Kamala Harris 2020 campaign megathread

[Heebie Jeebie]

She's the perfect candidate if Democrats want to avoid having to incessantly talk about identity politics.  A male nominee would have to constantly be assuring women that gender equality is a top priority.  A white nominee would have to constantly be assuring minorities that  racial equality is a top priority.  Harris, being a black woman, doesn't have to do any of that.  Like Obama, she can just trust in the unavoidable, inherent symbolism of whom she is and focus her actual rhetoric on economic issues.  She's the candidate Democrats should choose if they want economics to be their message.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Let's be completely honest here, if she gets a decent amount of support, it'll ONLY be because of the boxes she checks for sjw Democrats, not because of anything she's done in her career.

Voters don't base their decisions on candidates' résumés--just ask Hillary Clinton.  The question is whether Harris can demonstrate the superior character and judgment people want in a president.

[Heebie Jeebie]

I think Harris can win the general but her path will involve Suburban Romney-Clinton dems in Southeast PA(Maxing out Bucks/Chester), Arizona, FL, Georgia, NC, and TX.

That's the path any Democrat is going to have to take.  Democratic success in 2018 was so widespread because the election was about Trump, full stop.  Not Trump vs anyone else--just Trump.  Alternatively, 2020 will unavoidably be about the choice between Republican and Democrat, Right and Left--it doesn't matter whom the nominee is.  And, given that choice, rural voters are always going to vote for the Republican Right.  If Democrats are to win going forward, it's going to increasingly be through the suburbs and the Sun Belt.

[Heebie Jeebie]

I think Kamala has united Black support, there's no reason for Booker to run.

Booker is still young, so at the very least a competitive run in 2020 further establishes him as a leader in the party and maybe sets up a more successful run down the road. 

What's more, if we game this out a little, it's not hard to imagine Booker splitting votes with Harris, giving Gillibrand the opening she needs to consolidate support as a compromise candidate for the moderates and progressives.  If Gillibrand gets the nomination, Booker is an obvious veep pick, and boom, he's one step away from the presidency.

[Heebie Jeebie]

If Beto will run, it will be social media hype contest between her and O'Rourke and Biden (who isn't prone to social media) may be not able to find oneself in it.

Beto is all sizzle, no steak.  Running in a crowded Democratic primary isn't the same as being the only alternative to Ted Cruz--if Beto does decide to run, his campaign will implode as soon as voters get a sense of how vacuous his candidacy is.  And Biden has more unchecked baggage than a Southwest airline--imagine all the problems Hilary's campaign couldn't shake and multiply those by ten.

[Heebie Jeebie]

I agree with most of this except for the Gillibrand part. Out of all the major candidates in the primary, she's the least likely to win. Hell, Bloomberg is doing better in NY than her.

Strictly a matter of name recognition at this point.  I don't think Gillibrand is the most likely nominee or anything, but weird things can happen of the course of a year-long campaign.  If some unforeseen scandal or tragedy tanks Harris or the other front-runners, Gillibrand should be well positioned to step up.  And really, even now, Gillibrand is a stronger candidate than most people recognize--she's mostly acceptable to all wings of the party and she's got the resources available to run an aggressive campaign.  If she can maintain a presence without alienating any of the important Democratic constituencies, she has pretty good odds.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Harris's campaign says they raised $1.5 million in the first 24 hours since the announcement:

Is that a lot?

[Heebie Jeebie]

You're almost right but not quite. American voters don't want to hear specific policies, they want a clear vision that they agree with. Bernie presented a strong and clear vision for America, so did Trump, Hillary did not.

Gimme a break.  Hillary most certainly did present a strong, clear vision for America--the Democratic vision of fairness, inclusion, equality, and opportunity. Not enough voters found that vision as compelling as the regressive, nativist hate espoused by the Trump campaign, but the vision, and the choice, was clear.

[Heebie Jeebie]

"America is already great" is not a strong, clear vision. Wonky lists of policies and making small tweaks around the edges of our currently existing system, is not a strong, clear vision.

Please.  You're pretending like every major speech she gave was just a litany of policy proposals when in fact she campaigned incessantly on the value of gender equality and racial equality and international cooperation.  The contrast in values with Trump couldn't have been more clear.  She made her case, but not enough people cared. What's she supposed to do? Hypnotize the masses with her spellbinding oratory?

[Heebie Jeebie]

Her ads had the least policy of any major party nominee for at least 20 years. Lets stop pretending that her campaign was anything but vapid.

