Why the anti-Harris pro-Gilibrand circlejerk?

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The subforum hivemind seems to think that Harris is an unelectable corporate shill, whereas Gilibrand is a FF and the most electable Democratic candidate. But why, when they're both ex-lawyer female junior Senators from large liberal states who are indistinguishable on policy? Is it simply race?

[HillGoose]

I'm unsure, in my mind they are almost literally the same person, simply based on the fact that they're both Democrats, one of whom is from the Eastern heart of the blue states, other is from the Western heart of the Blue states. I didn't even know there were other similarities.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

I adore both. But the circle jerk around the Kamala hate is completely outrageous.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

The subforum hivemind seems to think that Harris is an unelectable corporate shill, whereas Gilibrand is a FF and the most electable Democratic candidate. But why, when they're both ex-lawyer female junior Senators from large liberal states who are indistinguishable on policy? Is it simply race?

There really is no rational reason for people on this site to hate Harris, she's ranked to be far more progressive than Sanders overall.

[Strudelcutie4427]

They both suck imo. Theyre both essentially Hillary Clones

[Mr. Smith]

As a person who voted for Harris last year (and from Harris' hometown no less, not even jfern or PiT or what have you can give you that) with no regret, I'll tell ya':

Harris is newbie who just came in, and she made her bones in one of the most liberal areas in the highest profile liberal state, and she barely won her first competitive race, then underperformed in an otherwise great year for the state [Jerry got 60%!], and finally, she didn't even actually face a Republican to win her Senate seat....she faced a complete joke of a candidate [one who I actually would've voted for if there wasn't a regional appeal going on]...and her campaign still spent like a drunken sailor to do it.


Gillibrand at least has a good decade of work in Congress and represented a semi-conservative district (which was itself against type) before becoming Senator, and she followed up by being re-elected by a RECORD margin for the state. This doesn't tie her to one specific urban area all that much, which suggests a bit more flexibility. And people recognize that New York has an Upstate that works a bit differently from NYC or Long Island from the outset.


Also, Gillibrand comes off as her own when speaking, Harris seems to have all the pros and cons of Obama AND Hillary, and the nasality of Walter Mondale to boot.


This all puts Gillibrand ahead by miles on paper, and since no one besides Delaney and O'Malley have really gone for it, the only judgment we have is the on-paper stuff.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

As a person who voted for Harris last year (and from Harris' hometown no less, not even jfern or PiT or what have you can give you that) with no regret, I'll tell ya':

Harris is newbie who just came in, and she made her bones in one of the most liberal areas in the highest profile liberal state, and she barely won her first competitive race, then underperformed in an otherwise great year for the state [Jerry got 60%!], and finally, she didn't even actually face a Republican to win her Senate seat....she faced a complete joke of a candidate [one who I actually would've voted for if there wasn't a regional appeal going on]...and her campaign still spent like a drunken sailor to do it.


Gillibrand at least has a good decade of work in Congress and represented a semi-conservative district (which was itself against type) before becoming Senator, and she followed up by being re-elected by a RECORD margin for the state. This doesn't tie her to one specific urban area all that much, which suggests a bit more flexibility.

Wasn't her opponent a very popular incumbent? If so, then that point can be discredited.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The subforum hivemind seems to think that Harris is an unelectable corporate shill, whereas Gilibrand is a FF and the most electable Democratic candidate. But why, when they're both ex-lawyer female junior Senators from large liberal states who are indistinguishable on policy? Is it simply race?

There really is no rational reason for people on this site to hate Harris, she's ranked to be far more progressive than Sanders overall.

You can't actually believe this sh**t, right?

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I like Kamala personally but she seems like a terrible general election candidate. She makes a lot of progressives upset (despite having a progressive voting record), and she doesn't have much appeal to moderate voters ("Sanfransico Liberal, Angry Women, etc. will be too easy to attack her w/). From polls I've seen in PP, she even does worse among African American voters than Hillary lol.

Gillibrand has the issue of being a blue state liberal democrat and will probably be portrayed as "weak" (also will be portrayed as a hillary clone), but she is really really good at connecting with voters. She showed in 2006 and 2012 that she can destroy in elections. She also seems very politically talented
(knows when to shift opinions and explain why she changed her stances very effectively) and has more experience than Harris.

[Mr. Smith]

As a person who voted for Harris last year (and from Harris' hometown no less, not even jfern or PiT or what have you can give you that) with no regret, I'll tell ya':

Harris is newbie who just came in, and she made her bones in one of the most liberal areas in the highest profile liberal state, and she barely won her first competitive race, then underperformed in an otherwise great year for the state [Jerry got 60%!], and finally, she didn't even actually face a Republican to win her Senate seat....she faced a complete joke of a candidate [one who I actually would've voted for if there wasn't a regional appeal going on]...and her campaign still spent like a drunken sailor to do it.


Gillibrand at least has a good decade of work in Congress and represented a semi-conservative district (which was itself against type) before becoming Senator, and she followed up by being re-elected by a RECORD margin for the state. This doesn't tie her to one specific urban area all that much, which suggests a bit more flexibility.

Wasn't her opponent a very popular incumbent? If so, then that point can be discredited.

Her opponent was a fairly popular moderate from L.A., and it was 2010, but no, her opponent wasn't an incumbent...the incumbent was Governor Moonbeam himself, vacating to become Governor again.

But even with that allowance, the whole state of California was barely hit by the wave, I can still remember all the editorial cartoons showing the nation tilting rightwards like a seesaw, and then you could see a bunch of elephants cheering, with donkeys picking a few people off the edges in California.

