of truly many options. I don't even really care if the nominee is another "neoliberal"* as long as it's someone who can boost the party and actually do some things for people. I don't see any evidence that Harris is a candidate who can do that, much less the best option to do that.

*Using the definition of the word used here by both her defenders and as the generic epithet it is against any Democrat leftists don't like. An actual neoliberal as the Democratic nominee who be as horrifying as the thought of Donald Trump as President. Luckily that has about as much chance of happening as I do of being the Democratic nominee.

I think the reason why any conversation about Harris turns into an argument over identity politics is simple. Harris is only a favorite because she's a nonwhite woman. A white man with her record (in terms of both election results and legislative achievements...or lack thereof) would not be considered. Picking Harris seems to be a choice rooted in the cynicism of "she can get black turnout like Obama and feminist turnout like Hillary" that ignores her being the poster child (along with maybe Warren) of the classic GOP talking point "democrats are out of touch with Middle America."

If identity politics alone propels Harris to the top of the democrat ticket, perhaps she will boost minority turnout and win the general election. Just don't be surprised if it's also a boon for white identity politics.

People are trying to make Jason Kander a thing, and his only claim to political fame is being a personable white guy from Missouri. I don't see how that's any different from Harris, other than that she's much more qualified than him.

I've literally never heard Kander mentioned anywhere but here. Who are the people "trying to make him a thing?" Certainly not the pollsters or professional pundits or major donors or top party officials.

Kander is regularly mentioned in mainstream media when they talk about 2020.
Politico basically called him the future of the Democratic Party in a long article about him and speculated about him running. He has plenty of hype, particularly considering he doesn’t hold elected office.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Here's what I think would be the Harris map. She picks up MI, WI and PA due to increased black turnout, stronger performances with suburbanites and dissatisfaction with Trump(or Pence) among the WWC(as well as an unexpectedly better performance than Clinton by Harris). Florida flips due to the same factors plus strong Hispanic turnout and Puerto Ricans. Arizona will be the Virginia of 2020(2020 being 2008 in this sense), and she flips it as well. NC is a tough call but she flips it due to a bad GOP performance and strong Harris performance with suburbanites and minorities. I'm not sure about Georgia, it trended D by a lot in 2016 but it may still be slightly out of reach, however I think Harris will do well there as well as win strongly nationwide so that flips too. Trump keeps IA, OH, and ME-02, while Texas goes to him by a margin of under 5%.

Kamala Harris/Amy Klobuchar-Democratic: 350 EV 52.36%
President Donald Trump/Mike Pence-Republican: 188 EV 43.73%

I would be very pleased with this outcome

I would agree with this. Harris is the Democratic party's best candidate to flip Georgia and Arizona.

On what basis? And if you want to say boosting black turnout, there wasn't much of a drop in it in Georgia and Arizona doesn't have much of a black population. What makes Harris significantly more strong in those states than say, Kristen Gillibrand?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Kamala Harris would get destroyed in the Northcenter and Northeast, even worse than Hillary Clinton.  She would pick up no states Trump won in any section of the country (except maybe AZ), and lose MN, NH, ME, and VA.  

[libertpaulian]

Kamala Harris would get destroyed in the Northcenter and Northeast, even worse than Hillary Clinton.  She would pick up no states Trump won in any section of the country (except maybe AZ), and lose MN, NH, ME, and VA.  

Isn't Kamala Harris' style of "latte" liberalism actually the type of leftism that is a good fit for VA, especially NOVA?

[Jeppe]

Kamala Harris would get destroyed in the Northcenter and Northeast, even worse than Hillary Clinton.  She would pick up no states Trump won in any section of the country (except maybe AZ), and lose MN, NH, ME, and VA.  

Isn't Kamala Harris' style of "latte" liberalism actually the type of leftism that is a good fit for VA, especially NOVA?

Yes, her presence on the ticket would bolster turnout in Richmond and Hampton Roads, while maintaining Northam level support in NoVa. People like Sherrod Brown would struggle to do either. Kamala is probably an even better fit For NoVa than most actual Virginia politicians, given how diverse and centre-left it is.

