Kamala Harris 2020 campaign megathread

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Trump would defeat her soundly. Dems do not have a consensus unifying candidate in 2020.

Beto is most definitely not "consensus unifying" on a national level.

[Dr. Arch]

Trump would defeat her soundly. Dems do not have a consensus unifying candidate in 2020.

As if Trump was a consensus candidate at this stage of the Republican primaries in 2015-2016. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Trump would defeat her soundly. Dems do not have a consensus unifying candidate in 2020.

As if Trump was a consensus candidate at this stage of the Republican primaries in 2015-2016. 

Or Obama in 2007.

[John Dule]

Beto is most definitely not "consensus unifying" on a national level.

Why are people so excited about a candidate whose crowning achievement is losing an election to the most-hated man in congress after outspending him by a 2:1 margin?

[Progressive Pessimist]

Beto is most definitely not "consensus unifying" on a national level.

Why are people so excited about a candidate whose crowning achievement is losing an election to the most-hated man in congress after outspending him by a 2:1 margin?

Because he's an excellent campaigner who managed to come closer than expected in a state where no Democrat should have any business doing that well, and because he is as relevant as he'll ever be. If he doesn't run, his current high profile basically becomes moot.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Can we give the maroon avs their own "Kamala Derangement Megathread" So they don't keep spamming the 2020 Forum with individual articles?

Can the red avatars actually respond to legitimate criticism of Harris without dismissing it offhand and labelling her critics as "deranged"?

No they can't. They did the same in 2016.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Can we give the maroon avs their own "Kamala Derangement Megathread" So they don't keep spamming the 2020 Forum with individual articles?

Can the red avatars actually respond to legitimate criticism of Harris without dismissing it offhand and labelling her critics as "deranged"?

No they can't. They did the same in 2016.

You don’t see us digging up years-old articles on Sanders and Warren and spamming the forum.

[AtorBoltox]

Can we give the maroon avs their own "Kamala Derangement Megathread" So they don't keep spamming the 2020 Forum with individual articles?

Can the red avatars actually respond to legitimate criticism of Harris without dismissing it offhand and labelling her critics as "deranged"?

No they can't. They did the same in 2016.

You don’t see us digging up years-old articles on Sanders and Warren and spamming the forum.

Lol I remember in 2016 hillbots digging up stuff on Bernie from the 1970s

[scutosaurus]

Trump would defeat her soundly. Dems do not have a consensus unifying candidate in 2020.

[Badger]

Aggressively Prosecuting School truancy? Oh the Horrors!

Yes, I realize full well the disparity impact, but if School truancy occurs more often among poor people, their children attending school is the only chance they have of breaking that cycle.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Trump would defeat her soundly. Dems do not have a consensus unifying candidate in 2020.

Trump will not win solidly against anyone. Half the country hates his guts and he's one of the most unpopular presidents we've ever had! He won in 2016 against someone who was hated equally(or perhaps more) then he was! If Sanders, Biden or someone else had been the nominee, Trump would have lost in 2016
I'm not saying he can't win, but he's not going to win in a "Landslide" even against a weak candidate like Booker or Warren

Hillary Clinton was not always “hated equally.” And you say it as if it was her fault. But the truth is, Trump will have some degree of success doing this to any nominee, particularly any nominee that comes with the added and unfortunate disadvantage of facing mysoginistic double standards. The only question is whether his degree of success with it will be enough. But don’t expect a Democratic president to begin their term with much goodwill or benefit of the doubt. Trump will see to that.

[GP270watch]

What a ridiculous concern troll. If we're going to have this debate, Obama was way, way less "really black" than Harris is. Obama was raised by his white mother in Indonesia, Kansas and Hawaii with basically zero black people around, never attended a black church until he was an adult, barely even knew his African (not descended from slaves) father and went to an Ivy League college. By contrast, Harris grew up with her Jamaican-American (descended from slaves) father for much of her childhood, attended a predominantly black church (including singing in the choir), lived in a mixed-race neighborhood with a significant black population in Berkeley as a child and went to the preeminent historically black college, Howard, where she was part of the largest black sorority in the country.

 Older Black voters had concerns about Obama and then Obama spoke and then Michelle spoke. Obama was a natural politician and he turned the tide with Black primary voters besides his barnstorming in Iowa, where he also appealed to people in a more folksy manner. Harris is nothing like Obama in that way. Harris might still get huge support from female Black primary voters, who are crucial to any Democrat trying to win the primary. However there is negative backlash among young Black voters that never existed with Obama, I've seen it and heard it first hand. I'm not concern trolling, I want a combination of the most competent, most experienced, and electable Democrat to win the primary. I'm not convinced Harris is that.

[lfromnj]

Trump would defeat her soundly. Dems do not have a consensus unifying candidate in 2020.

