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

[America Needs R'hllor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that I might be one of the main suspects to be an upper-middle to upper class liberal, so I'm gonna answer this at length

I live in an industrialized city in Israel, and while I really don't feel like I can complain, seeing that I never lacked food or education or comfort, my family is still lower-middle class. Technically, I do live in an urban environment, but in Israel rural areas are mostly wealthy (as I know from many of my friends and former schoolmates, who do live in rural areas), while urban industrialized cities, usually full of Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union (like my parents) or Arabic states and their children, are the real struggling areas.
Anyway, saying that living in such a place didn't affect my politics would be lying. I know, it's not even close to poverty and I'm grateful for that, but knowing, for example, just how important is the universal healthcare system in Israel for families like mine helped me full-heartedly support such systems elsewhere, including in America. But I still don't think that living in such an area means I need to hold socialist views. On the contrary. For example, my father works in a factory, and an alarming number of workers are being replaced because of both outsourcing and automation. And still, I strongly support free trade because I believe that isolationism we only lose a minimal amount of jobs because of it, and families like mine are helped by lower prices along with higher quality products. I believe that automation is an inevitable process we must embrace rather than try to postpone, and that instead of throwing money on poor areas to help struggling families directly we need to invest in new jobs in growing industried like high tech, alternative energy, tourism, and the ever-needed infrastructure, as well as free job training for these. I think that the state should try to offer help to poor populations, but we can't spoon-feed them. Things like subsidized higher education and job training help more in the long run than just giving them money.
I don't believe in the "personal responsibility" argument, though of course there are cases where it's right and there are some very specific populations (like the Haredi Jews in Israel) who are almost directly responsible for their bad economic situation by refusing to teach their children what they need to know to succeed in a modern economy. And I surely do not believe the silly "just relocate lelz" argument, because I know full well how unfeasible it is. So did I still have internalized right-wing rhetoric? Maybe, but I don't think so. These are just my views.

Overall, we really don't disagree on most things, based on what you've written. I think the confusion arises in your understanding of Socialism, which is likely due to failure on the part of Socialists to convey their beliefs in a more coherent form. For example, on the issue of trade, it's not a Socialist position to support isolationism or protectionism. Sure, many labor unions and working-class groups agitate for protectionist policies, but protectionism ultimately isn't for the benefit for the workers or their class interests. The most important issue in Socialist politics is simply power and autonomy, by which I mean that the lower, working, and even middle classes seize greater power and are capable of expressing their interests through democratic action. On an issue such as trade, our criticism against present free-trade isn't the free exchange of goods across borders, but rather how it's organized around, focused on, and serve multinational corporate interests, such as how the free flow of capital serves the upper class's interests, whereas the free flow of labor is blocked. Another issue is such as what happened with TPP and TTIP, which would've empowered corporations to actually shape trade and domestic policies in participating countries by taking them to court over policies deemed harmful to their interests. These trade agreements also disregard the exploitation and rampant abuse of workers in foreign countries, the negative effects and downward pressure on wages and benefits in developed countries, and disregard for the environment by taking advantage of lax regulations and corruption in poorer countries.

I'm not, nor are Socialists, as far as I know, opposed to automation and investment. The ideal goal of Socialism is to reduce the amount people have to work, especially menial jobs, thereby freeing up time for other pursuits. That's why UBI is often popular among us. Another goal is to redistribute the profitability of automation away from concentrating wealth into fewer hands (automation enables fewer producers to produce more at greater ROI) towards society-at-large. To oppose automation would be absurd; but to oppose automation that displaces workers while concentrating greater wealth and power into fewer hands, along with enabling greater monopolization of markets, isn't good nor acceptable. As for investment, we should always strive to improve QOL through higher education, increasing skills, and access to means of self-improvement, such as high-speed internet, improved infrastructure, and tackling poverty. Universal access to healthcare, higher education, trade schools, and so on are incredibly important to ensure everyone has equal opportunity and equal access so that upward mobility is available to all who want it. However, most who live in poverty, at least in America, are not those who're full-time workers. It's typically children, the elderly, the disabled, those who help ill family members, and so on; essentially, those unable to fully participate in the labor market. Direct financial assistance from the government is, along with other social programs like paid leave, affordable childcare, improved elderly care, and so on, the only means of achieving elevation out of poverty for these folks.