[libertpaulian]

Kamala Harris would get destroyed in the Northcenter and Northeast, even worse than Hillary Clinton.  She would pick up no states Trump won in any section of the country (except maybe AZ), and lose MN, NH, ME, and VA.  

Isn't Kamala Harris' style of "latte" liberalism actually the type of leftism that is a good fit for VA, especially NOVA?

Yes, her presence on the ticket would bolster turnout in Richmond and Hampton Roads, while maintaining Northam level support in NoVa. People like Sherrod Brown would struggle to do either. Kamala is probably an even better fit For NoVa than most actual Virginia politicians, given how diverse and centre-left it is.

I could also see her gaining about 66-70% of the statewide vote in California.  She'd maintain Hillary's numbers from 2016, with a bit of a "favorite daughter" bump.

GA, NC, FL, and AZ would also be up for grabs.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but if Trump's approval are in the mid-30s on election day then the Democrat will win.

[Possiblymaybe]

Here's what I think would be the Harris map. She picks up MI, WI and PA due to increased black turnout, stronger performances with suburbanites and dissatisfaction with Trump(or Pence) among the WWC(as well as an unexpectedly better performance than Clinton by Harris). Florida flips due to the same factors plus strong Hispanic turnout and Puerto Ricans. Arizona will be the Virginia of 2020(2020 being 2008 in this sense), and she flips it as well. NC is a tough call but she flips it due to a bad GOP performance and strong Harris performance with suburbanites and minorities. I'm not sure about Georgia, it trended D by a lot in 2016 but it may still be slightly out of reach, however I think Harris will do well there as well as win strongly nationwide so that flips too. Trump keeps IA, OH, and ME-02, while Texas goes to him by a margin of under 5%.

Kamala Harris/Amy Klobuchar-Democratic: 350 EV 52.36%
President Donald Trump/Mike Pence-Republican: 188 EV 43.73%

I would be very pleased with this outcome

I would agree with this. Harris is the Democratic party's best candidate to flip Georgia and Arizona.

On what basis? And if you want to say boosting black turnout, there wasn't much of a drop in it in Georgia and Arizona doesn't have much of a black population. What makes Harris significantly more strong in those states than say, Kristen Gillibrand?

Clinton had cultivated a relationship with the black community for decades. Gillibrand isn't comparable to Clinton in this respect.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Is anyone going to actually address any of this?

Bernie supporters will probably irrationally weep over the election of a "corporate Democrat" or "centrist" or something, even though she is neither - and I say this as someone who preferred him over Hillary last year (albeit narrowly, but still).

Yeah, except that she is...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Harris also...

• Championed a state-wide anti-truancy law that she implemented in San Francisco that threatened parents of chronically truant children with $2,000 fines and a year in jail.
• Harris's actions in the Larsen case, which involved a man formerly convicted of burglary had been allegedly seen by police throwing a knife under a car, which caused him to be sentenced to 27 years in prison under the 3 strikes law supported by Harris. Police had wrongfully targeted Larsen, a witness reported that Larsen wasn't the one who threw the knife, and Larsen's later disbarred lawyer never bothered to investigate or present a witness on trial. After 11 years, the conviction was overturned, but Harris appealed that decision on the basis of a technically, causing him, an innocent man, to remain in prison for 2 more years. After 14 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit, he was back in court 5 months after release because Harris challenged his release.
• Harris laughed at pot legalization as California's Attorney General in 2014. Again, her Republican opponent ran to her left on the issue.
• As District Attorney, refused to provide the names of police officers whose testimonies led to convictions despite the officers' arrest records and histories of misconduct. As California's Attorney General, she opposed the statewide use of police body cameras and a bill that'd require her office to investigate fatal police shootings.
• Harris attempted to dismiss a suit by inmates against the state's use of solitary confinement, with her office insisting the practice was not used. The result was a landmark settlement for the inmates.
• Harris attempted to block a transgender inmate's request for gender reassignment surgery.
• This year, Harris joined Rand Paul to write a NYT's editorial opposing the practice of using bail, arguing it unfairly harmed low income people. But in just June 2016 she was defending its constitutionality in court.
• Harris was a proponent and sponsor of a bill that'd allow California prosecutors to seize profits before charges were filed (which is civil asset forfeiture).
• Harris defended the barring of a Sikh man from working as a prison guard due to his religiously-mandated beard supposedly interfering with his ability to wear a gas mask. Yet, California allows guards to have beards for certain medical reasons.
• Harris's well staffed and funded foreclosure fraud Mortgage Fraud Strike Force prosecuted just 10 cases in 3 years, which was fewer prosecutions of foreclosure fraud cases than any other state in America, filed fewer lawsuits than many smaller states with fewer victims, and even less than some counties, despite California leading the nation in the number of complaints since 2010.
• The Intercept obtained a 2013 memo to Harris from prosecutors in the attorney general's office revealing they found evidence of widespread misconduct at OneWest Bank and urging her to conduct a full investigation - Harris never did. Yet, in 2016 she was the only Democratic Senate candidate to receive a donation from Steven Mnuchin, OneWest's former CEO.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Considering that Hillary Clinton managed to beat Trump by nearly 3 million votes in the popular vote, it's absolutely silly to write Harris off, especially given how unpopular Trump is. This is probably her absolute worst-case scenario, and MN is a stretch:

