Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-28-2019, 09:21 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,318

How good would Harris be in the general?


Pretty broad (never universal) consensus that Kamala Harris was the stand-out, heads and shoulders, in the first debate round, that she is the potential Biden-beater more than either Warren or Sanders. I stated in another thread how I think her performance strongly declared her brand to be her ability to prosecute the case against Trump in a way no one else can (not identity politics).

As one of many I think who have been saying Biden as default but without enthusiasm I could see myself getting excited about her as president. What I still need to be convinced about is that she has the goods to assuredly win against Trump.

Someone please make the case of how she will dominate in PA, MI, and WI, first of all. How does she play to the Obama-Trump voters? To the Clinton-Romney ones? How does she play in the states that we could really use some coat tails to pull off key Senate wins (NC, ME, CO, MO, AZ, maybe even GA, IA, and TX)?

Can she pull off the trick of keeping key voters of sometimes overlapping and sometimes different interests in the tent all energized (Democratic women, Black voters, and younger progressives), while possibly getting Hispanic voters of their butts, AND getting across the message to less educated white voters that she gets and cares about their very real problems too?

Many pundits have been pointing out that the raised hands to eliminate all private insurance plays well to the base but is going to be a vulnerability in the general. Hell even Medicare for current Medicare receivers often go to private for extra coverage. I'm guessing she can finesse that as the race goes on but it is a concern.

As to her gender, she hits what is needed to get voters to go there. No one would ever call her a schoolmarm. And while she prosecuted Biden extremely effectively she managed to do it in a way that no one could attach "nasty" or "bitch" to. She was strong, not mean, while still sharing the authentic personal.

Her being of color is no problem to Obama-Trump voters so long as she also empathizes with the real problems that face less educated whites and, unlike HRC, does not dis them by disregard.

Sell me. please!
  #2  
Old 06-28-2019, 09:23 AM
carnivorousplant is online now
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 58,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
How does she play to the Obama-Trump voters?
I can't see any Trump voters voting for a woman or a person of color.
  #3  
Old 06-28-2019, 09:30 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,318
So you cannot see those who voted for Obama voting for a person of color? Interesting position tom take.
  #4  
Old 06-28-2019, 09:46 AM
sps49sd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 454
I didn't see her as a winner. She was the little girl who was bused? Because the local city did it before the Feds did? She attacked Bisen, sure, but I thought he parried her attacks well.

Hickenlooper did well on track record and getting things done, but he remains Hickenlooper.
  #5  
Old 06-28-2019, 10:00 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
I think it's good that Harris showed some vigor and tenacity, and I agree that those characteristics would serve her well in a debate against someone like Trump.

If there's a problem that I had with Harris' performance last night, it's that I didn't really appreciate the substance of her grievance with Biden. Biden has a good track record on race, and I think she and others know that. Ironically, she needlessly used race as a wedge issue in a campaign, which is something that may come back to haunt her if she ends up winning the nomination.
  #6  
Old 06-28-2019, 10:00 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
So you cannot see those who voted for Obama voting for a person of color? Interesting position tom take.
Woman vs. man. I believe it makes a difference.
  #7  
Old 06-28-2019, 10:04 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 27,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
I can't see any Trump voters voting for a woman or a person of color.
I think this applies to a substantial number of Trump voters, but not all of themóand many of the ones to whom it does apply are going to vote for Trump anyway.

Part of me thinks that the Democrats and Trump-haters are going to vote for whoever the Democrats run, so the best strategy is to pick a "safe" candidate that conservative and undecided voters who aren't all in on Trump would feel comfortable with. And a white male might be "safest" in this sense.

On the other hand, would such a "safe" candidate cause many potential voters to just stay home on election day, because there wasn't anyone they felt good about voting for?