Well, I think that most of my disagreement with socialists comes from the fact that I don't view the world from the lens of a class struggle. I do recognize the need to curb the influence of rich industries because of how terrible some of them are (the pharmaceutical and tobacco industries, as an example) and I support getting big money out of politics, but I don't believe that the government should explicitly work to drastically redistribute the wealth- I believe that this would be counterproductive, because we do need these corporations and in my opinion they're an important part of a modern society and economy. What I do support is working to increase competition between these corporations and prevent monopolization, sometimes by bringing that competition from abroad. Universal income, by the way, is something that I do support as an eventual outcome- I think that we should test it and feel the way, so to say, in places where it'll be easier and safer to do (like Finland), because eventually, it'll be inevitable. I guess you could say that I just see the need for change, but think that this change should be more subtle and gradual, and that big revolutions and drastic changes that disturb stability would be counterproductive and could cause harm. So while there are disagreements on many issues, I think most of my disagreement with socialists is on rhetoric and general view of the world.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

• 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.

Honestly, this in itself makes her DOA. Her primary opponents would be stupid not to hit her hard with that.

If I remember correctly, it was a remarkably small donation, something like $2000 or something.[/list]

[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).

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.

She absolutely is problematic in my eyes on certain issues. I didn't like her not being strong on the death penalty (although it's notable that she did famously refuse to seek the death penalty for someone who killed a cop, despite public outcry, which to me is endearing), or her stance on the three strikes laws. But she supports single payer, she did stand up strongly for LGBT rights (ex. the example you gave), she did have several positive criminal justice reforms (absolutely some negative ones as well, but also things like her "Back on Track" program which overall had great success) and did do good work doing the housing crisis. She also called out for-profit colleges for misleading students and help publicize data on misconduct by police officers and in-custody deaths (although yes, she did not endorse statewide use of body cameras).

Is she perfect? Of course not. Is she Joe Manchin or Steve Mnuchin? Definitely not.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

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.

I very much agree with this. The "just move" argument is not only terrible and out of touch, but also makes 0 sense. If an area is failing economically, we should work to make it more successful, not abandon it to nature. It seems like Blairite wants to completely abandon rural areas and pack cities with a population too big for them to handle and it can't be justified.

I for one strongly support massive urbanization (as it's more environmentally and economically sustainable). That said, even I know that what Blarite said is stupid, since as of today what you said (in bold) is correct. Our cities are already bursting at the seams already with ridiculous housing costs and poor public transportation, and many rural people who want to move to urban areas can't because of those reasons.

Which brings me to White Trash's perception that previous presidents have ignored rural areas and only focused on urban areas. I find that wrong; the federal government has done a very poor job of investing in our urban areas. As much as our cities are now the "hot" places to be in right now, many still suffer from urban decay, poverty, public transportation worse than most developing countries' systems, etc. There is a growing contingent of socially liberal "yuppies" who have some political clout, but by and large our urban cores are just as neglected as our rural areas.

Will Kamala Harris change any of this? Hopefully yes, but realistically no. I'll still support her, though, just like a lot of people I know. (She's a lot more popular with my IRL friends than with Atlas, apparently. Probably has to do with the fact that my friend groups are pretty racially diverse while Atlas is whiter than Alabama.)

[Mr. Morden]

(She's a lot more popular with my IRL friends than with Atlas, apparently. Probably has to do with the fact that my friend groups are pretty racially diverse while Atlas is whiter than Alabama.)

I'm impressed that your friends even know who Kamala Harris is.  I wouldn't think that many people would be paying any attention to most of the 2020 candidates yet.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

(She's a lot more popular with my IRL friends than with Atlas, apparently. Probably has to do with the fact that my friend groups are pretty racially diverse while Atlas is whiter than Alabama.)

I'm impressed that your friends even know who Kamala Harris is.  I wouldn't think that many people would be paying any attention to most of the 2020 candidates yet.

