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

[White Trash]

I'd give up on politics for a little while. It'd be clear to me at that point that the Democratic Party will never change in the way it should. Maybe I'll focus on local politics, see what I can do in Louisiana or Georgia regarding activism, but federal politics would be a sport I'd no longer want to spectate.

[White Trash]

I'd give up on politics for a little while. It'd be clear to me at that point that the Democratic Party will never change in the way it should. Maybe I'll focus on local politics, see what I can do in Louisiana or Georgia regarding activism, but federal politics would be a sport I'd no longer want to spectate.

You’d be so dismayed by a president who supports single-payer that you’d stop caring about politics. You voted for Trump in a swing state. Why aren’t you a Republican again?

I wouldn't be dismayed, I'd simply be disappointed that the Democratic Party didn't nominate someone who pays attention to the issues that are the most important to me. What exactly is a prosecutor from Oakland, California going to do for rural folks? I'm not confident that she'll be any different from Trump, Obama, Bush or any other President we've had since the founding of the nation in regards to what will be done for the rural impoverished.

And let's not get into this "Why aren't you a Republican again?" business. That has to be the laziest line of critique in intra-party politics. Leave that to the actual Republicans.

[White Trash]

I'd give up on politics for a little while. It'd be clear to me at that point that the Democratic Party will never change in the way it should. Maybe I'll focus on local politics, see what I can do in Louisiana or Georgia regarding activism, but federal politics would be a sport I'd no longer want to spectate.

You’d be so dismayed by a president who supports single-payer that you’d stop caring about politics. You voted for Trump in a swing state. Why aren’t you a Republican again?

I wouldn't be dismayed, I'd simply be disappointed that the Democratic Party didn't nominate someone who pays attention to the issues that are the most important to me. What exactly is a prosecutor from Oakland, California going to do for rural folks? I'm not confident that she'll be any different from Trump, Obama, Bush or any other President we've had since the founding of the nation in regards to what will be done for the rural impoverished.

And let's not get into this "Why aren't you a Republican again?" business. That has to be the laziest line of critique in intra-party politics. Leave that to the actual Republicans.

You're talking about lazy critiques but have the audacity to imply Harris won't do anything for rural folks based on the city and state she comes from?

And if you think literally every president hasn't done anything different regarding the rural impoverished, why the hell would Kamala Harris and John Bel Edwards or whatever rural white Dem that'll satisfy you be any different? Jesus man.

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.

[White Trash]

I'd give up on politics for a little while. It'd be clear to me at that point that the Democratic Party will never change in the way it should. Maybe I'll focus on local politics, see what I can do in Louisiana or Georgia regarding activism, but federal politics would be a sport I'd no longer want to spectate.

You’d be so dismayed by a president who supports single-payer that you’d stop caring about politics.

Even apolitical dullards know better than to blindly take everything a politician says at face value. Harris only cynically came out in favor of Medicare for All after she was (rightfully) pressured to endorse it. There's absolutely no reason to think that she'd govern any differently than Obama did, and no, that's not a good thing.

Not even the point I'm making. White Trash has said in the past single-payer should be a litmus test for Democratic leaders, but he seems willing to throw it out the window if the person doesn't check off his demographic wishlist. If you want identity politics, at least be honest about it.

It isn't a demographic wishlist, I'm not tossing Harris out because of anything having to do with her demographic. I'm merely stating that when it comes to ideology and what issues she's focusing on, she isn't for me.

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.

[White Trash]

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.

Because I've been a conscious witness to four Presidential elections in which the livelihoods of people in my community didn't get any better. President Harris or not, I may give up on federal politics anyway. There is so little for an individual of working-class or middle-class background to actually have an effect.

[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.

[White Trash]

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."

This is getting off topic, but I'm not upper class (asprirational, perhaps), I have life experiences being middle class in rural America, and I have no dislike towards the poor. (Face it, you don't know my demographic profile at all.) However, I don't think the system is totally rigged, I don't think there is an inherent conflict of interest between people of different classes, and I have no patience for nostalgic people who want the economy and lifestyle of the 50s back. Too bad, the economy has changed. You may deserve government assistance, but if your not willing to fundementally change your lifestyle and outlook to achieve it, then you are not entitled to prosperity.

Let's save this discussion for another thread, however.

sounds exactly like the sort of thing that a tory would say, tbh