Probably – which is why, if she’s as skilled as she might be (I’m not sure yet), she’ll downplay this in the primary and emphasize it should she be nominated.
Except that the fact checks end up as being mostly true for most of the items. Biden’s all mostly true and Gabbard’s correct on the cash bail item … with Harris changing her tune as she moved into other ambitions. The others of Gabbard’s seem to be at least misleading but not completely false.
I agree that in the general election a “tough on crime” reputation is not harmful. These items are not “tough on crime” ones as much as they are abuse of power ones, and not things that even a law and order candidate would be proud of. They are pretty damning in the context of a Dem primary. Taking a position against cash bail now when you were for raising it when you in the position of most influence over it, in a much more recent past than what Biden is being held to account for, won’t play well.
From the Mercury News cite -
Again, something that might have helped Harris, even in the primaries, if she had handled it differently.
Why couldn’t she just say “You’re damn right I supported cash bail for gun crimes! Get the guns AND THE GUN CRIMINALS off the streets!” But waffling on cash bail later means she can’t credibly say that.
The best thing she can hope for in the Kevin Cooper thing is for the DNA results to come out soon enough - and prove he did it. And even that will be undercut because she is now against the death penalty.
The key, as usual, is sincerity - once you learn to fake that, you got it made. I am not sure she has learned how to do it convincingly.
Regards,
Shodan
And oh, the irony. The person she attacked became a top-tier candidate by attacking Biden for the same reason! 
Do you literally mean a “law and order” candidate. One who is, again, literally for law and order?
I think we all know what “Law and Order” has historically been code for, don’t we?
Yes. That’s why I used the word “literally”, twice. Just asking for clarification, that’s all.
That sounds like an odd question, if you don’t mind my saying so. All the candidates are theoretically in favor of law and order - they have different ideas of what the laws are/should be, and how order should be maintained.
Which I think demonstrates the problem that Harris in particular and Democrats in general have - being a “law and order” candidate means that primary voters, who tend to be more extreme than the general electorate, will attempt to force an interpretation on “law and order” candidates that the general election voter doesn’t buy.
Of course, Harris is black, so it is harder to do with her. But she handled the issue, IMO, poorly (in terms of her general electability) by waffling on traditional ideas of what it means to be “law and order”, especially in the “higher cash bail for gun criminals/cash bail is bad” flip.
She could have handled it differently - read Pleonast’s post below for an example of a good way (IMO) to handle it - “yes, I am going to be tough on crime, especially tax cheats and gun criminals and civil rights violators” and so on. But she didn’t.
Like I said, she’s black. So, again IMO, she doesn’t have to be defensive about her background as a prosecutor, and try to water it down or avoid it, because if she gets the nomination she will get 90%+ of the black vote no matter what she says. So ISTM that she should put all her eggs into the basket of being a[ul][li]strong []black []liberal [*] who is tough on crime too.[/ul]Although, granted, she is taking the chance that what plays in Peoria won’t play with Democratic primary voters.[/li]
That’s also part of the idea behind the “who is Gabbard again” response. She needs to come across as strong and confident and un-intimidatable, even by other Democrats.
“Never apologize, never explain” is at least as viable a strategy as “well, it’s complicated, and my thinking has evolved…” Especially in a debate where you get five minutes and there’s ten other people competing for their moment.
She needs to come across as the one in charge. She’s pretty enough that she doesn’t have the problem of Resting Bitch Face that a certain former candidate had and our previous President didn’t. She’s way behind - might as well go for broke and give it a shot.
Yeah, yeah - strong women are labeled as shrill and shrewish and misogynism and blah blah. Tough shit - this is an election, and I would hope the Dems have learned that shaming people doesn’t get votes.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ll quibble strongly with this part, since there have indeed been elections in which white candidates have gotten ~90%+ of the black vote over a black opponent. At present, black voters overwhelmingly vote Democratic, not overwhelmingly for black candidates. The Democratic nominee will almost certainly get ~90%+ of the black vote regardless of race, and regardless of the race of the Republican they’re running against.
Also worth noting: Getting 90% of the blacks who vote to vote for you is not the same as getting 90% of the blacks who could vote to go to the polls and vote for you.
Against Trump in particular pretty much ANY D nominee will get over 90% of the Black vote that turns out. And I hope turnout returns to near Obama levels.
But right now she needs to win some Black voter support in the primaries to be the one who gets there and her being a woman of color by itself is not enough to win that. Biden dominates that demographic and in is ahead in particular on the basis of being the first choice of women of color.
I think Kamala Harris could flip “law and order” into being a progressive code for stopping abuses of power and money. Progressives want government to improve society and pursuing abuses of power and money is something government can do. Law and order should be a Democratic priority. It’s a perfect wedge issue to drive into the Republican party, and Donald “Swampwater” Trump will not be able to effectively counter it.
No, not at all. As I said a few posts ago, I was only asking for clarification, and with this statement, I have it. Thanks.
It’s better for her to have her ego bruised now.
She came across badly trying to make it a 1v1 between her and Biden. At one stage after Gillibrand raised a point, rather than respond to that point first Harris instead went back to the previous give and take with Biden about ten minutes before.
The attack from Gabbard at least will let her know she can’t just be a prosecutor. She can’t just get stuck into others and be shocked someone dares to do the same with her.
Here’s a really solid, detailed article about Harris’ varied stances as it regards criminal justice reform. It’s a good read and digs into her complete record.
She’s a paper tiger imo.
*As you sow, so shall you reap. *Harris wanted to make a name for herself by making a cheap dig at Biden- and it gave her a bump in the polls. It came back on her at the next debate, as I predicted- and she couldnt handle it. That looks bad.
Locking people up for weed and laughing about smoking it (and listening to future Tupac records) is not “law and order”. It’s a demonstration of antisocial inclinations. You ruined lives over marijuana in the one state where you probably could have avoided it without repercussions. Then you laugh!? You’re a troubled soul.
Also, this is probably a bottomless well. She bragged about threatening single mothers with jail time over truancy. This is one sick individual dangerously near the reigns of power.
Interesting party line.
It might not get far without actual evidence, though. Or can you provide citations from anything more reputable than Breitbart and the like?
Crossposted with the Hee-Haw thread:
My completely unscientific skimming of the hypothetical general election polls reveals a positive trend for Warren in the last month or so. Earlier in the summer, she and Buttigieg were consistently polling as the weakest of the major Democratic candidates against Trump. But recently, Warren seems to have moved into the middle of the pack in that regard (still behind Biden and Sanders, though), while Harris seems to have become the least electable-looking of the major candidates. I applaud this trend.