I will eat my hat if Trump agrees to debate Harris.
Trump would absolutely debate Harris. Maybe he doesn’t yet know it, she has plenty of legit weaknesses as a candidate, some of which Jragon touched on. He would want to spend as much time on the offense as he could is all. One that hasn’t been brought up ITT yet is her apparent affinity for executive orders, which may be perceived by many as being of a greater magnitude than other presidents.
While she should thrill those who believe in her, I’m not convinced Harris would come out ahead in the scales of public opinion in a debate with Trump. She made a splash by kind of employing personal victimization in a weaponized fashion - that is Trump’s bread and butter. She might have to overall offer a more transcendent case against him in addition to adequately fending off arrows.
Klobuchar is the one Trump probably wouldn’t enjoy the idea of debating because he isn’t going to rattle her or be able to come at her from many angles.
Trump would absolutely debate Harris. Maybe he doesn’t yet know it, she has plenty of legit weaknesses as a candidate, some of which Jragon touched on. He would want to spend as much time on the offense as he could is all. One that hasn’t been brought up ITT yet is her apparent affinity for executive orders, which may be perceived by many as being of a greater magnitude than other presidents.
While she should thrill those who believe in her, I’m not convinced Harris would come out ahead in the scales of public opinion in a debate with Trump. She made a splash by kind of employing personal victimization in a weaponized fashion - that is Trump’s bread and butter. She might have to overall offer a more transcendent case against him in addition to adequately fending off arrows.
Klobuchar is the one Trump probably wouldn’t enjoy the idea of debating because he isn’t going to rattle her or be able to come at her from many angles.
I understand the nervousness about nominating another woman against Trump, I really do (I don’t think being black is an issue after Obama—a reason Booker has been one of my favorites all along). And I think the other female candidates, especially Warren, would be weaksauce against Trump. My bias has been to look for someone tall and imposing. Beto and Inslee were the other two in my top three.
BUT after seeing this debate, I am now convinced that she has a special kind of toughness that overrides these concerns. She got a huge surge of donations in the 24 hours after the debate, 58% of which were from people who never gave to her before. I was among that 58 percent, and she is now my top choice.
The progressives who don’t like some of her background? Tough shit. If they don’t swallow their disappointment and come out to defeat Trump next year, they will have revealed a fundamental moral bankruptcy that proves they have no business being allowed anywhere near the halls of power.
I like her, have liked her. I’ve talked her up as a major contender for the whole last year. I could see her as the nominee and she might end up my own number one choice. She’d do well I think.
But damn people. This was one really nice three point shot, not the game. Most of Biden’s support won’t peel off that easy.
I’ll wait to see how the next few possessions play out before declaring her the nominee … 
Most of the people I’m LiveJournal or Facebook friend with are not Kamala Harris fans. But one person’s take on her kind of sums up the general attitude: “She did awful things in criminal justice and didn’t have the common sense to realize she had a problem until it blew up in her face. I don’t like her, she’s a bit of a Nazi. But would I vote for her in the general? Hell yeah, because she isn’t TRUMP-level bad.”
You mean other Presidents like Donald Trump? Let’s just say that’s a wash.
I actually think doing awful things in criminal justice might be…a selling point in the general election?
In any case, one thing that made me think that Harris was a potential challenger to Biden wasn’t merely her multicultural heritage; rather, it’s that she won a statewide election in California. I know people tend to dismiss California as a far-left state, and for sure, there are a fair number of Loony Leftvilles in Cali, but even in California it’s hard to win a statewide election by being, say, a democratic socialist.
If nothing else, by winning a statewide race there Harris demonstrated that she has the ability to organize a major campaign. She demonstrated the kind of toughness and ability to work with broad coalitions that are usually required of presidential front-runners. She can speak to different audiences. TBH, I don’t know if Biden has ever really done that on his own at any time in his career.
While there are a limited amount of substantive issues being raised, does it not concern anyone that leans left that the majority of the discussion surrounds demographics? It’s mostly identity politics, and in a bad way. Harris may ride that in the general, but the way things are discussed in this thread are quite off putting to my libertarian sensibilities.
Are you reading the same thread as me?
Oh there is concern that her identity may be problematic for some voters but that is not what most mean by “identity politics”.
The biggest substantive issue for me is pulling back from the harms that this administration has caused. Winning the presidency and maybe the Senate will allow much no matter which of these people are in. Question one has to be who can best deliver that. Harris is the first making a credible case of having the goods maybe better than Biden’s case. Discussing the merits of that case is most cogent.
There’s an awful lot of this in here that’s for sure.
I honestly loathe Harris. She is an empty suit. She stands for nothing, believes in nothing, has no message and is fueled by nothing but personal ambition. She isn’t running because she wants to improve the country, she’s running for the personal achievement of being elected President. If she becomes the nominee, of fucking course I’m going to vote for her. I mean, fuck, I’d vote for Marianne fucking Williamson before i voted for Trump or abstained altogether. But Kamala isnt too far ahead of Williamson in my book of favorites.
I highly doubt she stands for nothing. Like most career politicians, though, she’s probably an opportunist and will occasionally express viewpoints and support policies across the political spectrum. I honestly do not see the problem with that. In my view, that makes her more electable, and it’s a sign that she’s pragmatic and politically astute enough to be capable of forming an executive branch of government. Now compare her to someone like Bernie Sanders who’s a good senator and a positive force for change, but who keeps regurgitating themes that have a rather high chance of political failure.
That is indeed being practiced by the party trying to tell us “she isn’t really black”, and yes, it’s concerning, as it should be to anyone. Is it concerning to you as well?
You’re a single-issue voter, and this isn’t that issue.
Certainly why Harris may be better or worse than Biden is substantive and not identity politics. And of course there is a bit of overlap, but look at these:
It’s true though, there is virtually nothing Harris could do to get my vote. For me, I prefer political discussion that is more about issues rather than voting blocks based on race or gender.
When people or politicians begin yelling, I tend to not listen.
And this is more than a bit disingenuous.
Obviously race and gender are part of the RealPolitik horse race of electability and cannot be ignored. Discussing those is not what makes it impossible for her to get your vote. The issues are.
And if it comes down to Harris vs. Trump?
Harris would embarrass Trump on a debate stage like no one else in the democratic field. Many of the others would destroy him on issues and policy, but it would take a discerning, intelligent voter to realize it. Harris would humiliate him both intellectually and at the insult/tough-guy game. She’s my #1 now.
Them some, but not enough, will vote for Harris.