Kamala Harris 2020 campaign megathread

[Possiblymaybe]

Has Harris every actually done anything to connect with the black community?

They might consider her but Booker has been much more a pro black candidate.

She comes from San Francisco/Bay area which is mostly white and asian. Only a few black people are there. Meanwhile Booker comes from heavily black Newark so he has some idea on how to connect to black candidates

On criminal justice issues she was not a great candidate for the black community as she had many harsh policies as AG. Meanwhile Booker was one of the largest proponents of CJ reform working strongly with Rand Paul

Booker has also shown much more aptness to visit deep south states atm so this also helps him.

And no having an affair with Willie Brown does not count as connecting with the black community

She attended Howard University, which is one of the best HBCUs in the country. Anyways, Kamala is from Oakland.

Oakland has a sizable Black population. Also, The Black Panther Party started in Oakland.

She was born in Oakland, but raised in the very white Quebec by her single Indian mother. Sure she went to Howard, but her career as a prosecutor and her interracial marriage will get her a lot more questions about her connection to the black community than Barack Obama who was a former community organizer with a black family.

If this is the sort of campaign "progressives" for Bernie or for whoever plan on running they are only going to make themselves look bad. Questioning who blackness is a recipe for helping her more than anything.

What the previous poster is trying to say is that, correctly if I may add, that Harris doesnt have many ties to the AA community, and hell, we dont know how well she will preform with African Americans, we are all just making assumptions that she will do well. We wont know until a year's time, but there isnt much to point towards Harris doing well with the demographic currently.

The thing is the previous poster is wrong. She didn’t grow up in Canada.. she grew up in Oakland. It’s also incredibly bizarre to claim a Howard graduate doesn’t have many ties to the black community.... btw she was literally there today, first stop as she launched her campaign...

If she was raised in Canads or only went to highschool in Canada is less important than her record as a prosecutor, particularly her stances on 3 strikes, marijuana and truancy laws.

Of course, but I am not the one saying it matters, I simply corrected you because what you said is not true, it’s a bit strange that it’s no longer important when you literally just used it to argue against her candidacy... this is starting to sound like the whole Obama isn’t black enough stuff that went on when he was running.

[wbrocks67]

Her campaign announcement has 3.5 million views in one day. Warren's is like over 3 weeks old and has only a few more. Harris probably has the best social media game and hype besides Beto.

[gottsu]

Her campaign announcement has 3.5 million views in one day. Warren's is like over 3 weeks old and has only a few more. Harris probably has the best social media game and hype besides Beto.

Comparing also to ex. Gillibrand (330k views in 5 days) I must agree with you. Kamala has the potential!

[Del Tachi]

She has a very clear path to the nomination.  In a race sans Beto and Biden, there's no way she doesn't sweep the states Clinton won in 2016.

[Joey1996]

Has Harris every actually done anything to connect with the black community?

They might consider her but Booker has been much more a pro black candidate.

She comes from San Francisco/Bay area which is mostly white and asian. Only a few black people are there. Meanwhile Booker comes from heavily black Newark so he has some idea on how to connect to black candidates

On criminal justice issues she was not a great candidate for the black community as she had many harsh policies as AG. Meanwhile Booker was one of the largest proponents of CJ reform working strongly with Rand Paul

Booker has also shown much more aptness to visit deep south states atm so this also helps him.

And no having an affair with Willie Brown does not count as connecting with the black community

She attended Howard University, which is one of the best HBCUs in the country. Anyways, Kamala is from Oakland.

Oakland has a sizable Black population. Also, The Black Panther Party started in Oakland.

She was born in Oakland, but raised in the very white Quebec by her single Indian mother. Sure she went to Howard, but her career as a prosecutor and her interracial marriage will get her a lot more questions about her connection to the black community than Barack Obama who was a former community organizer with a black family.

If this is the sort of campaign "progressives" for Bernie or for whoever plan on running they are only going to make themselves look bad. Questioning who blackness is a recipe for helping her more than anything.