And if the Democrats play to win in 2020 and end up with a President who is divisive, unpopular, or incompetent, I fear that would come back to bite them in 2024, and/or in 2022.
  #8  
Old 06-28-2019, 10:06 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 27,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I think it's good that Harris showed some vigor and tenacity, and I agree that those characteristics would serve her well in a debate against someone like Trump.
Interesting take here from Paste: Kamala Harris Won the Stupid Debates. Here's What Makes Her So Good
Quote:
An enormous part of what appeals to the presidentís supporters is the fact that he makes them feel powerful, and he makes the opposition scared. The fear that has been eating at liberalsí psyches for the past three years is difficult to manage, and while leftists tend to deal with it by looking to policy, many others want a comic book hero to rescue them from the White House supervillain. Kamala Harris is really good at playing that hero.
  #9  
Old 06-28-2019, 10:06 AM
Johanna's Avatar
Johanna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 13,365
She's clearly a contender to be reckoned with. I think her "For the People" slogan is going to get some traction. She's in it to win it. You can tell she means it.
  #10  
Old 06-28-2019, 10:13 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,406
Born in early 60's , foreign born black father, first term senator. Sounds familiar.
  #11  
Old 06-28-2019, 10:20 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
What makes her good in the primary might not make her look so good in the general election. She and Julian Castro, like AOC, might make progressives feel good with their hard-charging attacks, but that may not translate to success. Democrats have to win over independents and even moderates in their own party.

Whether progressives like to admit it or not, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have been the most successful progressive politicians over the past 40 years. They didn't achieve success by accusing their democratic opponents (who ultimately need to be allies) of closet racism or by being unprincipled corrupt puppets of corporate America. In fact Jerry Brown infamously tried that approach in 1992 against Clinton and got his ass handed to him. And contrary to what many want to believe, Bernie Sanders still lost to the "worst nominee the democratic party could have possibly selected" .
  #12  
Old 06-28-2019, 11:01 AM
Grrr!'s Avatar
Grrr! is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 16,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
This is pretty much my take.

It's sad to say, but the most important fact I'm looking at right now is someone who can handle Trump and his bull shit name calling, and bullying tactics with out looking like a "triggered" liberal.

Kamala and Buttigieg, are the two top contenders in that arena.

TBF: Biden is actually pretty good at handling Trump's BS tactics. But his way of dealing with Trumps is to beat him at his own game. Which makes Kamala and Buttigieg seem more like the adults in the room. As their way of dealing with Trump is more reserved and nuanced.
  #13  
Old 06-28-2019, 11:05 AM
ISiddiqui is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
What makes her good in the primary might not make her look so good in the general election. She and Julian Castro, like AOC, might make progressives feel good with their hard-charging attacks, but that may not translate to success. Democrats have to win over independents and even moderates in their own party.

Whether progressives like to admit it or not, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have been the most successful progressive politicians over the past 40 years. They didn't achieve success by accusing their democratic opponents (who ultimately need to be allies) of closet racism or by being unprincipled corrupt puppets of corporate America. In fact Jerry Brown infamously tried that approach in 1992 against Clinton and got his ass handed to him. And contrary to what many want to believe, Bernie Sanders still lost to the "worst nominee the democratic party could have possibly selected" .
There is some truth here. Candidates need to be able to pivot for the general. Harris may just be able to do that - we'll have to see how she is in the other debates when there will be like half the people on stage and real conversations can develop. I do think Warren can do that pivot (it makes Sanders fans think she isn't a real progressive - but they think that of Harris too).
  #14  
Old 06-28-2019, 11:31 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
... If there's a problem that I had with Harris' performance last night, it's that I didn't really appreciate the substance of her grievance with Biden. Biden has a good track record on race, and I think she and others know that. Ironically, she needlessly used race as a wedge issue in a campaign, which is something that may come back to haunt her if she ends up winning the nomination.
I don't think she used race as a wedge issue.

She just set up Biden to fumble by giving him the space to do so. He will HAVE to defend past votes and admit past calls that seemed right for the time but in retrospect were not. With a record as long as his there is a lot to work with and Team Trump will run ads highlighting every one of them trying to suppress turnout from the D tent. This was not an under the belt blow. It was a straightforward question: do you still think that was the right vote?