She'd probably do better in AZ/FL than in WI/PA, but she could certainly win.

Maine. Is. Not. Going. To. Go. Republican. Before. New. Hampshire.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Kamala Harris would get destroyed in the Northcenter and Northeast, even worse than Hillary Clinton.  She would pick up no states Trump won in any section of the country (except maybe AZ), and lose MN, NH, ME, and VA.  

This is hilarious and not based in reality at all.

[Pericles]

NEW HAMPSHIRE IS A SWING STATE!

[libertpaulian]

Maine. Is. Not. Going. To. Go. Republican. Before. New. Hampshire.

Michigan. Is. Not. Going. To. Go. Republican. Before. Colorado. With. Hillary. As. The. Democratic. Nominee.

Seriously though, ME and NH are very different states, and Republicans have gotten clobbered in all the NH special elections this year.

Why are you using irrelevant analogies?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but if Trump's approval are in the mid-30s on election day then the Democrat will win.

He was less popular than Barry Goldwater on election day and beat the Goldwater girl.

[MT Treasurer]

Why are you using irrelevant analogies?

It's not irrelevant! The same people who are dismissing the idea that NH could vote to the left of ME in 2020 also told us that there was no way Republicans would do better in MI or MN than in CO in 2016, especially with Clinton being the Democratic nominee.

But go ahead and continue to believe that NH is trending Republican while ME, MN, MI, etc. were all “outliers”.

[OneJ]

Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but if Trump's approval are in the mid-30s on election day then the Democrat will win.

He was less popular than Barry Goldwater on election day and beat the Goldwater girl.

Favorability doesn't have the same impact on the results like actual job approval does.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but if Trump's approval are in the mid-30s on election day then the Democrat will win.

He was less popular than Barry Goldwater on election day and beat the Goldwater girl.

Favorability doesn't have the same impact on the results like actual job approval does.

You make the mistake of using logical arguments while talking with a member of a cult.

[libertpaulian]

Why are you using irrelevant analogies?

It's not irrelevant! The same people who are dismissing the idea that NH could vote to the left of ME in 2020 also told us that there was no way Republicans would do better in MI or MN than in CO in 2016, especially with Clinton being the Democratic nominee.

But go ahead and continue to believe that NH is trending Republican while ME, MN, MI, etc. were all “outliers”.

If you look at the past 3 elections, NH actually HAS been trending Republican.  

ME is still bogged down by Cumberland County, so its GOP trend is going to be a lot slower.  

MN is a historically progressive state, so Trump's lack of a Reaganesque message helped him there more than hurt him.  If he would have run a standard GOP campaign, he would have lost the state by about 6 points or so.

MI might be an outlier, it might not.  We'll see next November.