Wait, I thought the criticism was that she was too wonky and detail oriented. Now it's that she was too vapid?  Which is it, man?  I can't keep up.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Her ads had the least policy of any major party nominee for at least 20 years. Lets stop pretending that her campaign was anything but vapid.

Wait, I thought the criticism was that she was too wonky and detail oriented. Now it's that she was too vapid?  Which is it, man?  I can't keep up.

Bernie supporters certainly weren't calling her wonky and detail oriented. It was Bernie's focus on the issues, and a message that doesn't suck which is why Bernie had his support.

Sure, if that's what you need to tell yourself. I don't want to continue hijacking this thread, so I'll offer my final thought on the real difference between Hillary's campaign and the campaigns of both Trump and Sanders, and you can have the final word if you want. Trump and Sanders each had one decisive advantage over Clinton in terms of messaging:  they were both shameless liars willing to promise things they were either unwilling (Trump) or incapable ( Sanders) of delivering on.  Clinton was more honest.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Her advantage as well Biden's, whom both have the same voters, Lawyers are electable

Biden's coalition is vastly different from Kamala's core voter base. Old baby boomers are crazy about Joe Biden's run, it's the Obama coalition of 2008 that's made up of young people and minorities who are enthusiastic of Kamala candidacy.

This is correct.  Kamala's base and Biden's base are almost polar opposites in terms of the space they occupy in the Democratic primary electorate.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Her advantage as well Biden's, whom both have the same voters, Lawyers are electable

Biden's coalition is vastly different from Kamala's core voter base. Old baby boomers are crazy about Joe Biden's run, it's the Obama coalition of 2008 that's made up of young people and minorities who are enthusiastic of Kamala candidacy.

This is correct.  Kamala's base and Biden's base are almost polar opposites in terms of the space they occupy in the Democratic primary electorate.

From what I can see, Harris appeals to the same base as roughly O'Rourke does. That is going to be her big fight. The question is do they split the centre-left vote enough for Sanders or Biden to swoop in at the last second?

I could be wrong of course. Usually I'm pretty dumb.

That's not how I read things, but your sense of the race is probably more accurate than mine.

[Heebie Jeebie]

I don't really think Biden & Kamala have the same base- really at all.

But, Kamala is by far the biggest threat to Biden- due to SC.  I think Biden & Kamala will end up losing Iowa, NH, and NV.  Making SC his must win for both of them.  And considering 61% of the SC Primary electorate is AA, Biden will likely have an uphill battle vs Kamala.

(This is part of the reason I have a small conspiracy theory of Abrams all of a sudden saying she hasn't ruled out getting in the primary.  The theory being Biden's team thinking that 1 way to weaken Kamala's support in SC is to get neighboring state candidate Abrams in the race.  With the agreement to pick Abrams as VP when Biden wins the nominations.  Granted, I think once Abrams thinks this through- or thought this through, she would realize that Biden is going to be weaker in the Primaries than his current numbers show- and she is much better running for Senate, which she probably has a good chance of winning).

Would it be more accurate to say that Beto and Kamala appeal to roughly the same type of voter?

I agree with others who think its sort of hard to tell which candidates are sharing similar bases, etc, due to the number candidates in the race.  But I tend to not think Beto & Kamala have much of an overlapping base.  I do think that Biden's base is somewhat bifurcated- with part of them open to supporting Beto... and a different part of them open to supporting Kamala.  But I think in general, the overwhelming majority of voters are pretty fluid at this point.  Bernie probably has the only fairly stable base (around 15%)- but I also think that Bernie is less likely to pick-up a large number of voters- since ppl already know him so well & he has such definitive views, seems like they would already be on the Bernie train if they were inclined to support him this election.

I totally agree.  I've argued for a long time that Bernie basically has no way to top his 2016 performance--he's so well known that his base is set and he's not going to win the anti-frontrunner protest vote like he did three years ago.  Ironically, there's a glass ceiling over his head he has no way of breaking through. 

[Heebie Jeebie]

I don't really think Biden & Kamala have the same base- really at all.

But, Kamala is by far the biggest threat to Biden- due to SC.  I think Biden & Kamala will end up losing Iowa, NH, and NV.  Making SC his must win for both of them.  And considering 61% of the SC Primary electorate is AA, Biden will likely have an uphill battle vs Kamala.