Either you say clearly why today you still think that it was the right thing to do, strongly and clearly, or you say that over many decades you and the country have both evolved together with you being part of leading that evolution (accomplishments A through H). He came off more like deer in headlights instead.

There is a major difference in the way Booker played this and the way Harris did.

Keeping this focused though. At this stage she needs to steal the Black support ball from Biden. Playing out the hypothetical of this thread that she is the nominee, in the general she will be trying to pivot to that for all the people message. Not running as "Her" or as a person of color but for everyone's votes.

What evidence do we have for and against her ability to make that sale?

I need to hear her make the case of how Trump has failed whites with less education and show that she can resonate with them better than HRC did. I do not accept that her identities alone disqualify her with all of them, but neither do I assume she has the goods to do so.

A Harris VP needs to be an explicit nod to the importance of those voters. Which is not Mayor Pete.
  #15  
Old 06-28-2019, 11:39 AM
Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
She and Julian Castro, like AOC, might make progressives feel good with their hard-charging attacks, but that may not translate to success. Democrats have to win over independents and even moderates in their own party.

Whether progressives like to admit it or not, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have been the most successful progressive politicians over the past 40 years.
This is quite true. And frankly Kamala Harris is exactly the same sort of MOR Democrat. She's not an aggressive progressive - she's an aggressive prosecutor. Progressives better remember that if she wins and as with Obama starts showing signs of not being as liberal as they in a year or two.

I was just fine with Obama and I suspect I'd be fine with Harris. But I'm a pragmatist before I'm a progressive. If you start looking for progressive purity tests, Kamala Harris will not pass them.

Last edited by Tamerlane; 06-28-2019 at 11:43 AM.
  #16  
Old 06-28-2019, 12:39 PM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,952
Harris is not a very good candidate IMO. Despite her widely praised debate performance I have serious doubts about her political competence, and I would point to her confusion about her health care plan.
Here is Holt's question:
Quote:
And this is going to be a show of hands question. We asked a question about health care last night that spurred a lot of discussion, as you know. We're going to do it again now. Many people watching at home have health insurance through their employer. Who here would abolish their private health insurance in favorite of a government-run plan?
If you look at the last sentence in isolation there could be some ambiguity about "their" but in context there is no ambiguity at all. He explicitly refers to the earlier debate after which Warren's response to this question was widely discussed. There is a clear sentence talking about people getting health insurance through their employer. I don't see any room for confusion.

Harris raised her hand but now claims that she "misheard" it and thought it was about personally giving up a private insurance plan. I find that hard to believe.The astonishing thing she got caught on this exact issue in May. Healthcare is arguably the single most important issue in this election. A candidate who can't get their basic talking points straight on this issue isn't very competent.
  #17  
Old 06-28-2019, 01:07 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,948
I doubt she shifts many votes from R to D. But if she rhetorically smacks the shit out Trump, both on the stump and on the stage, as I think she might have the capability to do, then she could well motivate many of the tens or hundreds of thousands of liberals and moderates who didn't vote in PA, WI, MI, and other swing states.

And that's really the fundamental choice -- which is more likely, and more important -- shifting some Trump voters to D, or getting the D's (and lean D's) who sat on their ass in 2016 out to vote? I think the latter is probably more likely and thus more important, and thus I lean towards a candidate who will have that capability. I think Harris might have that capability, and for that reason she's near the top of my list.
  #18  
Old 06-28-2019, 01:55 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Pretty broad
Hey, don't talk about Harris in that way!

But seriously, I find her very credible, maybe my emerging favorite. She is as sharp as Buttijej but with the extra bit of age and experience. I think her fierceness could be the special sauce that puts her over the top. Wanna fight Trump? Harris has your fight right here! (I even described her as a "ball buster" to someone last night)

I think her style of presentation can make a huge difference. I like Warren and Gillibrand, but they don't seem to be nailing it like Harris. I was pleasantly surprised with Hickenlooper... I really liked Yang's self-command, but I wonder if his proposals are too out-there. I think Biden stammers too much, sorry.