What the previous poster is trying to say is that, correctly if I may add, that Harris doesnt have many ties to the AA community, and hell, we dont know how well she will preform with African Americans, we are all just making assumptions that she will do well. We wont know until a year's time, but there isnt much to point towards Harris doing well with the demographic currently.

The thing is the previous poster is wrong. She didn’t grow up in Canada.. she grew up in Oakland. It’s also incredibly bizarre to claim a Howard graduate doesn’t have many ties to the black community.... btw she was literally there today, first stop as she launched her campaign...

If she was raised in Canads or only went to highschool in Canada is less important than her record as a prosecutor, particularly her stances on 3 strikes, marijuana and truancy laws.

Of course, but I am not the one saying it matters, I simply corrected you because what you said is not true, it’s a bit strange that it’s no longer important when you literally just used it to argue against her candidacy... this is starting to sound like the whole Obama isn’t black enough stuff that went on when he was running.

Whether you like it or not, if her identity as a black woman will be a central part of Harris' camapign she better be ready to answers those who question her connections to the black community. Whatever her relationship with Canada is will be a part of that, as I've seen it mentioned several times in the past few weeks.

The reason I mentioned Obama's history as a community organizer and his family in my oringal comment was to acknowledge that he also faced these questions during his 08 campaign, but had those two advantages.

The difference between now and then is that there's a growing number of young black voters who feel as though the issues facing the black community are the least prioritized by the Democratic Party. Having a strong platform to help solve those issues will be asked of every candidate, including the ones I plan on supporting in the primaries. Simply being black or going to Howard probably won't cut it.

[gottsu]

She has a very clear path to the nomination.  In a race sans Beto and Biden, there's no way she doesn't sweep the states Clinton won in 2016.

If Beto will run, it will be social media hype contest between her and O'Rourke and Biden (who isn't prone to social media) may be not able to find oneself in it.

[mgop]

she will sweep south only if whole establishment back her, but with biden, booker and beto in the race, hearts of voters in democratic party primaries will get the one who promise more food stamps

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I think Kamala has united Black support, there's no reason for Booker to run.

[Heebie Jeebie]

I think Kamala has united Black support, there's no reason for Booker to run.

Booker is still young, so at the very least a competitive run in 2020 further establishes him as a leader in the party and maybe sets up a more successful run down the road. 

What's more, if we game this out a little, it's not hard to imagine Booker splitting votes with Harris, giving Gillibrand the opening she needs to consolidate support as a compromise candidate for the moderates and progressives.  If Gillibrand gets the nomination, Booker is an obvious veep pick, and boom, he's one step away from the presidency.

[Zaybay]

I think Kamala has united Black support, there's no reason for Booker to run.

Booker is still young, so at the very least a competitive run in 2020 further establishes him as a leader in the party and maybe sets up a more successful run down the road. 

What's more, if we game this out a little, it's not hard to imagine Booker splitting votes with Harris, giving Gillibrand the opening she needs to consolidate support as a compromise candidate for the moderates and progressives.  If Gillibrand gets the nomination, Booker is an obvious veep pick, and boom, he's one step away from the presidency.

I agree with most of this except for the Gillibrand part. Out of all the major candidates in the primary, she's the least likely to win. Hell, Bloomberg is doing better in NY than her.

[Heebie Jeebie]

If Beto will run, it will be social media hype contest between her and O'Rourke and Biden (who isn't prone to social media) may be not able to find oneself in it.

Beto is all sizzle, no steak.  Running in a crowded Democratic primary isn't the same as being the only alternative to Ted Cruz--if Beto does decide to run, his campaign will implode as soon as voters get a sense of how vacuous his candidacy is.  And Biden has more unchecked baggage than a Southwest airline--imagine all the problems Hilary's campaign couldn't shake and multiply those by ten.

[Heebie Jeebie]

I agree with most of this except for the Gillibrand part. Out of all the major candidates in the primary, she's the least likely to win. Hell, Bloomberg is doing better in NY than her.

