Sen. harrris is a member of aka sorority. Very formidable, and very organized in getting out the vote.
XT: “I’m unsure why some in this thread who I perceive on the left don’t think this is a good choice. Is it her record as AG?? Something else I’m missing?”
Harris is only moderately progressive, which is perceived as a betrayal by the sort of people who think moderately left of center is close kin to fascist. In addition, Harris helped put some bad guys away, which is a liability if you’re demented.
I think it’s a good VP choice which will make a significant chunk of voters feel better about voting for Biden, given the less than overwhelming odds that he’ll survive his first term.
Right. During the primaries, my progressive friends liked Warren, Bernie, Castro - that bunch. Harris was grouped in with Biden and Buttigieg. This pick is definitely not a gift to progressives; it’s more a slap in the face.
But I can’t argue that it was a bad pick. Every one of my progressive friends would be voting for Biden even if he messed up and picked Condaleeza as his running mate. Harris can bring in some moderates.
Harris has negatives like being Willie Brown’s ‘other woman’ and some African Americans and Latinos don’t remember her days as California’s AG fondly, but that’s old news and politics is about pivoting. Most of her baggage has probably already been exposed. What’s reassuring is that she’s proven she can deal with her baggage.
Well, first off: she’s not a progressive. She’s as establishment Democrat as they come.
Then there’s her record as AG, where she spent lots of effort collecting low-hanging fruit. It boosted her “successful prosecution” numbers but not in a way that impresses me.
Her time on the debate stages last year didn’t impress me either: she was largely irrelevant. Others must have thought so too because her time as a candidate was over with in 11 months, not even making it through to 2020.
I don’t know that she has any ability to energize voters under 40, and that bloc is terribly important this election IMO. They aren’t enthused about Biden so his VP needs to be someone they can identify with and support.
And like a few others have said: she just rubs me the wrong way. To me, it seems like her career has been to do whatever was easiest and most expedient in order to further her career and gain her more.
I’d love to be wrong. I’m reading more about her now because now it’s more important to know more about her. I’ll be watching videos of interviews from the past and look forward to seeing new ones as they occur. She wasn’t at the top of my personal want-for-veep list but now that the deal is done, I’ll educate myself more, hoping that my impressions of her to date have been off-the-mark.
Don’t worry, I’ll still be voting for the Dems this time around. I just won’t be quite as enthusiastic about the possible succession as I would have liked.
I think she’ll be better than you fear. She actually ran a pretty progressive campaign. She did have a record as being being a little slippery on the issues, but that’s much less of an issue when you’re not at the top of the ticket. I don’t see Harris as a Washington establishment Democrat - a California establishment Democrat maybe, but not a Beltway Dem.
Most people not Bernie or Biden were done after the first few months. Buttigieg held on but only because he filled a niche, which for whatever reason wasn’t there for Harris. Warren had a similar problem, but I’d hardly attribute that to her inabilities as a national figure. It wasn’t Harris’ time. It was probably always going to be about Biden’s moderate left version of the party against Bernie’s hard lurch to the left.
And with depressing predictability, Democrats all over America are fighting as hard as they can for Donald Trump by tearing down Kamala Harris.
If you want to know why the GOP still wins elections despite total moral bankrupcy, there’s a lot of reasons, but one big one is they usually support their own candidates. Democrats seem incapable of grasping that that is sometimes a good idea.
Abby Phillips is helping me to see that Kamala checks multiple boxes:
-Black American
-Woman
-Children of immigrants
-Jamaican heritage
-Indian heritage
-Baptist heritage
-Hindu heritage
This really does make her a historically significant choice. President Obama’s story comes close, of course, but he didn’t have a true second-generation American narrative. Kamala is proof that immigrants are a net gain for America. Americans need to be reminded of this.
Agreed, the GOP is much MUCH better about talking about their candidates in only glowing terms. The Democrats need to learn some of that voodoo.
Never fear, Mother will be there. Harris is a woman, so Pence would not dare be seen with her unless Mother was there to chaperone.
You’re absolutely right that this pick won’t energize younger voters, but enthusiasm for Biden (or his running mate) isn’t the important factor this time around. It’s enthusiasm for voting against Trump, and there is no shortage of that.