I see Harris as having "leadership qualities". I like her resume and I like her tone. I like the fight she's got in her.
  #19  
Old 06-28-2019, 03:23 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,558

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Pretty broad

Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
Hey, don't talk about Harris in that way!
Even in jest, this is not cool. It changes the meaning of the quote where the punchline is sexism. Don't do this.

[/moderating]

Last edited by Bone; 06-28-2019 at 03:24 PM.
  #20  
Old 06-28-2019, 03:29 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,501
Ok, sorry.
  #21  
Old 06-28-2019, 03:34 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,767
I think her chances in the general election are poor.

Having Harris as the nominee immediately frames the whole thing, in the collective mind of America, as "the woman and color party" versus "the white male party." This isn't going to get the blue collar white Midwestern votes that are desperately needed. The dude who spends all day covered in dirt and grease working with a bunch of hot machines in a loud room and goes home feeling physically worn out, doesn't give a damn about busing and he doesn't give a damn about whether or not Trump is finally prosecuted for everything.

I also - really - hate to say something like this because as a white person I ALWAYS feel awkward talking about black issues, I feel like it's really none of my business and I never want to be patronizing or act like I've got them all figured out. But I have to say it anyway:

I have the sneaking suspicion that a lot of black people don't see Harris as "black enough." The fact that she was a District Attorney doesn't help with this matter.
  #22  
Old 06-28-2019, 03:37 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
I think her chances in the general election are poor.

Having Harris as the nominee immediately frames the whole thing, in the collective mind of America, as "the woman and color party" versus "the white male party." This isn't going to get the blue collar white Midwestern votes that are desperately needed. The dude who spends all day covered in dirt and grease working with a bunch of hot machines in a loud room and goes home feeling physically worn out, doesn't give a damn about busing and he doesn't give a damn about whether or not Trump is finally prosecuted for everything.

I also - really - hate to say something like this because as a white person I ALWAYS feel awkward talking about black issues, I feel like it's really none of my business and I never want to be patronizing or act like I've got them all figured out. But I have to say it anyway:

I have the sneaking suspicion that a lot of black people don't see Harris as "black enough." The fact that she was a District Attorney doesn't help with this matter.
So basically we need a white guy. Always, apparently, because this argument can and has always been used.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #23  
Old 06-28-2019, 03:58 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,501
For those who really think a while male candidate is important, take another look at Hick. He is a centrist, has genuine executive success, is self made for real and knows what is going on. Vs the Orange Chump, I am liking that matchup. Even forgetting race and gender, Hick seems like a contender.

For the fight factor, I think Bernie still has it. Might be too radical for the general.

Biden is steady, but his performance didn't really impress me.

But Harris being a DA would not just be an abstraction. It is right there in her behavior. I can see her hammering away at Trump for months on end. Who better to send him from the White House to the Big House than a prosecutor?
  #24  
Old 06-28-2019, 04:18 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,318
Hick could be a decent VP choice for her as a signal of the importance of the rural vote. It's what he's really running for. Geographically though not a good balance. Maybe that is less important. If Bullock doesn't reconsider a Senate bid he's be a similarly reasonable choice.
  #25  
Old 06-28-2019, 04:23 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
But Harris being a DA would not just be an abstraction. It is right there in her behavior. I can see her hammering away at Trump for months on end. Who better to send him from the White House to the Big House than a prosecutor?
"Putting Trump in prison" is not a viable campaign platform. It doesn't matter how much you or I want it to happen, it's not something that should factor into the calculus of a candidate's chances of success in the election. I've been saying for years now that the Democrats need more than "we aren't Donald Trump" to win. "We're going to finally prosecute Trump" is just another form of "we aren't Donald Trump." The less said about Trump, the better. Enough of Trump living rent free in everyone's heads, including the candidates. Move FORWARD with a message of PROGRESS that's inspiring and energizing to voters, ignore the fact that Trump even exists, forget about him, mention his name at a minimum. If he attacks YOU, hit back harder. But otherwise stay focused on the economy and healthcare.