Strictly a matter of name recognition at this point.  I don't think Gillibrand is the most likely nominee or anything, but weird things can happen of the course of a year-long campaign.  If some unforeseen scandal or tragedy tanks Harris or the other front-runners, Gillibrand should be well positioned to step up.  And really, even now, Gillibrand is a stronger candidate than most people recognize--she's mostly acceptable to all wings of the party and she's got the resources available to run an aggressive campaign.  If she can maintain a presence without alienating any of the important Democratic constituencies, she has pretty good odds.

[DrScholl]

Kamala Harris would probably have one of the better chances, out of the candidates who have a serious shot at winning the Democratic nomination, of defeating Trump in the general election. However, she is not the most impressive or the best candidate who could be nominated. Her decision to announce her run on MLK Day was deliberate, part of her effort to become the "female Obama".

Criticism has been made of her record as California Attorney General, and she would continue the Democratic Party's trend towards social liberalism and identity politics, sacrificing what should be a more substantive focus on matters of policy and of governance. There's also the matter of how she got to her political position. Overall, my hope is that Democrats nominate someone other than her, someone who can appeal to the electorate and present the best counterargument against Trump.

What exactly does that mean? I have an idea, but I want to see if you are bold enough to actually sacrifice your "moderate" profile to say it.

You know what I'm talking about. She's done things that people like Hillary Clinton overlooked, to advance her own political career. Women who degrade themselves in such a manner are not due our respect.

You, sir, are trash.

That's putting it mildly.

[Calthrina950]

Why were my posts deleted? Is it out of place to point out the flaws inherent with this woman's candidacy. Or are we not allowed to do that? I guess not.

[DrScholl]

Why were my posts deleted? Is it out of place to point out the flaws inherent with this woman's candidacy. Or are we not allowed to do that? I guess not.

Because of what you were implying. I had a post deleted for referencing the line of attack that some people are planning to use against Harris, because it was deemed inappropriate. It is clearly an inappropriate line of attack.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

I think Kamala has united Black support, there's no reason for Booker to run.

Booker is still young, so at the very least a competitive run in 2020 further establishes him as a leader in the party and maybe sets up a more successful run down the road. 

What's more, if we game this out a little, it's not hard to imagine Booker splitting votes with Harris, giving Gillibrand the opening she needs to consolidate support as a compromise candidate for the moderates and progressives.  If Gillibrand gets the nomination, Booker is an obvious veep pick, and boom, he's one step away from the presidency.

I agree with most of this except for the Gillibrand part. Out of all the major candidates in the primary, she's the least likely to win. Hell, Bloomberg is doing better in NY than her.

What? I don't think Gillibrand will get the nomination but Bloomberg is not going to do better than her in New York State.

That's ridiculous.

[Calthrina950]

Why were my posts deleted? Is it out of place to point out the flaws inherent with this woman's candidacy. Or are we not allowed to do that? I guess not.

Because of what you were implying. I had a post deleted for referencing the line of attack that some people are planning to use against Harris, because it was deemed inappropriate. It is clearly an inappropriate line of attack.

Is it really? Given what was said about both Clintons (and justly so), and given Trump's controversies, it's not far-fetched, But I guess that such criticisms can't be levied against the favorite candidate of the moment.

[Reaganfan]

Why were my posts deleted? Is it out of place to point out the flaws inherent with this woman's candidacy. Or are we not allowed to do that? I guess not.

Because of what you were implying. I had a post deleted for referencing the line of attack that some people are planning to use against Harris, because it was deemed inappropriate. It is clearly an inappropriate line of attack.

Is it really? Given what was said about both Clintons (and justly so), and given Trump's controversies, it's not far-fetched, But I guess that such criticisms can't be levied against the favorite candidate of the moment.

I think this is why conservatives are always underrepresented in polling. Perhaps our answers are too "honest" and "politically incorrect."

