She seems like a generic, boiler-plate California Democrat. Is this just like Keith Ellison where she hasn't really done anything, but happens to check a bunch of religious and/or ethnic boxes in the minds of the whacktivist crowd or are there some sort of meaningful accomplishments/qualifications she has that I'm missing?
There, the answer is in the question. Democrats are only concerned about skin-deep qualifications.
......
You idiots nominated literally a reality TV star for president.
Trump was never pushed by "the party". He was nominated purely by popular support. His nomination represented the most effective grass roots movement in history to date.
Kamala Harris, like Barack Obama, is a candidate picked much in the same way that a young baseball player is tapped as a hot prospect. She's like a shortstop who hit .340 in the Texas League at age 21, but she played at El Paso, where the air is thin and homers fly, and the player makes errors at shortstop and will probably have to be switched to the outfield in a year or two. Once that happens, and the player gets to the big leagues, they'll have a job as a RF, but their .275 average and their 15-20 HRs won't make them a star. Harris's lackluster time in the Senate won't make her a star, either; it'll make her one more candidate for the white working class to hate.
Obama was the beneficiary of a financial meltdown which was squarely blamed on the incumbent GOP President, who was being blamed for other things as well. If it were Al Gore that was President from 2001-2009 and a Republican from 2009-2017, I doubt very much that a black President would have been elected in 2016. Obama received many white working class votes by default, at a time where they were blaming Bush for their lot. That's not the way it is now, and Kamala Harris isn't a solution to that.
