How would this forum react if Kamala Harris won the presidency?

[libertpaulian]

Every argument I've ever seen about Kamala Harris on this forum turns into just a massive clusterf**k about "identity politics" or some other bullsh!t, and doesn't even try to address her strength or traits as a candidate from either side. I've honestly never heard an actual argument in defense of her, just blind worship from posters who unironically call themselves things like "globalist" and "neoliberal" and say things like that George W. Bush was fundamentally a good guy but just misguided, and whose main method of responding to criticism of her is just to shout down the critic by calling them racist and/or sexist and accusing them of being a purist Bernie Bro.

The truth is her actual track record to me as a candidate is worse than Ted Cruz's. She barely won election in 2010 (and spare the "GOP wave year" talk, the Democratic candidates running at the top of the ballot in her state won easily), underperformed in 2014, and then beat a candidate of her own party who ran a terrible campaign. No sign of any special campaign skills or strengths. If she has no intention of being anything but a Senator from California, that's fine. But as a Presidential candidate, this is a horrible record. Does she have any special skills or strengths as a candidate that weren't displayed during those campaigns? If so, I'd argue the burden of proof on showing that is on her defenders.

And for that matter, what in her record makes her a candidate worthy of such attention? The thing she's most notable for in the Senate was grilling a CIA Director candidate about gay marriage. Now granted California Attorney General is very far from an unimportant or minor office, but I know of nothing she did during that that would lift her as a top pick for the Democrats for President.

So if Kamala Harris is elected President, that will not be due to anything of note from her campaign skills or strength, but simply because Trump continued to be as much as a disaster as he's been so far to the point where any random person off the street with a (D) next to their name can beat him. And if that happens, Harris' administration will likely end up being a disaster as well. It strikes me as pretty bizarre anyone thinks she is the best choice to move the Democratic Party forward out of truly many options. I don't even really care if the nominee is another "neoliberal"* as long as it's someone who can boost the party and actually do some things for people. I don't see any evidence that Harris is a candidate who can do that, much less the best option to do that.

*Using the definition of the word used here by both her defenders and as the generic epithet it is against any Democrat leftists don't like. An actual neoliberal as the Democratic nominee who be as horrifying as the thought of Donald Trump as President. Luckily that has about as much chance of happening as I do of being the Democratic nominee.

I think the reason why any conversation about Harris turns into an argument over identity politics is simple. Harris is only a favorite because she's a nonwhite woman. A white man with her record (in terms of both election results and legislative achievements...or lack thereof) would not be considered. Picking Harris seems to be a choice rooted in the cynicism of "she can get black turnout like Obama and feminist turnout like Hillary" that ignores her being the poster child (along with maybe Warren) of the classic GOP talking point "democrats are out of touch with Middle America."

If identity politics alone propels Harris to the top of the democrat ticket, perhaps she will boost minority turnout and win the general election. Just don't be surprised if it's also a boon for white identity politics.

People are trying to make Jason Kander a thing, and his only claim to political fame is being a personable white guy from Missouri. I don't see how that's any different from Harris, other than that she's much more qualified than him.

Only politinerds are trying to make Kander a thing.

[libertpaulian]

Kamala Harris would get destroyed in the Northcenter and Northeast, even worse than Hillary Clinton.  She would pick up no states Trump won in any section of the country (except maybe AZ), and lose MN, NH, ME, and VA.  

Isn't Kamala Harris' style of "latte" liberalism actually the type of leftism that is a good fit for VA, especially NOVA?

[libertpaulian]

Kamala Harris would get destroyed in the Northcenter and Northeast, even worse than Hillary Clinton.  She would pick up no states Trump won in any section of the country (except maybe AZ), and lose MN, NH, ME, and VA.  

Isn't Kamala Harris' style of "latte" liberalism actually the type of leftism that is a good fit for VA, especially NOVA?

Yes, her presence on the ticket would bolster turnout in Richmond and Hampton Roads, while maintaining Northam level support in NoVa. People like Sherrod Brown would struggle to do either. Kamala is probably an even better fit For NoVa than most actual Virginia politicians, given how diverse and centre-left it is.

I could also see her gaining about 66-70% of the statewide vote in California.  She'd maintain Hillary's numbers from 2016, with a bit of a "favorite daughter" bump.

GA, NC, FL, and AZ would also be up for grabs.

[libertpaulian]

Maine. Is. Not. Going. To. Go. Republican. Before. New. Hampshire.

Michigan. Is. Not. Going. To. Go. Republican. Before. Colorado. With. Hillary. As. The. Democratic. Nominee.

Seriously though, ME and NH are very different states, and Republicans have gotten clobbered in all the NH special elections this year.

Why are you using irrelevant analogies?

[libertpaulian]

Why are you using irrelevant analogies?

It's not irrelevant! The same people who are dismissing the idea that NH could vote to the left of ME in 2020 also told us that there was no way Republicans would do better in MI or MN than in CO in 2016, especially with Clinton being the Democratic nominee.

But go ahead and continue to believe that NH is trending Republican while ME, MN, MI, etc. were all “outliers”.

If you look at the past 3 elections, NH actually HAS been trending Republican.  

ME is still bogged down by Cumberland County, so its GOP trend is going to be a lot slower.  

MN is a historically progressive state, so Trump's lack of a Reaganesque message helped him there more than hurt him.  If he would have run a standard GOP campaign, he would have lost the state by about 6 points or so.

MI might be an outlier, it might not.  We'll see next November.

You're TOO STUBBORN with this whole NH thing.  It's almost as bad as IceSpear with Appalachia.

[libertpaulian]

New Hampshire,Maine,Minnesota and maybe Nevada,Colorado and an outside chance for Virginia.

I'd be surprised if Trump won any of these states, I'm just saying that he has a non-zero chance in MN and ME (though he would lose both states if the election were held today). Even if we ignore NH, there is really no path for him in CO or VA. NV is unlikely as well, given the Democrats' ground game there.

I mostly agree with you about VA, but I still think there's a shot for the GOP in CO.  Just not with Trump or a Trump-like candidate (i.e. Tom Cotton).

[libertpaulian]

New Hampshire,Maine,Minnesota and maybe Nevada,Colorado and an outside chance for Virginia.

I'd be surprised if Trump won any of these states, I'm just saying that he has a non-zero chance in MN and ME (though he would lose both states if the election were held today). Even if we ignore NH, there is really no path for him in CO or VA. NV is unlikely as well, given the Democrats' ground game there.

I mostly agree with you about VA, but I still think there's a shot for the GOP in CO.  Just not with Trump or a Trump-like candidate (i.e. Tom Cotton).

Yeah, I agree. Trump was probably the worst possible Republican for CO, and I do think Kasich, Rubio and Cruz would have done better there (not sure if it would have been enough to win it, though).

CO is too secular to pick someone like Cruz.

Kasich and Rubio probably would have won it within 1-3% margin, though.