The notion that Kamala Harris is a weak candidate

[AlterEgo]

Harris was literally responsible for turning what was supposed to be a landslide for her party into a close race last year, by turbocharging racist voter turnout. She is clearly weak.

Whaaat? There's no evidence Harris hurt Biden's electoral chances. The day she was announced as VP, but Biden broke records in small donations from all over the country. She also did well at the VP debate and helped to turn out black voters in GA.

LMAO no.

She came across as extremely whiny, similar to an annoying middle school English Teacher I’m sure we all had, and performed horribly, what are you talking about? There’s a reason the Biden campaign barely used her in the actual campaign itself.

Now you're really just talking out of your ass. And by the looks of how many times you posted on this one thread, your hatred for her is a bit unhealthy.

Anyways, none of this is true. The campaign didn't "barely" use her. She hosted multiple high profile fundraisers, conducted several solo rallies and events, appeared during every campaign PSA, and took part in a couple of interviews with Biden himself. I don't think there's ever been a campaign that has been so willing to use the VP nominee as this one.

As for the debate, it is quite clear that she made a very favorable impression on the American people with her performance:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/harris-pence-vp-debate-poll/

1) Literally every presidential campaign does that? I don’t remember Harris being used at all after the VP debate however. It was all Biden.

2) 538 polls for 2020 are automatically invalid due to their terrible sampling. Didn’t Nate Silver predict that Biden would win Wisconsin by double digits, Texas tilt and Florida lean?

You seriously expect me to believe that? Don’t insult my intelligence like that ever again.

538 doesn't take polls....Oh, never mind.

[AlterEgo]

It is increasingly clear that Harris supporters are entirely disinterested in putting forward positive arguments for their candidate-of-choice, instead choosing to double down on accusations of racism and sexism whenever she is criticized. The strategy has remained unchanged since February of 2020, and they feel no need to change things up now.

"no charisma and not likable" ... the blatant sexism continues.

Some people only think that way because she's a Black woman/WOC.

But for the rest of us, perhaps it's time for a remedial lesson in political messaging. Firstly, while there are of course unfair biases in the public, candidates are largely personally responsible for the way they are perceived. Any candidate who receives criticism and chooses to blame external factors (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) rather than look inwards to see if those accusations have any merit is not the kind of person you want running for office. The same goes for their supporters-- when honest criticism is leveled, it is your responsibility to take that criticism into consideration. Take, for example, this comment:

To the DSA progressive left - she's an "evil cop" that wants to incarcerate every Black & Latino person in America and to the MAGA lunatic right - she's a radical socialist that has "slept her way to the top". Just disgusting.

This indignant rant has a nugget of truth to it-- Harris has indeed been criticized from both the left and the right, and for reasons that are (at least at face value) irreconcilable. However, the question that Harris supporters ask themselves when receiving criticism is never "What has my candidate done that has caused her to be perceived this way?"; rather, it is always "What innate biases and irrationalities are causing the public to view her this way?" This mentality may give solace to fellow Harris supporters, who will be able to tell themselves that they are right and others are wrong, but it will not win any converts to their cause. In this instance, the Harris supporter ignores some very real facts (and alienates others in the process).

Firstly, Harris actively pushed for harsher sentences for nonviolent drug offenses in a city where doing the opposite of this would have likely been praised and rewarded. Secondly, Harris has routinely flip-flopped on several progressive causes-- saying she would eliminate private insurance one week (an extremist stance that not even Bernie Sanders endorses) and then immediately walking that back the next. Is it any wonder that she has received criticism from both right and left? Is it any wonder that voters are unsure where she stands? No. To the Harris supporter, these reasonable criticisms are motivated by inherent biases and are therefore not worth addressing. This allows them to conveniently drown out all warning signs that their candidate is deeply flawed.

Another example: I am an Andrew Yang supporter, but you will never see me treat an attack on him as an attack on Asian-Americans (or men, for that matter). I admit that Yang has his flaws, and I often wish he would address those flaws more directly. His willingness to meme himself, while useful in certain contexts, is (I think) often harmful to his important message. He too frequently used UBI as a catch-all fix during his campaign, which turned him into a one-note candidate. I believe Yang has learned from his first campaign and is altering his strategy accordingly-- something he could not have done if he blamed external factors for all of his failings.

Perhaps the reason why I (and many others) are so fed up with Harris' supporters is because we have seen this behavior before in the Clinton 2016 campaign. Did Hillary deserve all the bile and hatred directed towards her? Of course not. But at some point, a candidate needs to take responsibility for the way they're perceived and adapt accordingly. To this day, Clinton supporters tell themselves that their candidate failed because of Sanders, or Comey, or Russia, or sexism, or racism, or a vast right-wing conspiracy. I'm sure that gives them some comfort-- but they still lost, and that is ultimately what matters.

I don't think it's fair to describe Harris supporters as being overly biased/subjective/etc. there, though. None of the Harris detractors before you in the thread had anything objective to say against Harris. They simply mostly used the biased/subjective statements such as you quoted that she has "no charisma" and "isn't likable." Calling out one while lauding the other is laughable.

Now, I will say you do go on to make some very valid points in the latter two-thirds of the post. But...you're the first one to do so in the thread.