My politically-active friends, I should say. But yes, she is quite popular with them. For a relatively dark-horse, she's definitely setting up a social media ground game, which is why she's in my Top 5 as to who will win the nomination (more than social media unknowns like Sherrod Brown).

[Xing]

It's hard to know exactly which negative arguments will stick to her, but some will. I think a good number of Democrats would be very happy, and true leftists like jfern would think it's worse than Trump getting elected. Republicans would naturally be unhappy, but none more than the "muh Democrats hate white people!" posters like Naso.

This forum would be a much bigger mess if Sanders or Warren won, though.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Bump.

I'm growing more confident that she is going to win the presidency.

[Beet]

She will win the nomination if Tulsi Gabbard doesn't win it. She may win the presidency.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

She’s spent her entire career until this year in San Francisco. She questioned the soon to be CIA Director on LGBT issues and wants to shut down the government over DACA. These kind of political instincts won’t translate nationally. The comparisons to Obama make no sense given that he was senator of a Midwestern state and was raised by WWC family members.

I don’t think she wins Wisconsin or Pennsylvania (PA had similar turnout rates to 2012 with Blacks). ME-AL, NH, and Florida are also question marks. If she does win it’ll be on the back of Trump’s foibles and will probably be a 2012-esque PV victory and a weaker EC map.

This is coming from a Harris Senate voter last year.

I can tell you that Harris can, and probably will, win Pennsylvania. 2018 will tell us for sure how much PA has turned on the President. If both Wolf and Casey win by Northam Virginia 2017 numbers, then I think any Democrat will be able to take the state back, Harris especially since she will probably up black turnout in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

And regarding your first points, I really don't see how any of that will hurt her, If anything it will help her standing with minorities. She's playing it smart. No Democrat is going to force a government shutdown. It's far too risky.

[Mr. Smith]

She’s spent her entire career until this year in San Francisco. She questioned the soon to be CIA Director on LGBT issues and wants to shut down the government over DACA. These kind of political instincts won’t translate nationally. The comparisons to Obama make no sense given that he was senator of a Midwestern state and was raised by WWC family members.

I don’t think she wins Wisconsin or Pennsylvania (PA had similar turnout rates to 2012 with Blacks). ME-AL, NH, and Florida are also question marks. If she does win it’ll be on the back of Trump’s foibles and will probably be a 2012-esque PV victory and a weaker EC map.

This is coming from a Harris Senate voter last year.

I can tell you that Harris can, and probably will, win Pennsylvania. 2018 will tell us for sure how much PA has turned on the President. If both Wolf and Casey win by Northam Virginia 2017 numbers, then I think any Democrat will be able to take the state back, Harris especially since she will probably up black turnout in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

And regarding your first points, I really don't see how any of that will hurt her, If anything it will help her standing with minorities. She's playing it smart. No Democrat is going to force a government shutdown. It's far too risky.

We’ll see. She’s likely running against Pence (A 71 year old dementia ridden obese man who’s gotten fatter in the last year + hates the job + is hated by DC likely doesn’t live or stay in office past 2019 imo).

These moves will help her in the primaries. But a lot of Swing voters in the Midwest don’t care much for the issues she’s been prioritizing. Also nominating a black person who isn’t a historic first isn’t a guarantee for Obama 2012-2008 margins and turnout with black voters. It can even backfire a bit if it’s viewed as a shameless pandering play.

True, but Obama margins aren't needed to flip Michigan...just something less embarrassing than Hillary's Wayne County margins. And the whole "smart on crime" approach is excellent material there.

Really, she only needs Florida + one of MI/AZ/WI/PA/GA/NC, and atm FL and MI are quite doable.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

She’s spent her entire career until this year in San Francisco. She questioned the soon to be CIA Director on LGBT issues and wants to shut down the government over DACA. These kind of political instincts won’t translate nationally. The comparisons to Obama make no sense given that he was senator of a Midwestern state and was raised by WWC family members.

I don’t think she wins Wisconsin or Pennsylvania (PA had similar turnout rates to 2012 with Blacks). ME-AL, NH, and Florida are also question marks. If she does win it’ll be on the back of Trump’s foibles and will probably be a 2012-esque PV victory and a weaker EC map.