You're TOO STUBBORN with this whole NH thing.  It's almost as bad as IceSpear with Appalachia.

[MT Treasurer]

If you look at the past 3 elections, NH actually HAS been trending Republican.  

ME is still bogged down by Cumberland County, so its GOP trend is going to be a lot slower.  

Are you seriously implying that the Democrats don't have a high floor in NH, LOL?

Also, Maine trended 10.56% Republican in 2016, NH only 3.44%! ME has Bruce Poliquin, Paul LePage and Susan Collins, NH has... oh yeah, zero Republicans elected to Congress.

[Keep cool-idge]

If you look at the past 3 elections, NH actually HAS been trending Republican.  

ME is still bogged down by Cumberland County, so its GOP trend is going to be a lot slower.  

Are you seriously implying that the Democrats don't have a high floor in NH, LOL?

Also, Maine trended 10.56% Republican in 2016, NH only 3.44%! ME has Bruce Poliquin, Paul LePage and Susan Collins, NH has... oh yeah, zero Republicans elected to Congress.

Come on really both New Hampshire and Maine are swing states.

If New Hampshire is democrat then would did they elect a republican trifecta?

Also New Hampshire is trending republican if the Hollywood tapes had not come out trump would have won

New Hampshire,Maine,Minnesota and maybe Nevada,Colorado and an outside chance for Virginia.

[libertpaulian]

New Hampshire,Maine,Minnesota and maybe Nevada,Colorado and an outside chance for Virginia.

I'd be surprised if Trump won any of these states, I'm just saying that he has a non-zero chance in MN and ME (though he would lose both states if the election were held today). Even if we ignore NH, there is really no path for him in CO or VA. NV is unlikely as well, given the Democrats' ground game there.

I mostly agree with you about VA, but I still think there's a shot for the GOP in CO.  Just not with Trump or a Trump-like candidate (i.e. Tom Cotton).

[libertpaulian]

New Hampshire,Maine,Minnesota and maybe Nevada,Colorado and an outside chance for Virginia.

I'd be surprised if Trump won any of these states, I'm just saying that he has a non-zero chance in MN and ME (though he would lose both states if the election were held today). Even if we ignore NH, there is really no path for him in CO or VA. NV is unlikely as well, given the Democrats' ground game there.

I mostly agree with you about VA, but I still think there's a shot for the GOP in CO.  Just not with Trump or a Trump-like candidate (i.e. Tom Cotton).

Yeah, I agree. Trump was probably the worst possible Republican for CO, and I do think Kasich, Rubio and Cruz would have done better there (not sure if it would have been enough to win it, though).

CO is too secular to pick someone like Cruz.

Kasich and Rubio probably would have won it within 1-3% margin, though.

[Keep cool-idge]

New Hampshire,Maine,Minnesota and maybe Nevada,Colorado and an outside chance for Virginia.

I'd be surprised if Trump won any of these states, I'm just saying that he has a non-zero chance in MN and ME (though he would lose both states if the election were held today). Even if we ignore NH, there is really no path for him in CO or VA. NV is unlikely as well, given the Democrats' ground game there.

I agree back when trump was elected and his first day as president I thought trump would narrowly win Virginia but it looks to me that Virginia is gone gone which is sad because I want to move to Virginia.

[uti2]

New Hampshire,Maine,Minnesota and maybe Nevada,Colorado and an outside chance for Virginia.

I'd be surprised if Trump won any of these states, I'm just saying that he has a non-zero chance in MN and ME (though he would lose both states if the election were held today). Even if we ignore NH, there is really no path for him in CO or VA. NV is unlikely as well, given the Democrats' ground game there.

I mostly agree with you about VA, but I still think there's a shot for the GOP in CO.  Just not with Trump or a Trump-like candidate (i.e. Tom Cotton).

Yeah, I agree. Trump was probably the worst possible Republican for CO, and I do think Kasich, Rubio and Cruz would have done better there (not sure if it would have been enough to win it, though).

CO is too secular to pick someone like Cruz.

Kasich and Rubio probably would have won it within 1-3% margin, though.

Rubio is almost as religious as Cruz.