Trump will not win solidly against anyone. Half the country hates his guts and he's one of the most unpopular presidents we've ever had! He won in 2016 against someone who was hated equally(or perhaps more) then he was! If Sanders, Biden or someone else had been the nominee, Trump would have lost in 2016
I'm not saying he can't win, but he's not going to win in a "Landslide" even against a weak candidate like Booker or Warren

[OneJ]

What a ridiculous concern troll. If we're going to have this debate, Obama was way, way less "really black" than Harris is. Obama was raised by his white mother in Indonesia, Kansas and Hawaii with basically zero black people around, never attended a black church until he was an adult, barely even knew his African (not descended from slaves) father and went to an Ivy League college. By contrast, Harris grew up with her Jamaican-American (descended from slaves) father for much of her childhood, attended a predominantly black church (including singing in the choir), lived in a mixed-race neighborhood with a significant black population in Berkeley as a child and went to the preeminent historically black college, Howard, where she was part of the largest black sorority in the country.

 Older Black voters had concerns about Obama and then Obama spoke and then Michelle spoke. Obama was a natural politician and he turned the tide with Black primary voters besides his barnstorming in Iowa, where he also appealed to people in a more folksy manner. Harris is nothing like Obama in that way. Harris might still get huge support from female Black primary voters, who are crucial to any Democrat trying to win the primary. However there is negative backlash among young Black voters that never existed with Obama, I've seen it and heard it first hand. I'm not concern trolling, I want a combination of the most competent, most experienced, and electable Democrat to win the primary. I'm not convinced Harris is that.

Pretty much this.

[Kleine Scheiße]

Aggressively Prosecuting School truancy? Oh the Horrors!

Yes, I realize full well the disparity impact, but if School truancy occurs more often among poor people, their children attending school is the only chance they have of breaking that cycle.

The best way to get kids to attend school is definitely not by arresting their breadwinners.

[RINO Tom]

Trump would defeat her soundly. Dems do not have a consensus unifying candidate in 2020.

Given the context of her quote (being TOUGH ON CRIME), your comment makes about as much sense and provides about as much substance to the thread as expected.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Trump would defeat her soundly. Dems do not have a consensus unifying candidate in 2020.

Trump will not win solidly against anyone. Half the country hates his guts and he's one of the most unpopular presidents we've ever had! He won in 2016 against someone who was hated equally(or perhaps more) then he was! If Sanders, Biden or someone else had been the nominee, Trump would have lost in 2016
I'm not saying he can't win, but he's not going to win in a "Landslide" even against a weak candidate like Booker or Warren

[BlueSwan]

Being "tough on crime" is a necessary evil for center-left politicians everywhere if they want to attain political power. That is highly unfortunate, but it is just the way it is. The public EVERYWHERE, not just in the US, are always in support of being "tough on crime". The good news is that you can get away with merely doing the principle some lip service while implementing criminal justice reform that is in no way "tough" on crime. But progressives really need to get their act together here. Nobody is winning on an anti-police, anti-harsh sentencing platform. Nobody. Don't mess this up over some lip service to being tough on crime.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Being "tough on crime" is a necessary evil for center-left politicians everywhere if they want to attain political power. That is highly unfortunate, but it is just the way it is. The public EVERYWHERE, not just in the US, are always in support of being "tough on crime". The good news is that you can get away with merely doing the principle some lip service while implementing criminal justice reform that is in no way "tough" on crime. But progressives really need to get there act together here. Nobody is winning on an anti-police, anti-harsh sentencing platform. Nobody. Don't mess this up over some lip service to being tough on crime.

That's not true. Things like mandatory minimum sentences, three strikes laws and harsh penalties for non-violent drug offenders have gone way down in popularity in recent years.

[BlueSwan]

Being "tough on crime" is a necessary evil for center-left politicians everywhere if they want to attain political power. That is highly unfortunate, but it is just the way it is. The public EVERYWHERE, not just in the US, are always in support of being "tough on crime". The good news is that you can get away with merely doing the principle some lip service while implementing criminal justice reform that is in no way "tough" on crime. But progressives really need to get there act together here. Nobody is winning on an anti-police, anti-harsh sentencing platform. Nobody. Don't mess this up over some lip service to being tough on crime.

That's not true. Things like mandatory minimum sentences, three strikes laws and harsh penalties for non-violent drug offenders have gone way down in popularity in recent years.

That's because they are specific policies. In Denmark we have done so many studies on this. When presented with specific cases people actually advocate sentences that are more lenient than the criminals are likely to receive in court, but when asked IN GENERAL, people support ideas like "violent crimes should be punished much harsher than they are today". Not only do just about everybody on the right support this, even a majority of the left support that idea in principle. That's why a polician cannot afford to be seen as being "soft on crime", but can easily advocate for a specifik policy idea that is in effect "soft".

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

There isn't one candidate in this race who is going to guarantee that no one will ever go to jail ever again.

Trump might, at least for white collar crime.

That's the only "crime" I care about fixing.

