In the 90s, Harris briefly dated future SF mayor Willie Brown, who was Speaker of the California Assembly at the time. The right claims that Harris leveraged this relationship to get her political career off the ground.
Brown was married at the time, but legally separated from his wife, so you’ll also see a bunch of attacks that cast her as a home-wrecker.
This is what I came in to say. And as @Buck_Godot notes, the idea is not to flip them into Trump voters, but to sap their enthusiasm so they don’t bother to vote.
Yep, seeing a lot of the same myself - gotta hand it to them though, I didn’t think they’d have the audacity to play the “inappropriate sexual behavior should be disqualifying” card, but here we are.
He is also 30 years older than her, and appointed Harris to the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and then to the Medical Assistance Commission before supporting her jump into politics.
Now, it’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that Brown respected and admired her, and she is mature beyond her years. It would make sense that he’d want to see her succeed, and there isn’t anything wrong with promoting her when you recognize her talent.
But it’s definitely spun into the idea that she was an opportunist who used sex to advance her career.
Better a sexual opportunist than a sexual predator.
That’s the sort of thing that might have played after years of banging the drum. But four months isn’t enough time for it to really get established. Particularly when it’s competing with are the other stuff they’ll be throwing at the wall.
I had a look at a predominantly right-wing message board.
Right now, they’re concentrating on the southern border. Specifically, that Harris was appointed as “border czar,” and promptly did little-to-nothing about the migrant crisis there. She didn’t even go there; at least not for a long time after her appointment. Anyway, their logic seems to be, if she did nothing there, what else will she do nothing about?
But that’s all right now. They may find more as time goes by.
Oddly, and contrary to what has been suggested in this thread, there is nothing about Harris being a “DEI selection.” But give them time, and who knows? It may eventually appear.
It’s been my sense that, under Biden, RW media has absolutely hammered on the border/immigration issues.
I can’t talk to a MAGA (nor should I) without hearing about a) The Biden Crime Family, and b) immigration and border security. The economy usually doesn’t make an appearance in these stultifying little chats.
Harris’s immigration remit – while Not. At. All. what RW media says it’s been (who’s shocked??) – creates a ready target for any fence-sitters who’ve bought into that issue from the conservative POV.
And my totally unsupported WAG is that there are more undecideds who put border security/immigration high on their lists than there are undecideds who are paralytically scared of women and minorities.
[Something, something, Venn diagram]
I think we’ll see a lot of that one, and – as usual – if you’re explaining, you’re losing.
But every Democratic surrogate should remind voters that Trump put his own political interests ahead of actual immigration reform … out, loud, and proud.
As opposed to an adjudicated rapist.
They’re also certain to cherry pick some person she prosecuted, or didn’t prosecute, as some example of her problematic stance on crime.
The obvious answer to “She slept her way to the top” is “He slept his way to the bottom.”
We already have Congressmen putting forth articles of Impeachment for her not stopping the border “crisis”.
Oh, God! This is Golden!
That’s likely. But I heard today that the Dems already have an excellent idea to combat this: framing the situation as an opportunity for black men to stand in opposition to the lies about Kamala. If they take on the role of being her protector, then they are more likely to remain engaged and interested in voting.
Seems like a legitimate need–she certainly will be attacked unfairly and viciously. And perhaps millions of black men will see this role as being worth their time and attention.
Don’t you know - it’s OK if you get one but not if you give one.
Isn’t that what today’s republicans want?
It’s been the standard for decades now that Republicans are automatically considered “Christian”, and Democrats are considered atheists/Muslim/Satanic (often all at once). If doesn’t matter how religious the Democrat is or how much the Republican resembles an incarnation of the 7 Deadly Sins; what matters is party affiliation. “Republican” and “Christian” have become conflated in the American political world.
So, among other things you can expect to see her being bashed for being atheist/Muslim (because black), or Satanist. I’ve already seen the latter.
It isn’t aimed at the full-blown racist misogynist homophobes. It’s for the moderate suburban pinkish-purplish voters who are:
used to the idea of women and minorities in the workplace, who maybe aren’t great fans of affirmative action but don’t want discrimination either, and
while likely Christian themselves, wary of the more antediluvian evangelicals. People who maybe go to church on Sunday but drink, dance, don’t believe a woman’s place is only in the home, don’t expect LBGTQ+ people to disappear or go back in the closet, and absolutely positively don’t want abortion, birth control, or IVF to be banned.
The idea is to ceaselessly emphasize that a vote for Trump is a vote for the more Handmaid-y aspects of Project 2025 and the MAGAts, not the pro-business country-club old-school GOP these voters may be comfortable with. “These aren’t your father’s Republicans!”
Been seeing another tactic from right wing Catholics.
They’re harping on this one time she grilled a judge about being part of a Catholic fraternity. They don’t seem to get that her job was to make sure the judge wasn’t biased on abortion, and could follow the law even if he disagreed.
This is one that I think could have some legs and should be debunked. But I think I’m giving up the gig. I’m starting to get upset at some of these people, instead of gleefully rebutting them.
Don’t forget: IOKWRDI.