After last night's debate I do NOT see Hickenlooper as a contender. I think his showing was unbelievably poor. Everything from his facial expressions to his tone of voice to his non-authoritative answers - nothing about it suggests confidence or charisma. He has no charisma.

As to "do we need a white guy", no, I don't think so, necessarily. I think Obama's impressive campaign success proves that we don't need a white guy. Maybe we do need a guy. It may be the case that sexism is just too ingrained for the voters in the critical battleground states that we need - not California and NY - to vote for a woman. I like to think that we're beyond that but maybe we're not. Is now the time to find out? When the booby prize is 4 more years of Trump's ugly fucking face?
  #26  
Old 06-28-2019, 05:04 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,318
I wouldn't use Clinton's popular vote victory and electoral loss as proof that this country would not vote for a woman for president. It was more proof of some poor campaign decisions after a primary that bruised her more than expected and misplaced confidence in a few states being in the bag. Harris would do better than Clinton did for many reasons I think.

"Prosecuting Trump" is not "Lock him up!" If that happens after his loss it is independent of the campaign, of the executive, and due to prosecutors at the NY state of the Fed level deciding on their own. This means prosecuting him for his failures as president in the court of public opinion with a few key jurors in mind.
  #27  
Old 06-28-2019, 05:25 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I wouldn't use Clinton's popular vote victory and electoral loss as proof that this country would not vote for a woman for president. It was more proof of some poor campaign decisions after a primary that bruised her more than expected and misplaced confidence in a few states being in the bag. Harris would do better than Clinton did for many reasons I think. ...
I agree. Recalling that Hillary DID win the popular vote, should put paid to the 'women can't win' theories.

But maybe she'd need an authentic dim-jock sort for VP in order to keep everyone happy. How about Tim Ryan? He seems to fit that particular bill...

Of course if the Dems go with a backwards-cap guy (even just for VP), the Trump folks are going to start eyeing Pence for possible substitutions. My nightmare: they replace him with Tom Brady.
  #28  
Old 06-28-2019, 06:00 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,162
Spinning this in a different direction - Assuming she gets the nomination, what are the GOP going to throw at her, and how is that going to play across the US voters?

In the DEM primaries, we won't see these topics played on by her DEM opponents, because they don't resonate among the likely primary voters. But in the general, I would expect the GOP attacks to focused on "San Francisco Liberal". This is the hammer they always use on Pelosi, so their audience is primed to "get" the message. Much like the GOP use of "Socialism", it's a generic scare-quotes term that means whatever bad that they want it to mean. In addition, they will play up her history of dating Willie Brown, as a racist dog whistle. Now, we know that the GOP base is not going to vote for her anyway. But it's that narrow band of undecided and maybe-won't-vote crowd that they leveraged across the mid-west to get Trump elected. Could these messages work against her?

What could she do to overcome these types of attacks? No amount of effective campaigning, or legitimate policy proposals, will counteract the icky feeling in the gut that some will get because of the message that she's a "San Francisco Liberal" who dated Willie Brown. Unless she can find a magic message to sell that says, "Yes, I'm a San Francisco Liberal, and here is why that is good for you and good for America!"
  #29  
Old 06-28-2019, 06:30 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,501
No matter who the Dems run, they will be painted as "the most liberal evar!" I don't think we should worry about that.

I see Harris as someone who can go on the offensive. To me, she has a confident, commanding presence that seems suitable for the office of POTUS. She communicates clearly but doesn't fall into the politician trap of becoming robotic- she's relatable.

I think she would make a great contrast to Trump and the pubs. Trump going to jail is just gravy- I think she would be able to rip him every day in every way during the campaign. She just seems very competent.

It is still early so this could all change, and I want to keep my eye on a few of these other candidates. So far though, I think her smarts, focus, experience and presence make her stand out as someone who could win and go on to lead the country well.
  #30  
Old 06-28-2019, 07:06 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,318
FWIW I have to note that Predictit had Harris as the frontrunner a year ago!

And for the less it is worth than that, her cops were noted by some of us back last October ...

