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.
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?
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.
“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?
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.
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.
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!”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.