I mean, I’m not in love with the woman, the prosecutorial background is a MAJOR red flag. But are all the people who are saying she’s not a good speaker forgotten how she EVISCERATED Biden over his civil rights record in the debates?
I I remember her having a viral moment saying “that little girl was me.” I do not remember her being a particularly compelling speaker even during that moment. I also remember what I’ve seen of her public speaking since that moment. Do you? What would you say were the big standout moments that impressed?
It is racist to say that only white people should be supported in important elections. It is not racist to have an unfavorable opinion of Kamala Harris. She is not a very good candidate. Comparing her to Donald Trump as a way of saying she’s not technically unelectable is effectively conceding that.
Yes the Democrats successfully prevented a non-white candidate from running in 2008 and 2012… hey wait a minute.
The right wing is going to come out swinging against whoever is nominated. Any Democrat is going to be the most liberal in history and makes Baby Jesus cry.
I don’t think she’s unelectable. True, her voice has a bit too much Fran Drescher quality for my taste, but she’s more that qualified and in my opinion, even more so than Hillary. If Biden’s second term is as productive as the first, I think she’s the favorite in 2028.
I’m not saying KH is the best candidate, or that Democrats need to create the most diverse slate of candidates.
I’m pushing back on the idea that only white candidates are worth supporting until the magical day Republicans recover their sanity.
The way the game is currently played is via the Electoral College, like it or not. And she absolutely LOST the election there.
You can rage all you like about how unfair it is that POCs, women, and/or LGBTQ candidates aren’t electable, and you can rage about how unfair the Electoral College is, and how Hillary actually won, IF the popular vote matters, and so forth.
But NONE of that matters. NONE. It’s all pie-in-the-sky “sure would be great” type stutf that’s divorced from the actual reality of getting people elected to national office. The fact is, that you have to win the Electoral College, and there’s a LARGE chunk of the electorate that isn’t far-right, but still isn’t entirely comfortable with POC/women/LGBTQ candidates. And those people are pretty much lumped in the “swing voters” category, meaning that they could go either way. Your hardcore liberals are going to vote D regardless (unless they’re just petulantly stupid), and the hardcore right wingnuts are going to vote R even if Jesus himself told them not to, so the people in the middle are who you have to win.
So you have to work within their prejudices, hopes, and fears, to convince them to vote D, whether or not that’s sufficiently progressive, non-racist, or whatever. You’re trying to convince a bunch of people who can’t decide between Republicans and Democrats in today’s society, with all that it implies. So if you want to win, you have to find candidates that appeal to THEM, not to your base, and not according to whatever your notions of equality, inclusion, or whatever.
But whatever… feel free to choose ideologically pure and politically correct, inclusive candidates. See how that goes.
And Hillary. Wait? She wasn’t elected? She could have been had she not had the horrible election strategy of going for popular votes rather than electoral votes.
I see you’re new to political discussions on this board…
I’m not saying the Democrats have taken that position. I’m criticizing the posters here who want the Democrats to take that position.
Yes, exactly. I think in the current environment it’s probably a small net negative for a candidate to not be a white man, but ALL candidates have positives and negatives that have to be weighed against each other. Obviously recent history shows many successful woman/POC candidates who have proved that it isn’t an insurmountable barrier.
The people like LSL and bump who want to just summarily disqualify all women and POC from ever running for national office aren’t being “practical”, they’re just being racist and misogynist.
I guess I just missed the posts advocating preventing minorities from holding political power.
The point I was making is that she won the election by two million votes, and could have won the electoral college with a shift of only a few tens of thousands of votes in the right States. She came just about as close as it’s possible to get to winning, without actually winning.
Anyone who looks at that result and says “Well, obviously no woman can ever possibly win” is just looking for an excuse to not vote for women.
She was criticized over the “that little girl” bit because a number of people brought that she did not grow up “that” disadvantaged. But that blew off overtaken by events.
And let’s consider the matter of the recent elections:
2020: the winning move was to put on top of the ticket the most un-trump-like Veteran Establishment-Liberal White Guy who could promise a return to stable normality, AND back him up with a younger WOC (though not a “squad” progressive type) to represent the future
2008: the winning move was to top the ticket with an exciting young black liberal who brought audacity and hope and represented the future, AND back him up with a Veteran Establishment-Liberal White Guy to assure of stability.
1992: winning move was a roguish young come-out-of-nowhere late-night-sax-blowing Bad Boy, backed up by the guy whose picture was in the dictionary next to “establishment crashing bore” and who conducted hearings about the evils of rock.
So one could say, ONE of the members of the ticket needs to be seen as an establishment type who won’t scare the suburbanites, and the other as someone new and different. But Mr. Regular White Guy need not be always the lead. (And Biden can’t keep playing that character forever…)
Harris has the combination in one person of being a WOC and being establishment as establishment can be which could cut both ways in the mobilize-the-base area (i.e. progs seeing her as too standpat). She suffers from the problem of all VPs, that as long as you are in that post you have to disappear into the background. This has prevented her from developing her image and projection so far so that works against her AS OF TODAY. 2028 is a ways away.
LSLGuy:
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.
bump:
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.
Wellhellothere:
Being female is enough to disqualify her.
I’m baffled also by all the people saying that she hasn’t had an impressive record of accomplishments as Vice-President. What Vice-President ever has?
It sounds to me like they have decided that it’s in the best interest of the party to prevent minorities from getting nominated.
Yup. The backlash to our only black president was to elect a fascist game show host the next time. It’s a country where black kids get shot for knocking on the wrong door. Does anyone think America’s Taliban are going to put up with a woman of color from San Francisco who is married to a Jew?
Which isn’t exactly “advocating preventing minorities from holding political power” is it?
Yes it is. They support a policy which would eliminate all minorities from important political offices.
I would say that part of what we have is the rise of a “despair wing” that has concluded the American electorate is too far majority-racist/misogynist to even bother until everyone older than GenZ is dead.
One thing bump did get right is that it’s really, really rare for either party to win more than two Presidential elections in a row. Since 1952, it’s only happened once (GOP 80-84-88).
In the current climate, where the GOP seems to be actively trying to make itself as unelectable as possible, this could change.
But the lessons of history strongly point toward a likely Democratic loss in 2028. And, if that happens, some people will ignore those lessons in favor of blaming our candidates for not being old/white/male/straight enough. And let me be five and a half years early to tell those people to STFU.