Icarus, that is a good question. Her advantage is that she does not have that long of a record to find shit with. Her prosecutor background may appeal to the Law and Order types and offset some of the elite liberal charge. I think the raise of hand to eliminate all private insurance will hurt. And she MUST not disrespect the real problems of white Americans with less education like HRC came off as doing.

She has some attention now. From here she has to present what her positive vision of the future is, beyond that it is one without Trump in the White House.
  #31  
Old 06-28-2019, 07:09 PM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,631
I think she has a good shot at winning over moderates. She has advantages that Warren doesn't have.

She was a DA and can thus play the "tough on crime" bit.

Warren has come out of the gate with a bunch of very progressive ideas that can be easily painted as "too radical". Harris has expressed support for some progressive ideas, but none of those ideas originated from her. Which means she can walk back some of her support if she has to without it being a major deal.

Harris is more relatable than Warren. Warren has an intensity that can be a little intimidating. Harris comes across as more relaxed and chill. And the timbre of her voice makes it harder for the "shrill" label to stick to her.

Harris will remind people of Pres Obama. Pres Obama might not have been the conservatives' favorite person, but he was at least respected by many. Warren, not so much. Harris can tell a story of being the little black girl who bravely integrated her school and proved all the racists wrong. A lot of people still think Warren's success is all based on a lie.

FWIW, I'm more in Warren's camp right now than Harris's. I will vote for Harris if she gets the nomination, but I will also be a little disappointed because I think this country needs a firebrand right now. Harris brings more warmth than fire.
  #32  
Old 06-28-2019, 07:35 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,342
ISTR some early polls in Iowa that basically said Kamala Harris was everyone's second choice, which means she could clear the field until it's down to her, Warren, Biden, and Bernie.

Could she win the blue-collar Midwest? She'll talk about her record as D.A., which will at least help some people keep and open mind. After that, it depends on what she says about a) jobs, b) health care, and c) immigration.

IMHO she's already proven herself to be a better campaigner than Hillary, so she will at least neutralize the Never Hillary faction. If Sanders would wholeheartedly endorse her, that might unwrinkle the noses of the Bernie Bros.

I'd say the needle she has to thread has a somewhat larger eye than the needle Donald Trump had to thread in 2016, so it's possible.
  #33  
Old 06-28-2019, 08:50 PM
Troy McClure is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 69
I think if Harris is the nominee, she will lose. And it will pretty much come down to her stance on guns. The toss-up states will be barraged with media about how she will try to implement California-style regulations nation-wide. Anybody who voted for Trump last time but is having second thoughts will fall back into line, and some who would have voted Libertarian (such as there are) will switch to Trump. If you thought the gun nuts came out in droves to vote against Hillary, they will be even more motivated by Harris. And even some of the moderates will look at California and decide they don't want to risk ending up in the same situation.

Can she pull an Obama and inspire enough of the people who wouldn't otherwise vote to go to the polls to offset the motivation she gives the Right? I have doubts.

Sorry to have to bring guns into yet another Dope thread, but I think it's her Achilles heel.
  #34  
Old 06-28-2019, 09:43 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,290
A couple of points. I don’t think that there are too many true Obama/Trump voters. I can see some very apolitical types voting for Obama in 2012 simply because Mitt Romney looked like an asshole corporate executive who would announce layoffs and then million dollar bonuses for the executives a day later.

I really also can’t wait to see some census data for 2020. I’m curious about the brain drain from places like WI, MI, and PA. how many blue and younger voters are leaving those places? I think that those states will become more red but then places like NC and AZ will be more blue.

I think Harris can still flip MI, WI and PA and maybe NC as I don’t think we will have a Democratic Party civil war in 2020. But it’s going to be increasingly hard to keep those states blue.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #35  
Old 06-28-2019, 10:43 PM
black rabbit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dungaree High
Posts: 3,785
I'm a Warren fan, but honestly I think that Harris has a better chance of turning out the base and maybe inspiring a few milquetoast moderates to show up in the Rust Belt.

