Kamala Harris and the runup to the 2024 Presidential Election {No more on Guns}

Politics & Elections
1

We have the thread discussing Biden’s fateful decision to suspend his re-election campaign. And we have a thread to discuss the dem’s new ticket.

But I don’t yet see the specific definitive thread on the Kamala Harris for President 2024 Campaign.

Because, let’s face it, she’s going to be the nominee. All of the big names in the party are lining up to endorse her (including the liberals like Bernie and AOC, and any potential rivals like Whitmer and Newsom).

She’s certainly a viable candidate. She has “executive” experience, having been VP. She has a law enforcement background, having been a prosecutor. And she has been a high ranking member of a very successful administration, which has seen inflation come under control, the economy grow strong, and avoided major gaffes.

I’ve also seen it said elsewhere - she immediately puts to bed all of the effort the right wing has invested in dragging Hunter Biden through the mud.

Her negatives? We’ve heard her denigrated as a “ho” (based on some innuendo about her relationship with Willie Brown), and I’ve heard the Republican talking point that she’s been a “disaster“ as VP (why? “Name her accomplishments!” They’ll crow, never mind the fact that VPs aren’t typically given to personal aggrandizement).

And sexism is certainly a huge factor that is going to work against her.

But Harris, I expect, when given the benefit of the Democratic campaign apparatus, will prove a steady and effective campaigner. She’s going to be giving important sounding speeches (I’m sure), and made to look official, and will offer a nice contract to the far right GOP ticket.

Kamala Harris 2024!

3

I set this to reopen tomorrow.

We don’t need a 4th thread tonight.

5

If not inappropriate for this specific thread, what is the running tally of “must win/battleground/swing” states? MI/WI/PN/NV/AZ?

Others? NC? GA?

I doubt there is any realistic chance any solidly blue states will fail to vote for a Harris/whomever ticket.

6

Throughout recorded human history and, I’m quite sure, before they even had recorded history, men have virtually been in complete control. I present as “Exhibit A” the state of the world today. I haven’t exactly been “wowed” by their performance. I think it’s time that a woman had a shot at the presidency. Keep in mind that Henry VIII was obsessed with having a son, but it was his DAUGHTER that proved to be England’s greatest ruler.

7

IMO this should be the whole thrust of this thread. Kamala Harris will only be elected President if she puts together voting majorities in such states as total 270 electoral votes. She has a few paths to do it, and does not need every swing state to swing her way.

I’d encourage everyone to go to 270 To Win for an electoral map where you can assign states D or R to see the electoral college outcome.

8

I think Harris comes across the worst when she tries to be overly “statespersonlike”. She comes across as stilted, and patronizing. Or, the flipside, when she tries to come across as overly familiar/casual. Stick to the major issues, the platform, and the major criticisms of Trump/Vance, and don’t try to make it about her personality. IMO, her personality (as I perceive it through the media) is likely her weakest point.

Hit (almost exclusively) the swing states. (Proxies can handle the rest.)
-Women (and men), he favors taking away your rights.
-He is a convicted felon/loser in civil cases.
-He is an unquestioned liar WRT 1/6 - and many other things.
-He wants to be a dictator - for at least 1 day.
-DO NOT allow him the chance to appoint more Supremes.

Lather, rinse, repeat…

9

One thing she absolutely should not do is to pick one path and then focus on it. Obama had it right with the 50 state strategy: When you try to win every state, you’re not sunk when one state shifts the wrong way; you can fall back on any other path.

As for how, others have already suggested in other threads that Trump is a criminal, and her job as a prosecutor was to put criminals away, and she should lean heavily into that.

10

One conspicuous exception: Obama. She’s no shoo-in without him.

11

Nothing really changes from what it was before. Assuming the traditionally solidly blue states stay blue, the logical strategy should be to secure leads in MI, WI and PA plus NE-2. That gets the Democratic nominee to exactly 270.

In my opinion the voter excitement that could possibly result from this change may help in NV, AZ, GA and hopefully NC. But I anticipate it will take a couple of weeks before polls will reflect any renewed enthusiasm among voters.

12

Hoo boy — I couldn’t disagree more. Sure Obama could run a 50 state campaign when the economy was exploding under a Republican President, he strongly outraised his opponent, and partisan entrenchment wasn’t as entrenched.

But Harris is in a very different situation. There are at least 20 or states that will never vote for a Democratic candidate and another 20 that will vote for her no matter what. She has limited time to consolidate Democratic support and sell herself to a country that has little impression of her (and what they have is tilting negative). She will not have a fundraising advantage, and needs to focus resources where they are most necessary to yield an EV victory.

So not necessarily “one path,” but a narrow focus on the most critical states for her election.

13

I’m pretty sure Obama doesn’t endorse before a Dem candidate is locked in. He doesn’t get his hands dirty when the Dem candidate isn’t yet decided. He’ll throw his massive political weight behind her once she has the nomination locked up.

14

That was true for Obama, as well. But the 50 state strategy was still a good idea, because states aren’t monolithic. If you try to win over Utah, for instance, well, you’re not going to succeed in winning over Utah. But that effort might also swing a few LDS voters in Nevada or New Mexico, and that could make a difference. And there are some states that are unlikely but not impossible pickups, like North Carolina or Ohio, and also states like Texas, which the Republicans aren’t going to lose if they put any effort into defending them, but you can force them to put in the effort.

With a whole two election cycles of precedent, but yes. If Obama endorsed someone other than Harris, that would be a big deal. But him just staying out of it (until it’s official) doesn’t really hurt her.

15

This is the first I’d heard of Obama’s 50-state strategy, and I was paying pretty close attention in 2008.

Howard Dean, as DNC chair during Dubya’s second term, had developed a 50-state strategy, but that was more about Congressional and state races.

16

I suppose at some superficial level saying you’re running a 50 state campaign is fine. But if the Harris campaign actually dumps money into ad buys and staffing field offices in Utah I will question her sanity.

17

I’d alter this slightly to "Her personality (as spun by the media) is likely her weakest point.

She needs to cut through whatever bullshit spin the media is going to be pushing.

18
Basically off-topic

If he strongly endorsed her, the candidate would effectively be decided. With his support withheld, there’s plenty of room for additional party chaos.

Obama is probably the smartest guy in the room. He appears to be saying he has real doubts about Harris - or at least that he’s okay with people believing that’s so.

19

Moderating: As this is feeling off-topic for a thread assuming Kamala Harris is the candidate, I’m going to hide your post and tell you to drop this line of speculation in this thread. It would fit better in the Biden resigns thread or such.

20

I don’t know why people keep saying this. Sure, sexism exists, but it’s been neutralized enough to the point that the last time a woman was a party’s nominee, she was such an overwhelming favorite to win the election that her defeat came as a huge surprise. She led in the polls from the start of the election to the finish.