One of the dirty not-so-secrets of the D party is that the practical wing recognizes that to win the presidency we really, really need to keep putting up just Old(ish) White Men until after the Reactionary Far Right returns to its senses in, oh, say, the year 2085 or so.
That does not sit well with the more group-rights-oriented wing of the D party that would prefer the Ds not put up any other Old(ish) White Men from now until after all hints of racial and gender inequality have been banished from the USA.
IMO, she has the same basic issue as Gore, Kerry, and Hillary Clinton: she has a lot of qualifications on paper, but comes across as boring / awkward / inauthentic / too much of a tryhard in person. The fact that she is a nonwhite woman is an additional disadvantage, but it wouldn’t be a deal-breaker if she had an Obama or Bill Clinton level of political talent.
I realise the needs for my Mother to vote for her, but I worry more about answering the phone when the Secretary of Defense calls at 2:00 AM, or what she will do when Congress wants to reinstate slavery or OPEC raises the cost of a barrel of oil to $750.00 than her joke telling ability at press conferences. Being Vice President gives you quite a bit of on the job training for the important stuff.
But like madmonk28 posted, Mama Plant and a whole bunch of other folks wouldn’t vote for her because she is a woman of color.
On edit, Mama Plant is dead, but she is (was?) a good example.
I don’t disagree with any of the above, but I’m curious how you all feel about her electability if Biden is re-elected in '24 but has to step down for health reasons before the '28 cycle hits full swing. If she’s POTUS for 1-2 years going into '28 and doesn’t puke all over herself, is she (re)electable?
In that scenario it hugely depends on how well she does, and more importantly, how well she’s seen to be doing.
We see today that Biden is doing well, but the perception of his success lags the actuality by a hefty margin. And not merely among the Reactionary Far Right that can be assumed to hate everything he does.
Unrelated to the above …
A challenge for any party is that after two terms by that party it’s an extra-uphill struggle to win a third term. If the VP has been the same person for both those terms, that’s probably that person’s apex of skill and positioning to do the job but simultaneously the nadir of their ability to get elected to the job.
Assuming Biden/Harris is elected in 2024 and Biden serves his complete second term, Harris will be in that bind in 2028.
For the record, incumbent VPs who have been nominated for President post-WW2 are: Nixon(1960), Bush41 and Gore. Former VPs who have been so: Nixon(1968), Mondale, Biden. Of these, Nixon(1960), Bush41 and Gore ran at the end of 2 terms.
Since the term limit has been in effect, we have had 5 presidents serve the two full terms, and 3 of their VPs immediately ran to succeed them.
Before Bush41 in 1988, a sitting VP winning the Presidential election had not happened since before the Civil War.
So VPs running is not rare, but not that succesful for incumbents.
[quote=“TriPolar, post:2, topic:983216”]
She has nothing like the qualifications people feel necessary in a president…She has little experience in anything except as a prosecutor in California…[/quote]
You mean like Senator and Veep? AG of the most populous state?
Right.
She isnt a “star” but other than Biden, the Dems do not really have any.
Like Obama? But true, and older white statesman does have advantages in todays electoral market.
Not to mention her time as Veep.
The idea that she is unlikable seems to be spread by the GOP, who of course hates her for at least three reasons.
During the last pre-election debates, I started off with a quite favorable opinion of KH, but the more I saw/heard her, the less I liked her. I still think she’s very qualified, and I’d love to have a woman of color as President, but I’d be concerned about her ability to pull enough votes in the 10-12 swing states.
It is challenging for the Dems to decide to what extent they wish to try to accommodate America’s misogyny and racism.
Exactly like Obama. I have the utmost respect for the man, and all his works.
But his very existence and success created a lot of the current unhinged Reactionary Right and moved several formerly blue states to purple and several formerly purple states to red. That is the kind of success the Ds can ill afford to repeat.
I do not like where the Overton window is, nor where it is going. But we don’t win elections by ignoring it. As Obama famously said, “Elections have consequences”. We need to win far more than we need to lose while upholding ideological purity. The consequences of loss once, much less twice, in the next 20 years are too terrible to risk.
There’s also the perception that she was chosen for those very reasons, and not due to her actual qualifications.
Whether or not it’s true doesn’t matter, because a good number of people will hold that against her when they have to choose who to vote for.
Iit’s extraordinarily unlikely that the Democratic party will control the Presidency for 20 straight years. No party has managed that in the last 50 years; the closest anyone has come was the Reagan/Bush era, where the Republican party held the office for 12 straight years. Congress has been even more fractured.
I do agree that the Democratic party needs to be careful of who they propose as national level candidates. There’s a real feeling out there among some people that the Democratic party picks candidates more on ideological purity and/or the PC boxes they check, rather than on their electability. Case in point- in Texas, they ran Lupe Valdez for governor one time. She was a fine county sheriff, and seems like a delightful person in interviews. But as a hispanic lesbian, she’s virtually unelectable in Texas for statewide office. That’s an example of someone who was chosen due to her likely fitting the mold of what primary voters would want elected, but not actually someone who could actually be elected.
We often accuse the Rs of putting up unelectable candidates as a result of their primary process favoring their wingnuts. Or at least candidates unelectable except when assisted by extreme gerrymandering or vote-counting shenanigans.
It would be good for the Ds to avoid making those same sorts of mistakes.
For truly national offices like President, the Ds seem to have a real bad habit of not realizing just how much of the country’s electoral votes do not come from cities and suburbs.
It’s a sadder state of affairs that one of the two main parties is embracing most of the tenets of Nazism in a full-throated roar. Let’s be clear where the problem lies.
I’m sure it’s rather easy as a while guy to sacrifice whoever you want for your needs. The Republican aren’t making you ban non white men from seeking office, that’s your choice.
Here’s the deal though; you can nominate whatever non-white, non-straight people you want. Just don’t be surprised when they don’t win in national elections.