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

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

How would it react?

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

I would wake up from whatever dream I was having.

A Harris presidency is far more likely than you think.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

I would wake up from whatever dream I was having.

A Harris presidency is far more likely than you think.

5% chance of running

5% chance of nomination, if she runs

50% chance of beating Trump, if nominated

.125% chance of being elected president

Pretty sure that’s not how it works...

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

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?

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

...and that kind of does into my earlier post. What in that record qualifies her for President?

California Attorney General, U.S. Senator... More qualifications than the current president.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Bump.

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.