(This is part of the reason I have a small conspiracy theory of Abrams all of a sudden saying she hasn't ruled out getting in the primary.  The theory being Biden's team thinking that 1 way to weaken Kamala's support in SC is to get neighboring state candidate Abrams in the race.  With the agreement to pick Abrams as VP when Biden wins the nominations.  Granted, I think once Abrams thinks this through- or thought this through, she would realize that Biden is going to be weaker in the Primaries than his current numbers show- and she is much better running for Senate, which she probably has a good chance of winning).

Would it be more accurate to say that Beto and Kamala appeal to roughly the same type of voter?

I agree with others who think its sort of hard to tell which candidates are sharing similar bases, etc, due to the number candidates in the race.  But I tend to not think Beto & Kamala have much of an overlapping base.  I do think that Biden's base is somewhat bifurcated- with part of them open to supporting Beto... and a different part of them open to supporting Kamala.  But I think in general, the overwhelming majority of voters are pretty fluid at this point.  Bernie probably has the only fairly stable base (around 15%)- but I also think that Bernie is less likely to pick-up a large number of voters- since ppl already know him so well & he has such definitive views, seems like they would already be on the Bernie train if they were inclined to support him this election.

I totally agree.  I've argued for a long time that Bernie basically has no way to top his 2016 performance--he's so well known that his base is set and he's not going to win the anti-frontrunner protest vote like he did three years ago.  Ironically, there's a glass ceiling over his head he has no way of breaking through. 

But he has every chance of forcing a brokered convention, something he had no way of pulling off in '16.

That's a possibility, but I think it's unlikely.  There have been crowded fields before (1992, 2004, 2008) and inevitably one or two candidates separate themselves from the pack and someone locks down the nomination well before the convention.  I think it's likely that 2020 will be no different.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Not sure why people are pushing that Kamala is a national figure. Yes, is she one of the better known national dems? Sure, but still not a lot. Just look at all of the polls going on -- even her score of "Don't Know" is still pretty high among even DEMOCRATS, let alone all voters.

Her candidacy and supposed popularity is more of a media creation than anything else.  Besides being an identity politics candidate from the most "coastal elitist" city in the country (besides NYC of course), what does she have to offer as a future President?

You're being too dismissive. In a field where nearly all the candidates are basically in agreement on what policies to prioritize and pursue, being "an identity politics candidate" actually counts for a whole lot. Having a young, progressive, minority woman as president would in itself shape our social and political culture in profound ways. Beyond that, what does she have to offer?  All the same things any Democrat could offer a president. Again, there's not a lot of daylight between the candidates in terms of policy or priorities.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Kamala isnt doing any favors by trouting Pete Bettigieg as a running mate. She needs to talk about Castro. Southern blacks will go for Biden, in SC, if she keeps talking about Pete

I’m praying this isn’t true, nor do I think it is. It has to be Tom Wolf.

Bennet or bust!

[Heebie Jeebie]

Kamala isnt doing any favors by trouting Pete Bettigieg as a running mate. She needs to talk about Castro. Southern blacks will go for Biden, in SC, if she keeps talking about Pete

I’m praying this isn’t true, nor do I think it is. It has to be Tom Wolf.

Lol, no one is gonna pick Tom Wolf

She should.

Eh, no. He'll be the Tim Kaine pick. I like Castro better.

Tim Kaine was a good pick.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Kamala isnt doing any favors by trouting Pete Bettigieg as a running mate. She needs to talk about Castro. Southern blacks will go for Biden, in SC, if she keeps talking about Pete

I’m praying this isn’t true, nor do I think it is. It has to be Tom Wolf.

Lol, no one is gonna pick Tom Wolf

She should.

Eh, no. He'll be the Tim Kaine pick. I like Castro better.

Tim Kaine was a good pick.

What did he add to the ticket?

He was a pick that reinforced all of Clinton's best traits:  experience, level-headedness, professionalism, effectiveness, etc. He wasn't an exciting choice, but he was on theme and would have made a good president himself if he had to take over. Anyway, the veep pick almost never affects final vote totals, unless it's for the worse (see McCain/Palin). 

[Heebie Jeebie]

This is a shame.  I really like Harris.  She's not my first choice, but I'd definitely place her in my top three.  I think she should use her platform to start auditioning to be Attorney General in the next administration--play up the "tough cop" image, emphasize over and over the need for accountability, insist that Trump and his gang of crooks need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, etc.  She just needs to make it clear that, if it's up to her, there will be severe consequences for the corruption and lawlessness we're witnessing daily.