I think she’ll really need to have an understandable answer to the border issue, and why so many undocumented immigrants came in under “her watch”. I just went through a macroeconomic update and noticed an interesting chart that showed an unprecedented variance of the employment level in the US as shown by Employer vs. Employee surveys. The only explanation for the variance is a significant number of undocumented workers who don’t report their employment. Unfortunately the fact that they’ve helped us get out of the high inflation environment probably won’t fly for many voters.
The other thing I already see some conservatives trying to use against her - albeit cynically - is the large number of inmates in prison whom were denied early release by her office because of the need for labor - although that was lawyers in her office, not necessarily by her herself.
This works against what you’re arguing. The goal isn’t to be leading in the polls. The goal is to win the election. You’d be much better off saying that sexism is still so strong that even a candidate who was leading in all of the polls was still defeated because she was a woman.
Which is still an oversimplified narrative, of course. Clinton had much bigger problems with her candidacy than her gender. But it was definitely relevant, and probably hurt her more than it helped.
This Washington Post link (non-paywalled) is live-tracking Harris’ endorsements among Democratic U.S. representatives, Democratic U.S. senators, and Democratic state governors. As this writing, she is up to 192 endorsements out of a possible 286.
My point was that if sexism were really that huge an obstacle to overcome, Hillary wouldn’t have even been leading that strongly in the polls to begin with and considered such a heavy favorite to begin with.
I won’t digress too much lest this Kamala thread turn into a Hillary thread, but clearly women can already find themselves in a totally compete-able or winnable position in a US presidential election in today’s demographics/environment.
Harris was pretty fired up in her first campaign speech today.
She is a prohibitive favorite to win. She might as well begin choosing her Cabinet now. It would take an even bigger miracle than 2016 for Trump to beat her.
Well, if nothing else, I think she can count on Melania’s vote.
And she’s locked up the nomination.
Where are you seeing that she is a “prohibitive favorite”?
Just my opinion. She holds so many juggernaut advantages that I feel almost sorry for Trump now.
in the agent orange theme
https://techboards.net/attachments/452040471_10233668222193893_5696930520054093925_n-jpg.30468/
Not really an image we should approve of, but pretty funny.
I’ll say. AI art is no good even when it doesn’t have things like an arm growing out of the side of US Agent’s head.
As of this evening, that doesn’t appear to be the case:
And she’s coming out swinging against Trump:
I watched it. It was a refreshing change from Biden’s speeches, press conferences, and that awful (for him) debate. She was sure of herself, sure of what she wanted to say, and she delivered her speech like a pro. No hyperbole, no “nobody’s ever seen befores,” no searching for words she couldn’t find.
What she needs to do, going forward, is to keep that sureness and clarity, in all her public remarks. She should speak about policy, and craft policies that address all Americans’ concerns: the border situation, Roe v. Wade and abortion, healthcare, the economy, foreign policy, and similar.
But she should also take the opportunity to get in digs at Trump as often as possible. Nothing personal, of course, so no “orange man with a bad combover” stuff. But look at what he’s done: “He raised tariffs on Chinese goods, but he didn’t tell you that they didn’t hurt the Chinese. So who pays them? You do.” Things like that.
She got off to a good start with that today, when she said:
Source (though it can be found elsewhere):
I think not. She needs to make it about Ms Harris, not some other dirtbag. She has to regard him, publically, as if he is a cipher, as if he does not matter. She should quite simply not speak about him but tell us why she is the person we should vote for. Stop giving him air.
I disagree. She should refer to him. Harking back to Michelle Obama’s “When they go low, we go high” remark in 2016, going high, and speaking about nothing but policy, didn’t work for Hillary, and it is not going to work this time. Back then, Trump went low, and Hillary went high, and look what resulted.
Ms. Harris is going to have to address Trump in some way. As I said, not by attacking him personally. “Going low” need not include third-grade schoolyard taunts, as Trump is so good at, but by rising above those, when it comes down to non-policy matters. “Yeah, Trump supporters call me ‘Kackles Kamala.’ What of it? Not everybody has a nice rounded Santa Claus laugh. Hey, if I can give you a stock tip, buy stock in Heinz Ketchup, because Donald’s gonna need a lot of it between now and November.” Show Trump and his toadies that she just doesn’t care about him.
In 2016, Hillary’s downfall was that she concentrated on policy. Trump’s win back then was due to concentrating on Hillary. IMHO, Kamala Harris’ success will come from concentrating on policy, while also concentrating on addressing Trump and his personal insults towards her, and the Democrats in general. But at any rate, she cannot ignore Trump. She need to address Trump, and his foibles, as often as possible, but while not ignoring Dems’ policy.
As an interested outsider, I throw this, from my news feed this morning:
Vice President Kamala Harris has continued to rack up endorsements and delegates since President Biden’s surprise announcement yesterday that he would not accept the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination. As of tonight, Harris has the support of at least 2,471 delegates, more than the 1,976 she will need to secure the nomination.
Endorsements have also continued to mount, with the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the AAPI (Asian American and Pacific Islander) Victory Fund, and the Latino Victory Fund all endorsing her.
Labor unions have also backed her: the AFL-CIO, which represents 12.5 million workers, endorsed Harris. So did the Service Employees International Union, with 2 million workers, as well as the United Steelworkers, which represents 850,000 metal workers and miners, and the Communications Workers of America.
Other unions endorsing Harris include the American Federation of Teachers, the United Food and Commercial Workers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.