That's okay buddy. Just keep quiet until you go vote, then we'll get to have our opinions openly expressed.

[Calthrina950]

Why were my posts deleted? Is it out of place to point out the flaws inherent with this woman's candidacy. Or are we not allowed to do that? I guess not.

Because of what you were implying. I had a post deleted for referencing the line of attack that some people are planning to use against Harris, because it was deemed inappropriate. It is clearly an inappropriate line of attack.

Is it really? Given what was said about both Clintons (and justly so), and given Trump's controversies, it's not far-fetched, But I guess that such criticisms can't be levied against the favorite candidate of the moment.

I think this is why conservatives are always underrepresented in polling. Perhaps our answers are too "honest" and "politically incorrect."

That's okay buddy. Just keep quiet until you go vote, then we'll get to have our opinions openly expressed.

Being on this website has definitely pushed me farther to the right, much as I wouldn't like to admit. But given how most people on here have treated me, it shouldn't be as much a surprise as one would think.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Why were my posts deleted? Is it out of place to point out the flaws inherent with this woman's candidacy. Or are we not allowed to do that? I guess not.

Because of what you were implying. I had a post deleted for referencing the line of attack that some people are planning to use against Harris, because it was deemed inappropriate. It is clearly an inappropriate line of attack.

Is it really? Given what was said about both Clintons (and justly so), and given Trump's controversies, it's not far-fetched, But I guess that such criticisms can't be levied against the favorite candidate of the moment.

No, it's not legitimate to imply that in any way because you have 0 proof. There's a reason libel is illegal.

But there's no use discussing this with you, because it's clear- the only reason to imply that about a candidate soley because she's a woman (just like Trump, who implied the same about Kirsten Gillibrand) is being a mysoginistic a trash of a human being, and as Invisible Obama correctly said- that's putting it mildly.

[Calthrina950]

Why were my posts deleted? Is it out of place to point out the flaws inherent with this woman's candidacy. Or are we not allowed to do that? I guess not.

Because of what you were implying. I had a post deleted for referencing the line of attack that some people are planning to use against Harris, because it was deemed inappropriate. It is clearly an inappropriate line of attack.

Is it really? Given what was said about both Clintons (and justly so), and given Trump's controversies, it's not far-fetched, But I guess that such criticisms can't be levied against the favorite candidate of the moment.

No, it's not legitimate to imply that in any way because you have 0 proof. There's a reason libel is illegal.

But there's no use discussing this with you, because it's clear- the only reason to imply that about a candidate soley because she's a woman (just like Trump, who implied the same about Kirsten Gillibrand) is being a mysoginistic a trash of a human being, and as Invisible Obama correctly said- that's putting it mildly.

Many times, I laugh at the nonsense posted on the Internet, but especially some of the nonsense that gets posted on this forum. I saw your rant against Fuzzy Bear the other day, effectively calling him a "bad man" because of his sincere religious beliefs on issues such as gay rights and abortion. It's not surprising that you would do that again here. I've no respect for people who take advantage of others and give themselves up to advance their own political careers. And that holds true regardless of gender or of status. Harris and Gillibrand are both opportunists, and neither has a substantive policy agenda that would address the issues we are facing. A more serious candidate such as Klobuchar would be the best one for Democrats to nominate.

[Zaybay]

I think Kamala has united Black support, there's no reason for Booker to run.

Booker is still young, so at the very least a competitive run in 2020 further establishes him as a leader in the party and maybe sets up a more successful run down the road. 

What's more, if we game this out a little, it's not hard to imagine Booker splitting votes with Harris, giving Gillibrand the opening she needs to consolidate support as a compromise candidate for the moderates and progressives.  If Gillibrand gets the nomination, Booker is an obvious veep pick, and boom, he's one step away from the presidency.

I agree with most of this except for the Gillibrand part. Out of all the major candidates in the primary, she's the least likely to win. Hell, Bloomberg is doing better in NY than her.

What? I don't think Gillibrand will get the nomination but Bloomberg is not going to do better than her in New York State.

