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

[PoliticalJunkie23]

I would bask in the tears of atlas teenagers who wouldn't fathom that a proud black woman just became President of the United States of America.

Are we sure she's black? She looks pretty white to me. I want to see her birth certificate.

Where are the mods?

Lighten up.

[Canis]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TheSaint250]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[Kingpoleon]

I would be disappointed. If she has the votes, we would see single payer, further complication of the grossly complex welfare system, higher taxes on the upper and middle classes without the necessary reflective federal sales tax and cut in the corporate tax, pro-sanctuary city policies(think blatant disregard for the law instead of reforming the law for a path to citizenship for non-violent immigrants), and a myriad of other bad policies.

I still, of course, believe the Laffer curve is horizontally stretched a good deal more in income taxes than it is with a corporate or sales tax.

[Possiblymaybe]

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.

That's easy for you to say when your community's level of development hasn't stagnated in the '60s and been systematically ignored for decades by politicians from both political parties. Have you actually spent a lot of time in rural America? It's littered with dilapidated buildings, crumbling infrastructure, shuttered stores, and broken families. Don't even try preaching that right-wing "personal responsibility" bs. Every community and person has a right to dignity and development; our leadership has intentionally ignored these places and people and, when they occasionally make overtures towards them, its solely to gin up some votes then quickly ignore them again. Voter turnout is barely above 50% in our country due to justifiable cynicism aimed at a system that focuses exclusively on the interests of upper-middle-class people in metropolitan areas - everyone else can kick rocks.

White Trash isn't making some identity politics argument any more than you would be if the government let your community rot for decades and you demanded change. I know a lot of folks like you enjoy blaming rural and working class Whites for Trump's victory, but his base has always been the White middle and upper classes. Trump won the suburbs and he won college educated White voters. Congressional Republicans dominated among those same groups as well, even if they split the ticket between Clinton and the Congressional GOP. There may be more explicit bigotry among the White working classes, but they'd be more open to policies that benefit a multiracial, multicultural working class than the DLC's beloved suburbanites who're more interested in virtue signaling and balanced budgets than lifting people out of poverty. Based on social scientific research, latent racism exists to the same degree among college-educated White people as among non-college educated Whites. Yet, people still want to pretend like one group is deplorable and the other isn't.

Yes, this is a bit of a rant, but it's for a reason. Nobody but assholes dislike Kamala Harris because she's non-White or a woman; it's not even necessarily anything personal. It's simply that she doesn't have the background of working with rural communities, which is what dominates between the coasts. As AndrewCA pointed out, she also never bothered to support single-payer until she was pressured into it; Jacobin Magazine has a good article on her. They also have one on Kirsten Gillibrand. Folks like Bullock, Edwards, and Manchin aren't necessarily the most progressive of candidates, even on economic issues, but they're at least aware of rural issues and how to relate to folks from those areas. And it's not due to their race that they're liked by rural Democrats, who're largely White, it's their more working class and/or rural background. Give us a White, African American, Hispanic or whatever racial candidate who can connect with us, represent our interests and communities, and we'd turnout for them. 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.

But everything you said about the rust belt could also be said about poc. Poc earn less at every educational level than white people. And the wage gap between black and white people is just growing. Mass incarceration of black men and women is endemic.  
So why is it that when a politician addresses black issues it's called identity politics but when you address issues facing WWC in the rust belt it's just politics?  
People act like California is just Hollywood and "out of touch liberals", as if the majority aren't normal middle class and working class people facing the same struggles as people in the Midwest

About Harris.What andrewCA says about Harris and healthcare also isn't true, she has been on record for universal healthcare for years. She simply committed to her words by signing on to the bill.
Considering she has been in the senate since January and was the first to sign on to bernies bill I am really struggling to understand why she's being criticised. I mean more or less everyone else who signed on to that bill was in the senate when Bernie presented his previous single payer bill a few years ago and they didn't sign on back then, so its definitely a bit strange to see people focus on Harris in particular being slow to sign on or "having to be pressured".  
Tbh i have probably seen more negativity towards Harris for signing on to that bill than I have seen of  Klobuchar not signing on to it. I think progressives needs to focus on policy instead of politics of personality etc. This is exactly what's wrong with American politics today and why someone like trump ends up in office. If Harris supports Bernie on his signature policies that's great. Don't make it into a situation where people are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

[Possiblymaybe]

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?