[GoTfan]

The subforum hivemind seems to think that Harris is an unelectable corporate shill, whereas Gilibrand is a FF and the most electable Democratic candidate. But why, when they're both ex-lawyer female junior Senators from large liberal states who are indistinguishable on policy? Is it simply race?

There really is no rational reason for people on this site to hate Harris, she's ranked to be far more progressive than Sanders overall.

I call bulls***t

[darklordoftech]

Harris's views on guns would destroy her in the general.

[McGovernForPrez]

MormDem summarizes a lot of my thoughts on the subject.

Gillibrand is proven to be an effective Senator. I was actually very much against her initially but she's really grown on me. She dominated in upstate New York in her elections, places which tend to vote Republican. Harris is a San Francisco liberal, and to boot she's a black woman. She doesn't have the nationwide appeal as a candidate. She's a very solid fit for California, but I can't see her winning the WWC or even upscale suburban voters.

My biggest problem with Harris ultimately comes down to her being boring. Nothing about Harris as candidate is offensive to me, but she isn't very motivating either.  Gillibrand has a very bubbly personality. Harris is just such a milquetoast candidate. She's like the definition of generic D to me.  I really can't articulate what she stands for besides "democrat stuff". I think she's the least imaginative choice Democrats could make. She reminds me a lot of John Kerry, in that she's boring. I can easily see her losing to Trump.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Gillibrand started her political career in a rural WWC district, Harris did in San Francisco.

[#StillWithHer]

Because she is half-black. Most of the excuses boil down to "Black women aren't as electable as a blonde white woman is" because they don't like her race. Female POC know your place behind white feminists.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

MormDem summarizes a lot of my thoughts on the subject.

Gillibrand is proven to be an effective Senator. I was actually very much against her initially but she's really grown on me. She dominated in upstate New York in her elections, places which tend to vote Republican. Harris is a San Francisco liberal, and to boot she's a black woman. She doesn't have the nationwide appeal as a candidate. She's a very solid fit for California, but I can't see her winning the WWC or even upscale suburban voters.

My biggest problem with Harris ultimately comes down to her being boring. Nothing about Harris as candidate is offensive to me, but she isn't very motivating either.  Gillibrand has a very bubbly personality. Harris is just such a milquetoast candidate. She's like the definition of generic D to me.  I really can't articulate what she stands for besides "democrat stuff". I think she's the least imaginative choice Democrats could make. She reminds me a lot of John Kerry, in that she's boring. I can easily see her losing to Trump.

That said HRC was very popular in upstate New York, and a fat lot of good it did her in the end.

I think the major issue is that Harris is largely a cipher - her fandom and hatedom alike don't know much about her aside from what they read into her based on her background (actually the Obama-Hillary comparison is really striking in this little race), while we know a bit more about Gillibrand.

[Mr. Smith]

Gillibrand could have started off by defeating let's say....Doug LaMalfa in CA-1 in 2007, then won 2010 to succeed Barbara Boxer against Fiorina, she could've accumulated the same record.

And Harris could've started off in Queens, narrowly defeated some moderate from Buffalo, and gotten in after defeating a joke GOP candidate to succeed Chuck Schumer....

Harris would have the advantage again just by not being from California.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

New York people have a much better attitude than laissez-faire libs from Commiefornia. Gillibrand is my favourite.

[Bojack Horseman]

Gillibrand would be okay, but I think Booker has more charisma and can connect better with voters.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Because she is half-black. Most of the excuses boil down to "Black women aren't as electable as a blonde white woman is" because they don't like her race. Female POC know your place behind white feminists.

Show me a post here claiming that.

[Da2017]

MormDem summarizes a lot of my thoughts on the subject.

Gillibrand is proven to be an effective Senator. I was actually very much against her initially but she's really grown on me. She dominated in upstate New York in her elections, places which tend to vote Republican. Harris is a San Francisco liberal, and to boot she's a black woman. She doesn't have the nationwide appeal as a candidate. She's a very solid fit for California, but I can't see her winning the WWC or even upscale suburban voters.

My biggest problem with Harris ultimately comes down to her being boring. Nothing about Harris as candidate is offensive to me, but she isn't very motivating either.  Gillibrand has a very bubbly personality. Harris is just such a milquetoast candidate. She's like the definition of generic D to me.  I really can't articulate what she stands for besides "democrat stuff". I think she's the least imaginative choice Democrats could make. She reminds me a lot of John Kerry, in that she's boring. I can easily see her losing to Trump.

I,d never put Harris and Kerry together. Harris is a far better speaker. I totally agree about Kerry.Kerry to me came not only is boring,but weird. I think you will warm to Harris overtime. I could be wrong about Harris.Warren I,d say is closer is to Kerry. Warren can across as condescending. Warren is more likely to lose than Harris. That said I think Harris and Warren are far better than Hillary Clinton. I think Trump would even hard time with someone as establishment as Booker.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Gillibrand could have started off by defeating let's say....Doug LaMalfa in CA-1 in 2007, then won 2010 to succeed Barbara Boxer against Fiorina, she could've accumulated the same record.

And Harris could've started off in Queens, narrowly defeated some moderate from Buffalo, and gotten in after defeating a joke GOP candidate to succeed Chuck Schumer....

Harris would have the advantage again just by not being from California.

New York was more Democratic than California until 2014.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I don't get it all, I'm against both candidates, and think, if anything, that Harris is lesser of two evils.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Cuz Gillibrand is actually useful, and a good person.

[Da2017]

 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7ECWFT0N_O4&app=m&persist_app=1 Harris talking about her favorite music.