[Tintrlvr]

What a ridiculous concern troll. If we're going to have this debate, Obama was way, way less "really black" than Harris is. Obama was raised by his white mother in Indonesia, Kansas and Hawaii with basically zero black people around, never attended a black church until he was an adult, barely even knew his African (not descended from slaves) father and went to an Ivy League college. By contrast, Harris grew up with her Jamaican-American (descended from slaves) father for much of her childhood, attended a predominantly black church (including singing in the choir), lived in a mixed-race neighborhood with a significant black population in Berkeley as a child and went to the preeminent historically black college, Howard, where she was part of the largest black sorority in the country.

 Older Black voters had concerns about Obama and then Obama spoke and then Michelle spoke. Obama was a natural politician and he turned the tide with Black primary voters besides his barnstorming in Iowa, where he also appealed to people in a more folksy manner. Harris is nothing like Obama in that way. Harris might still get huge support from female Black primary voters, who are crucial to any Democrat trying to win the primary. However there is negative backlash among young Black voters that never existed with Obama, I've seen it and heard it first hand. I'm not concern trolling, I want a combination of the most competent, most experienced, and electable Democrat to win the primary. I'm not convinced Harris is that.

People said the exact same things but louder about Obama in 2007-2008, and there was plenty of negative backlash that he wasn't black enough, didn't have real connections in the community, was an elitist, etc. You may be forgetting that Hillary Clinton had an enormous lead with black voters in the polls up until after the Iowa caucuses. It was different once he was actually on the ballots they were being asked to cast.

Also, frankly, young black voters, especially young black men, just don't vote, not even for Obama. She just needs to get Obama levels of black turnout, which doesn't mean reaching every alt-socialist bipster who would find something to complain about for every candidate and never voted for Obama anyway.

[GP270watch]

People said the exact same things but louder about Obama in 2007-2008, and there was plenty of negative backlash that he wasn't black enough, didn't have real connections in the community, was an elitist, etc. You may be forgetting that Hillary Clinton had an enormous lead with black voters in the polls up until after the Iowa caucuses. It was different once he was actually on the ballots they were being asked to cast.

Also, frankly, young black voters, especially young black men, just don't vote, not even for Obama. She just needs to get Obama levels of black turnout, which doesn't mean reaching every alt-socialist bipster who would find something to complain about for every candidate and never voted for Obama anyway.

 Obama's campaign was buoyed by enthusiasm from young Black volunteers and voters. It was older established Black figures and voters who supported Clinton early on, with many of their younger family members making the case to them to support Obama.

 While the electorate will be less white and more everything else in 2020, that math only works if young people turnout. It only works if Harris continues to turn college educated Whites and White Women to vote Democrat. Obama didn't just juice black turnout, he averaged mid 90's level support. Democrats have lost elections falling just into the high 80's and depressed turnout with the black vote so your statement is wrong. Harris can't get Gore, Kerry, or Clinton performance with Black voters. She needs to do Obama numbers in turnout and support and what I'm telling you is that the people, not hipsters, or Bernie people, or Russian Facebook accounts are saying she seems like somebody else's candidate not theirs. She needs to work on that and it isn't concern trolling. Just like it wasn't when people were telling Hillary she was toxic in the Midwest or when people told me Gillum was up 2 to 6% and that a blue wave was going to carry him to victory.

[Comrade Funk]

People said the exact same things but louder about Obama in 2007-2008, and there was plenty of negative backlash that he wasn't black enough, didn't have real connections in the community, was an elitist, etc. You may be forgetting that Hillary Clinton had an enormous lead with black voters in the polls up until after the Iowa caucuses. It was different once he was actually on the ballots they were being asked to cast.

Also, frankly, young black voters, especially young black men, just don't vote, not even for Obama. She just needs to get Obama levels of black turnout, which doesn't mean reaching every alt-socialist bipster who would find something to complain about for every candidate and never voted for Obama anyway.

 Obama's campaign was buoyed by enthusiasm from young Black volunteers and voters. It was older established Black figures and voters who supported Clinton early on, with many of their younger family members making the case to them to support Obama.

 While the electorate will be less white and more everything else in 2020, that math only works if young people turnout. It only works if Harris continues to turn college educated Whites and White Women to vote Democrat. Obama didn't just juice black turnout, he averaged mid 90's level support. Democrats have lost elections falling just into the high 80's and depressed turnout with the black vote so your statement is wrong. Harris can't get Gore, Kerry, or Clinton performance with Black voters. She needs to do Obama numbers in turnout and support and what I'm telling you is that the people, not hipsters, or Bernie people, or Russian Facebook accounts are saying she seems like somebody else's candidate not theirs. She needs to work on that and it isn't concern trolling. Just like it wasn't when people were telling Hillary she was toxic in the Midwest or when people told me Gillum was up 2 to 6% and that a blue wave was going to carry him to victory.

The real truth is that you know nothing, like everyone else here.

[GP270watch]

The real truth is that you know nothing, like everyone else here.

 I don't know how things will turn out, nobody does. But to ignore a real issue is to be naive and stick your head in the sand, that's what Clinton did. Clinton thought somebody else's electoral map would carry her to victory. Look at how the electoral maps change every election, every candidate that wins, wins differently. To think Harris will win with Obama's map or Obama's coalition isn't what usually happens.