Yep!

[Figueira]

Most people here would be ecstatic because we got rid of Trump. Who cares if she's ideologically impure at that point?

[DrScholl]

The forum would probably be shut down because of the amount of threats the Secret Service would need to review. This board would not react well to Trump losing.

[Kingpoleon]

The forum would probably be shut down because of the amount of threats the Secret Service would need to review. This board would not react well to Trump losing.

ExtremeRepublican, Firstdegreeburns, Fuzzy Bear, Classic Conservative, Rjjr, and RFayette are the only Trump supporters I know of - Del Tachi and White Trash are the maybes, IIRC. I can't see most of those receiving death threats.

[TheLeftwardTide]

There's absolutely no reason to think that she'd govern any differently than Obama did, and no, that's not a good thing.

Are all black Democrats corporatist and/or bad in your view? (Harris, Obama, Booker)

This appears to be a common thread with the Berniecrats. Hmm...

Maryland black Democrats tend to be to the left of their white counterparts. I supported Donna Edwards in 2016, and currently support Ben Jealous in the 2018 gubernatorial primary.

Are you trolling? It's kind of hard to tell, although I think your sig really points in that direction. I know that there are some people on Atlas who would unironically agree with you.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There's absolutely no reason to think that she'd govern any differently than Obama did, and no, that's not a good thing.

Are all black Democrats corporatist and/or bad in your view? (Harris, Obama, Booker)

This appears to be a common thread with the Berniecrats. Hmm...

Maryland black Democrats tend to be to the left of their white counterparts. I supported Donna Edwards in 2016, and currently support Ben Jealous in the 2018 gubernatorial primary.

Are you trolling? It's kind of hard to tell, although I think your sig really points in that direction. I know that there are some people on Atlas who would unironically agree with you.

They like to pretend that Nina Turner, Cornel West, Killer Mike, Keith Ellison, Danny Glover, Ben Jealous, or any other black that endorsed Bernie doesn't exist. And also ignore those that didn't and we're not complaining about such as Barbara Lee and John Conyers.

[GGover]

4 more years of a corrupt neoliberal Israeli puppet?

She's pretty much just pro-choice Trump.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There's absolutely no reason to think that she'd govern any differently than Obama did, and no, that's not a good thing.

Are all black Democrats corporatist and/or bad in your view? (Harris, Obama, Booker)

This appears to be a common thread with the Berniecrats. Hmm...

Maryland black Democrats tend to be to the left of their white counterparts. I supported Donna Edwards in 2016, and currently support Ben Jealous in the 2018 gubernatorial primary.

Are you trolling? It's kind of hard to tell, although I think your sig really points in that direction. I know that there are some people on Atlas who would unironically agree with you.

They like to pretend that Nina Turner, Cornel West, Killer Mike, Keith Ellison, Danny Glover, Ben Jealous, or any other black that endorsed Bernie doesn't exist. And also ignore those that didn't and we're not complaining about such as Barbara Lee and John Conyers.

Meanwhile you guys like to pretend that Hillary Clinton didn't blow Sanders COMPLETELY out of the water by winning 80% of black voters in the primary against Bernie Sanders.

The 2016 primary results are not set in stone. A Berniecrat just got elected mayor of Birmingham, Alabama. As for last year, Bernie did better with minorities later in the election. He even managed to win the most diverse city in America, Oakland. 

[White Trash]

I'm not cynical about Harris in particular, but really about the Democratic Party and American politics in general. Do I think Bel Edwards would be better than Harris in answering the needs of rural Americans? Maybe, I really can't say for certain. I will say that I am slightly more confident in his ability than Harris' due to his background and the state that he governs being largely rural and one of the poorest in the nation. What sort of experience does Harris have that is equivalent to that?

But the fact remains that rural America continues to crumble and not a thing is being done about it. There needs to be serious changes in the system, and I doubt that Harris has the political clout or platform to do. I don't blame Harris for not having a political career laser focused on the plight of the rural poor, it's not her problem. And that's why I would prefer to elect someone with a more class based background and platform, who is experience in dealing with rural issues.

Single payer sounds real nice, and I am willing to give Harris the benefit of the doubt, but she has yet to prove to me that she is anything more than an over hyped Democratic Rubio so far.