That's ridiculous.

Im just going off of polling from NY so far. Not my personal opinion. Gillibrand, according to 2020 NY polling, is losing to Bloomberg, for godknows what reason.

[Rookie Yinzer]

If Beto will run, it will be social media hype contest between her and O'Rourke and Biden (who isn't prone to social media) may be not able to find oneself in it.

Beto is all sizzle, no steak.  Running in a crowded Democratic primary isn't the same as being the only alternative to Ted Cruz--if Beto does decide to run, his campaign will implode as soon as voters get a sense of how vacuous his candidacy is.  And Biden has more unchecked baggage than a Southwest airline--imagine all the problems Hilary's campaign couldn't shake and multiply those by ten.

Unfortunately, I agree with Beto. He is so gimmicky and it’s almost becoming annoying. He still might be able to translate his shtick into votes to remain competitive but in a whittled down primary between him and Harris, I’d rather be Harris.

Biden is trash, and if he cares anything about preserving his legacy he would sit the hell down and let people born after V-Day have a shot.

[Zaybay]

She has a very clear path to the nomination.  In a race sans Beto and Biden, there's no way she doesn't sweep the states Clinton won in 2016.

If Beto will run, it will be social media hype contest between her and O'Rourke and Biden (who isn't prone to social media) may be not able to find oneself in it.

Biden isnt getting any social media traffic. Period. For a 3rd candidate, it would either be Sanders(who has a rather robust online following) or Harris(who has so far reached incredible levels of support online).

[Boobs]

Why were my posts deleted? Is it out of place to point out the flaws inherent with this woman's candidacy. Or are we not allowed to do that? I guess not.

Because of what you were implying. I had a post deleted for referencing the line of attack that some people are planning to use against Harris, because it was deemed inappropriate. It is clearly an inappropriate line of attack.

Is it really? Given what was said about both Clintons (and justly so), and given Trump's controversies, it's not far-fetched, But I guess that such criticisms can't be levied against the favorite candidate of the moment.

No, it's not legitimate to imply that in any way because you have 0 proof. There's a reason libel is illegal.

But there's no use discussing this with you, because it's clear- the only reason to imply that about a candidate soley because she's a woman (just like Trump, who implied the same about Kirsten Gillibrand) is being a mysoginistic a trash of a human being, and as Invisible Obama correctly said- that's putting it mildly.

Many times, I laugh at the nonsense posted on the Internet, but especially some of the nonsense that gets posted on this forum. I saw your rant against Fuzzy Bear the other day, effectively calling him a "bad man" because of his sincere religious beliefs on issues such as gay rights and abortion. It's not surprising that you would do that again here. I've no respect for people who take advantage of others and give themselves up to advance their own political careers. And that holds true regardless of gender or of status. Harris and Gillibrand are both opportunists, and neither has a substantive policy agenda that would address the issues we are facing. A more serious candidate such as Klobuchar would be the best one for Democrats to nominate.

the most ludicrous thing I've read so far is the insinuation that you have ever posted anything of value to this forum – it's always either ridiculously meaningless hand-wringing about "decorum" or some sort of elementary-level political "analysis" that's actually just parroting basic observations about an election instead of actually providing any meaningful insights. At least now you've moved on to something interesting, attempting to defame political candidates with insinuations of exchanging sexual favors for political gain, but, once again, this is probably something most people don't really care to read. The most hilarious thing, however, is now that you so fully believe these unsubstantiated rumors that you claim that both Harris and Gillibrand are inadequate candidates because they slept their way to the top, proving once again that you may actually have the worst political instincts of anyone on this forum.

I don't believe attacking Parrotguy is going to be very fruitful for you, either, since he's actually made an attempt at making friends around here. Apparently you're supposed to be 100% alright when people invalidate your existence as long as their beliefs in doing so are sincere and religious. So, from the core of my sincere, religious beliefs: you are the densest person to have ever had the misfortune of stumbling onto this website.