Really, that's all she needs to do. She needs to flip Ohio and Pennsylvania or Florida and Wisconsin. That's completely achievable.

Put Pete on the ticket to draw in a few White Guy votes and for the entertainment value of watching Pence ascend into rapture live on national TV during the VP debate.
  #36  
Old 06-28-2019, 10:57 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
A couple of points. I donít think that there are too many true Obama/Trump voters. ...
And they're all Scotsmen too!
  #37  
Old 06-28-2019, 11:36 PM
China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,636
My feeling is that practically all of the candidates are rolling long shot dice to be the top of the ticket, but would be satisfied with VP or a cabinet post. From just a marketing point of view, one could argue for the white guy at the top of the ticket, and a person of color and/or gender as the #2. Trouble is Joe is too old, has too much baggage, and frankly was a distant also ran at least twice. Poor analogy, but he's a minor leaguer that can't make it in the show (or to be kind, he's a Michael Jordan that can't hit off of a Major league pitcher). Same for Bernie, a one trick "socialist" that suddenly found himself in "what was old is new" situation last time around, and also no where near to making it past the convention, much less the primary.

The only saving grace I can think of for an old white guy with a proven track record of falling short in the big leagues, is that it would be a back door way to elect the first female president when he croaks in office. Assuming the ticket wins.
  #38  
Old 06-29-2019, 12:12 AM
DWMarch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 2,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy McClure View Post
I think if Harris is the nominee, she will lose. And it will pretty much come down to her stance on guns. The toss-up states will be barraged with media about how she will try to implement California-style regulations nation-wide. Anybody who voted for Trump last time but is having second thoughts will fall back into line, and some who would have voted Libertarian (such as there are) will switch to Trump. If you thought the gun nuts came out in droves to vote against Hillary, they will be even more motivated by Harris. And even some of the moderates will look at California and decide they don't want to risk ending up in the same situation.

Can she pull an Obama and inspire enough of the people who wouldn't otherwise vote to go to the polls to offset the motivation she gives the Right? I have doubts.

Sorry to have to bring guns into yet another Dope thread, but I think it's her Achilles heel.
Bear in mind that the United States is known for its regular mass shootings. Between now and the election there will be a few to several more. Who knows what those are going to look like? Who knows what vulnerable part of America will be casually gunned down in the name of freedom next? And maybe, all gods great and small willing, the next mass shooting will be the one where the nation figures out that guns really are a problem. The Tree of Liberty is bloodthirsty but there does come a saturation point eventually.
  #39  
Old 06-29-2019, 12:36 AM
sps49sd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
So basically we need a white guy. Always, apparently, because this argument can and has always been used.
No. But I would like better qualifications than [color] and/ or [gender].
  #40  
Old 06-29-2019, 07:13 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
So basically we need a white guy. Always, apparently, because this argument can and has always been used.
I wouldn't say that at all, but we need someone who doesn't scare off white guys. If we're going to pick a totally non-white male ticket, pick carefully.
  #41  
Old 06-29-2019, 09:25 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Harris made two pre-packaged statements in the debate (food on the table, and the Biden attack) and now that makes her a serious discussion for the general election?
  #42  
Old 06-29-2019, 09:52 AM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,986
Right now, even as we speak, Republicans are poring over her DA record. They want two things, one, a black person who feels that she was not sufficiently "anti-racist", extra special bonus points for an unjust or unwise prosecution. And if they can't find one, they'll make it up. Extra special super dooper bonus points for a white guy who could credibly claim that a black defendant got leniency that he was denied. Actually, "credibly" may not be necessary.
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.

Last edited by elucidator; 06-29-2019 at 09:55 AM.
  #43  
Old 06-29-2019, 09:59 AM
MortSahlFan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: US
Posts: 373
I don't think black people will appreciate Kamala's record as Attorney General of California. She's another (of many) who suddenly have come to copy Bernie's stances on the issues because they see how a majority of Americans support it.
  #44  
Old 06-29-2019, 10:52 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by MortSahlFan View Post
I don't think black people will appreciate Kamala's record as Attorney General of California. She's another (of many) who suddenly have come to copy Bernie's stances on the issues because they see how a majority of Americans support it.
Black people are not a monolithic block voter population. Older ones support Biden. Younger ones might support Harris, or Sanders.