Lol, “Indian-American” is a double-outlined box. Gets you Asian-American too.
I don’t have much use for prosecutors, but whatever. Send me my ballot.
It’s not at all clear that disapproval of the VP candidate has mattered much in the downfall of Democratic tickets. The selection of Tim Kaine, if it had anything to do at all with Clinton’s loss, was about the 3,457th thing on the list of what doomed the ticket. John Edwards may not have done anything to help the Kerry candidacy, but he didn’t do anything (at the time) to hurt it either. Joe Lieberman? Maybe. Lloyd Bentsen? Nah. Walter Mondale didn;t lose 49 states because he picked Geraldine Ferraro. Tearing down the president is one thing; disliking the VP is something very different. VPs don’t have that kind of leverage.
I’ve campaigned for presidential candidates going back as far as Mondale in '84. In that time I’ve talked to hundreds and hundreds of voters, and I’m struggling to remember even one person who mentioned the VP candidate as a reason to vote for or against the Presidential candidate. “You know, that Ferraro pick sealed it for me…” “I’d be voting for Obama if he hadn’t picked that loser Biden…” “Hey, Edwards is the MAN!” Nope.
(And Republicans aren’t always on board with their picks either. I’m reminded of the Republican woman in Game Changer who voted for Obama despite hating everything he stood for because she could not stomach the idea of Sarah Palin possibly becoming president…)
Gosh I hope he does!
Indian-Americans are not a huge voting bloc but they are located in some strategic states and are influential.
And Indian-Americans do not evoke the same fear of the other to MAGA hat wearers as many other identities do. The stereotypes are mostly positive ones.
Her Indian heritage is not a small thing.
Overall agreed with many others here in that she wasn’t my first choice but she is very fine one. She’ll be great at being the campaign designated voice of attack, letting Biden do more positive messaging more of the time.
The clip of Black Lives Matter Chicago protestors defending the looters in Chicago yesterday with “Our futures have been looted from us … loot back.” will require a Dem ticket voice that can speak against that while still strongly advocating for major structural police reform and for the broader BLM message. Sorry to say but that message is more likely better received given by someone not white.
Being progressive means different things to different people. I would argue that she was not very progressive as Attorney General, but that she is by the standards of the US Senate.
I think progressives are still more likely to vote Dem than Trump and a very progressive VP might turn off mainstream moderates. Still, the youth vote is important, if they turn out, and I am unsure how much appeal Harris adds to this demographic. She checks a lot of boxes, if that is worth much.
… and has more credibility coming from a former prosecutor.
You’re right in general, but I think this election’s VP choice is more important than most. Trump is 74 and Biden is 77 … which makes it seem pretty likely that either one could be succeeded by their VP due to ill health or death in the next four years. (That may have been a factor in the attention paid to Sarah Palin as well, given that McCain was 72 in 2008.)
Talked to my 31-year-old son last week. He would agree with you that Harris is not going to be a popular pick for young voters (he counts anything under 40 as “young”), and said he thought Stacey Abrams was the one best positioned to excite these voters.
However, he had an interesting take on that. Speaking only for himself, he said that he was put off by what he perceived as Harris’s ambition. He wondered how much of his distaste for her was real/legit, and how much of it was rooted in a sexist notion that “women shouldn’t be ambitious.” He’s pretty aware of this kind of thing and how sexist thinking can permeate where it shouldn’t, and I thought it was a pretty thoughtful comment. Interesting to speculate how much the rubbing-people-the-wrong-way is related to that kind of thinking.
Though there is an argument that if Kerry picked Gephart, he may have pulled off Iowa (won by Bush by 10,000 votes) and perhaps don’t slightly better in midwestern states that may have pulled him clear.
I would also argue that if Clinton picked who she initially wanted (Sherrod Brown), she may be President right now.
I will note that Stacey Abrams was obviously very ambitious in basically campaigning for the Vice Presidential role. So that would have bit her pretty hard. Maybe Rice can be seen as someone who doesn’t have the same ambition - since she never ran for political office.