With all due respect, what about the just move argument. Some parts of rural (and urban) do not serve a purpose in the modern economy. I moved from rural Oregon to Los Angeles, and I don't have patience for people who won't do the same to find success.

That is easy to say if you are financially comfortable enough to take that risk. Moving, especially to a city, is expensive. And the job prospects for an ex-ruralite with only a high school education (and often times, not even that) are abysmal. The "just move" argument works about as well as the "stop being poor" argument.

[IceAgeComing]

I'm not cynical about Harris in particular, but really about the Democratic Party and American politics in general. Do I think Bel Edwards would be better than Harris in answering the needs of rural Americans? Maybe, I really can't say for certain. I will say that I am slightly more confident in his ability than Harris' due to his background and the state that he governs being largely rural and one of the poorest in the nation. What sort of experience does Harris have that is equivalent to that?

But the fact remains that rural America continues to crumble and not a thing is being done about it. There needs to be serious changes in the system, and I doubt that Harris has the political clout or platform to do. I don't blame Harris for not having a political career laser focused on the plight of the rural poor, it's not her problem. And that's why I would prefer to elect someone with a more class based background and platform, who is experience in dealing with rural issues.

Single payer sounds real nice, and I am willing to give Harris the benefit of the doubt, but she has yet to prove to me that she is anything more than an over hyped Democratic Rubio so far.

With all due respect, what about the just move argument. Some parts of rural (and urban) do not serve a purpose in the modern economy. I moved from rural Oregon to Los Angeles, and I don't have patience for people who won't do the same to find success.

What about the very poor people who cannot afford to move a long way away from home and all of their support networks to places with a much higher cost of living for a slightly increased chance at a better life?  What about the older people: who's who've retired only to see their home town's economy collapse around them, or those who were near retirement when they were laid off by their employer, and have practically no chance at getting hired in the city?  What about those who need to live in a certain place to care for an unfortunate member of their family?  Do you wish poverty on those people because they won't move a million miles away from home "to find success"?

Also consider this: if everyone moves to the big cities, then the already incredibly competitive job markets get even more competitive, and its those who couldn't afford a high quality university education (especially in America, where the costs are sky high) or decent experience in the local economy that'll be the ones left out; and at that point they'll be even worse off as they struggle in a place with a vastly higher cost of living, with no local support network of family or friends to fall back on if required.

I mean I don't know why I ever would think that someone who seems to idolise The War Criminal in 2017 to understand that; but I thought that I'd try to explain it anyway.

[Anna Komnene]

I'm not cynical about Harris in particular, but really about the Democratic Party and American politics in general. Do I think Bel Edwards would be better than Harris in answering the needs of rural Americans? Maybe, I really can't say for certain. I will say that I am slightly more confident in his ability than Harris' due to his background and the state that he governs being largely rural and one of the poorest in the nation. What sort of experience does Harris have that is equivalent to that?

But the fact remains that rural America continues to crumble and not a thing is being done about it. There needs to be serious changes in the system, and I doubt that Harris has the political clout or platform to do. I don't blame Harris for not having a political career laser focused on the plight of the rural poor, it's not her problem. And that's why I would prefer to elect someone with a more class based background and platform, who is experience in dealing with rural issues.

Single payer sounds real nice, and I am willing to give Harris the benefit of the doubt, but she has yet to prove to me that she is anything more than an over hyped Democratic Rubio so far.

With all due respect, what about the just move argument. Some parts of rural (and urban) do not serve a purpose in the modern economy. I moved from rural Oregon to Los Angeles, and I don't have patience for people who won't do the same to find success.

Maybe instead of talking down to people and wondering why they can't just move, we could respect them as people that are just trying to make their way in life like everyone else. Rural areas provide a lot of important things, such as ya know... food and minerals. Maybe, just maybe, there's a lot of people that enjoy farming and living in rural areas but just wish their life wasn't so hard. I know I don't wear the D avatar anymore, but when I did, I always thought that's what the democratic party was supposed to be about. Lifting people up by giving them that little bit of help so they don't have to live crappy lives. Not telling them to pick themselves up by their non existent bootstraps or telling them that it's all their fault that they are poor.

[Jeppe]

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.

She was the underdog in 2010 and ended up winning because she turned out to be an incredibly strong candidate. The Republican candidate that ran against Harris won 60-70% of the vote in Los Angeles County multiple times before as the Republican District Attorney, and was expected to win the race fairly easily, wave or not.