This is coming from a Harris Senate voter last year.

I can tell you that Harris can, and probably will, win Pennsylvania. 2018 will tell us for sure how much PA has turned on the President. If both Wolf and Casey win by Northam Virginia 2017 numbers, then I think any Democrat will be able to take the state back, Harris especially since she will probably up black turnout in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

And regarding your first points, I really don't see how any of that will hurt her, If anything it will help her standing with minorities. She's playing it smart. No Democrat is going to force a government shutdown. It's far too risky.

We’ll see. She’s likely running against Pence (A 71 year old dementia ridden obese man who’s gotten fatter in the last year + hates the job + is hated by DC likely doesn’t live or stay in office past 2019 imo).

These moves will help her in the primaries. But a lot of Swing voters in the Midwest don’t care much for the issues she’s been prioritizing. Also nominating a black person who isn’t a historic first isn’t a guarantee for Obama 2012-2008 margins and turnout with black voters. It can even backfire a bit if it’s viewed as a shameless pandering play.

True, but Obama margins aren't needed to flip Michigan...just something less embarrassing than Hillary's Wayne County margins. And the whole "smart on crime" approach is excellent material there.

Really, she only needs Florida + one of MI/AZ/WI/PA/GA/NC, and atm FL and MI are quite doable.

Agreed. I'm finding renewed confidence in the Democrats taking back Florida, especially with the displaced Puerto Ricans. Harris, or any other Democrat needs to win Michigan (Which is almost certain to happen) and Florida and boom, Trump or Pence will be out of the White House within the next two months.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Kamala Harris just seems to be a really weak candidate to me. Sure, she can beat Trump... but I'm pretty sure almost every democrat that isn't Hillary can beat 2020 Trump (Pence is a different story). We should be running a candidate that will have a massive margin and will produce coattails for dem senate candidates in places like Iowa, NC, and Georgia. Her experience also isn't particularly impressive as she would only be a senator for 4 years.

Gillibrand or Brown would be far stronger candidates who would also have the experience necessary to do well as presidents.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Kamala Harris just seems to be a really weak candidate to me. Sure, she can beat Trump... but I'm pretty sure almost every democrat that isn't Hillary can beat 2020 Trump (Pence is a different story). We should be running a candidate that will have a massive margin and will produce coattails for dem senate candidates in places like Iowa, NC, and Georgia. Her experience also isn't particularly impressive as she would only be a senator for 4 years.

Gillibrand or Brown would be far stronger candidates who would also have the experience necessary to do well as presidents.

2016 has pretty much thrown out "experience" as a prerequisite to being President.

Honestly, I've never gotten a reasonable explanation, from anybody really, as to why Kamala Harris would be a weak candidate. To me she is the embodiment of the perfect anti-Trump candidate. She's young, a woman, poc, has experience in government, and, of course, is a progressive. What more could the Democratic party need? She's also shown deep interest in single-payer healthcare.

[Pericles]

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

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

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. I'd probably give North Carolina and Wisconsin to Trump, but I believe those states will be decided based on Trump's approval rating on election night.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

2016 has pretty much thrown out "experience" as a prerequisite to being President.

I don't care. Dems shouldn't be trying to replicate piece of garbage Trump. I want a president that knows what they're doing. I think Obama was hurt by his inexperience and would have done better with his supermajority if he had more experience.

[Pericles]

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. I'd probably give North Carolina and Wisconsin to Trump, but I believe those states will be decided based on Trump's approval rating on election night.

I think Wisconsin will flip back to the Democrats especially with Trump doing badly there and nationwide and generally if a Democrat wins Georgia I think they'd also win North Carolina.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I'd be disappointed that we chose a heavily partisan Socialist by Admission, but there are honestly significantly worse people we could end up with.

[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.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Most Democrats would be ecstatic, most Republicans would be angry/saddened.

[Jeppe]

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.

[libertpaulian]

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.

Only politinerds are trying to make Kander a thing.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

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.

Yeah, do not put Kander and Harris on the same level. She's far more qualified and electable.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's pathetic how the establishment types promote this fraud. Some "journalist" talked about how she won all these Republican counties last year. Yeah, against another Democrat.