Harris has a smugness about her that I think some people find off-putting. She strikes me as a politician with a flexible populist instinct, not as someone with a very deep set of convictions. She seems more given to doing what's expedient.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #45  
Old 06-29-2019, 11:23 AM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamerlane View Post
This is quite true. And frankly Kamala Harris is exactly the same sort of MOR Democrat. She's not an aggressive progressive - she's an aggressive prosecutor. Progressives better remember that if she wins and as with Obama starts showing signs of not being as liberal as they in a year or two.

I was just fine with Obama and I suspect I'd be fine with Harris. But I'm a pragmatist before I'm a progressive. If you start looking for progressive purity tests, Kamala Harris will not pass them.
An aggressive prosecutor is fine. Just so long as she is aggressive and stands her ground. But then again John Kerry was a prosecutor and he wasn't very tough.

Either way, as long as Harris fights for what she can get and stands up for herself and her agenda, I'd be fine with her as president.

Since we've already had a black president I don't think her race would work against her too much. Maybe her gender a little bit, but I'm wondering if having a female major candidate took some steam out of that misogyny for 2020.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #46  
Old 06-29-2019, 11:56 AM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 4,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
My feeling is that practically all of the candidates are rolling long shot dice to be the top of the ticket, but would be satisfied with VP or a cabinet post. From just a marketing point of view, one could argue for the white guy at the top of the ticket, and a person of color and/or gender as the #2. Trouble is Joe is too old, has too much baggage, and frankly was a distant also ran at least twice. Poor analogy, but he's a minor leaguer that can't make it in the show (or to be kind, he's a Michael Jordan that can't hit off of a Major league pitcher). Same for Bernie, a one trick "socialist" that suddenly found himself in "what was old is new" situation last time around, and also no where near to making it past the convention, much less the primary.

The only saving grace I can think of for an old white guy with a proven track record of falling short in the big leagues, is that it would be a back door way to elect the first female president when he croaks in office. Assuming the ticket wins.


I was thinking exactly the same things.
  #47  
Old 06-29-2019, 03:40 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
No. But I would like better qualifications than [color] and/ or [gender].
And I'd like better qualifications than how they'd appeal to voters in PennWiscIgan.

My basic thought about that is that if Hillary had won by 3% instead of 2% nationally, more than enough of that gain would have been in those three states that she'd be President right now. If the Dem nominee in 2020 has a solid popular vote win, she'll win the EC too.
  #48  
Old 06-29-2019, 04:02 PM
Locrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 4,269
TBH, I would doubt that she wins out here in her CA home state. If she did win CA, it would be closer than Beto/Cruz. She'll flip-flop on guns, doesn't have that deep a record as DA and sometimes she has that "What? Me worry?" face. If she's the nom, she'll have my vote but I wouldn't bet on a victory.
  #49  
Old 06-29-2019, 04:30 PM
Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locrian View Post
TBH, I would doubt that she wins out here in her CA home state.
Wait..are we talking primary or election? Primary will depend a lot on the narrative and polling at that moment. She could certainly lose in CA, but only if one or two other candidates are surging strongly.

The election? Good lord, no. She'd annihilate Trump in CA. Any Democrat will, but Harris herself likely won't do any worse than Hillary( who won the state by 30 points )and might even do a bit better this time considering the political climate out here. Even if she ran a crap campaign and topped it off by calling Californians collectively a bunch of useless wankers she'd still win the state by 51%.

Last edited by Tamerlane; 06-29-2019 at 04:33 PM.
  #50  
Old 06-29-2019, 04:47 PM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,728
I know nothing of the state-by-state horseraces that the electoral college system leads to, but Ms. Harris would eat Trump alive at the debates. With ketchup. Whatever her flaws as President might be, they would be worth it just to see those debates.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017