Candidates matter, Harris wasn't running against a Generic Republican, she was running against the strongest statewide Republican candidate their party could muster. You're being pretty ridiculous with how hard you're trying to distort her track record.

[Blackacre]

Of course, there is the factor of outside pressure. Harris would be beholden to a Democratic base, after all, and we could pressure her into enacting progressive policies that would help the rural and urban poor alike, as Democrats are supposed to do. This becomes especially likely if she also has a sizable Congressional majority to work with

[Mr. Smith]

Lots of blue avvie and Non-avvie but right-wing tears. After all, Harris is unthinkable! That reality would be too hard to grasp. Arguably even worse than the centre-left with Clinton possibly losing to Trump.

Not sure about the rest, kinda depends on how the campaigns pan out.

[Rookie Yinzer]

The 2016 primary results are not set in stone. A Berniecrat just got elected mayor of Birmingham, Alabama. As for last year, Bernie did better with minorities later in the election. He even managed to win the most diverse city in America, Oakland. 

Um, no. Randall Woodfin was the Alabama state director for Hillary for America.

[JA]

I'm not cynical about Harris in particular, but really about the Democratic Party and American politics in general. Do I think Bel Edwards would be better than Harris in answering the needs of rural Americans? Maybe, I really can't say for certain. I will say that I am slightly more confident in his ability than Harris' due to his background and the state that he governs being largely rural and one of the poorest in the nation. What sort of experience does Harris have that is equivalent to that?

But the fact remains that rural America continues to crumble and not a thing is being done about it. There needs to be serious changes in the system, and I doubt that Harris has the political clout or platform to do. I don't blame Harris for not having a political career laser focused on the plight of the rural poor, it's not her problem. And that's why I would prefer to elect someone with a more class based background and platform, who is experience in dealing with rural issues.

Single payer sounds real nice, and I am willing to give Harris the benefit of the doubt, but she has yet to prove to me that she is anything more than an over hyped Democratic Rubio so far.

With all due respect, what about the just move argument. Some parts of rural (and urban) do not serve a purpose in the modern economy. I moved from rural Oregon to Los Angeles, and I don't have patience for people who won't do the same to find success.

Maybe instead of talking down to people and wondering why they can't just move, we could respect them as people that are just trying to make their way in life like everyone else. Rural areas provide a lot of important things, such as ya know... food and minerals. Maybe, just maybe, there's a lot of people that enjoy farming and living in rural areas but just wish their life wasn't so hard. I know I don't wear the D avatar anymore, but when I did, I always thought that's what the democratic party was supposed to be about. Lifting people up by giving them that little bit of help so they don't have to live crappy lives. Not telling them to pick themselves up by their non existent bootstraps or telling them that it's all their fault that they are poor.

A lot (maybe most?) White Democrats today, especially on this forum, have the mindset of a typical upper-class person. Poverty is a failure of personal responsibility, people should just uproot their lives and relocate to follow whatever the market says, those without the privilege of a college education are typically deplorables and trash, etc etc... I don't know what people expect having upper and upper-middle-class people running a party that's supposed to be oriented towards the lower and working classes. These folks either have no life experiences associated with a background of struggle or have internalized right-wing rhetoric about "personal responsibility." It's why rural Whites rightfully abandoned the party en masse in 2016; they already know the government only works for the well-off, those in coastal metros, and simultaneously talks down to them and hates them (especially the party that's allegedly for the workers).

Congratulations to the upper classes! You guys have nearly total control over both parties and are still trying your hardest to ensure the working classes have no representation at all (targeting Sanders-style populists and rural Democrats). And yet you'll still sit there and say, "that's not my fault, you guys are just bitter, you should've tried harder, but hahaha now you'll just stay poor."

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

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).

[TheLeftwardTide]

The 2016 primary results are not set in stone. A Berniecrat just got elected mayor of Birmingham, Alabama. As for last year, Bernie did better with minorities later in the election. He even managed to win the most diverse city in America, Oakland. 

Um, no. Randall Woodfin was the Alabama state director for Hillary for America.

And endorsed by Our Revolution. There can be overlap between the two wings; they're not completely disjointed.

[Da2017]

I'd be happy to see that glass ceiling finally shattered.