Kamala Harris 2020 campaign megathread

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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.

What you say about Parrotguy is false. He's no different from the vast majority of posters here, attacking anyone who does not adhere to a strictly liberal line on the issues. And far be it for you to say that I've made no "contributions of value" to this website. Even if I provided the best political analysis that could be offered anywhere, I would still be pilloried because I don't abide by everything that the majority of the people on this website believe in, and are passionate about. Moreover, "unsubstantiated rumors" is a phrase that could be said about the Clinton accusations, or the Trump accusations. Just the hint of impropriety, seems, to me, to disqualify an individual. And nowhere did I say that Gillibrand engaged in the same kind of behavior. I meant to say that she is a blatant opportunist, shifting her positions as the political headwinds dictate.

Please direct me to a single (1) post of yours that you believe actually contributed something of value.

Why should I waste my time satisfying you? No matter what I produce, you would still adhere to the same positions.

snip

Well, you'll never get a girlfriend with that attitude.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Another random fact: If she's elected, we would have one President of the United States born on the exact same date than another one died: Kamala Harris was born on October 20, 1964. On this day, Herbert Hoover, another president from California, passed away.

Hopefully not Hoover reborn

She could be. We will have to see. My hope is that Harris gets defeated in the Democratic primary. As I've outlined above, she is not deserving of the highest office in the land.

You being a misogynist does not make Harris unfit for office. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Kamala Harris assembles campaign staff of unpaid California prison laborers

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, this is a satirical piece by The Onion. But, I bet most of you initially clicked this thread not that surprised by the allegations.

You win Atlas for the day

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

She has the most potential to be the Marco Rubio of the Dem field, someone who looks good theoretically on paper and should do well with certain groups but utterly flops on the debate stage or the trail. There's also a decent chance she could lose her home state.

That,s Booker, but she is not that far off.

Yeah, I would also say Booker (he's more charismatic than KH), and so was and is Rubio. KH lacks charisma a bit (she's like Heather Dunbar from "House of Cards"), but she makes up lacks of charisma with her media and donors (small) hype.

Err...that $1.5 million came from 38 donors (over $30,740 per-person) IIRC.  Not exactly what I’d call small donors

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If Clintons want her as a frontrunner, that is good.

You really want that second term for Trump?

If he wanted that then he would have supported Tulsi Gabbard.

Or Harris.  Trump would beat her.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The speech has concluded. I swear to God this woman is going to win it all.

If she does, then we're gonna have another four years of Donald Trump.  Fortunately, I doubt she'll be the nominee.  Of course, it wouldn't be the first time Democrats blew a presidential election against Donald Trump by nominating a horrible candidate.   

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The speech has concluded. I swear to God this woman is going to win it all.

If she does, then we're gonna have another four years of Donald Trump.  Fortunately, I doubt she'll be the nominee.  Of course, it wouldn't be the first time Democrats blew a presidential election against Donald Trump by nominating a horrible candidate.   

Harris has some flaws, but to say she is an outright horrible candidate is ridiculous. I'm giving all the candidates a chance, but you can't make all these judgments this early in the race.

She'd get killed in the Midwest and a Democrat who can't win Michigan can't beat Trump.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The speech has concluded. I swear to God this woman is going to win it all.

If she does, then we're gonna have another four years of Donald Trump.  Fortunately, I doubt she'll be the nominee.  Of course, it wouldn't be the first time Democrats blew a presidential election against Donald Trump by nominating a horrible candidate.   

Harris has some flaws, but to say she is an outright horrible candidate is ridiculous. I'm giving all the candidates a chance, but you can't make all these judgments this early in the race.

She'd get killed in the Midwest and a Democrat who can't win Michigan can't beat Trump.

Minorities make up 8% of the vote in MI, WI, PA. The only state she will trouble with is OH. Dems can win IA.  The Midwest, margin of victory are in DTW, CHICAGI and MLK

She'd lose Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and get steamrolled in Ohio.  I think Harris would win Pennsylvania though (because most Democrats would likely beat Trump by somewhere in the neighborhood of 8-12% there; PA was one of the epicenters of the wave in 2018 which was basically a high Democratic turnout vs. high Trumpist turnout election).

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The speech has concluded. I swear to God this woman is going to win it all.

If she does, then we're gonna have another four years of Donald Trump.  Fortunately, I doubt she'll be the nominee.  Of course, it wouldn't be the first time Democrats blew a presidential election against Donald Trump by nominating a horrible candidate.   

Harris has some flaws, but to say she is an outright horrible candidate is ridiculous. I'm giving all the candidates a chance, but you can't make all these judgments this early in the race.

She'd get killed in the Midwest and a Democrat who can't win Michigan can't beat Trump.

Minorities make up 8% of the vote in MI, WI, PA. The only state she will trouble with is OH. Dems can win IA.  The Midwest, margin of victory are in DTW, CHICAGI and MLK

She'd lose Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and get steamrolled in Ohio.  I think Harris would win Pennsylvania though (because most Democrats would likely beat Trump by somewhere in the neighborhood of 8-12% there; PA was one of the epicenters of the wave in 2018 which was basically a high Democratic turnout vs. high Trumpist turnout election).

Obama is the same skin color as Harris and he won, plus she is beating Trump in polls

The reasons she won't play well in the midwest have little to do with her skin color

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'd like to note that Harris' campaign chairwoman is the person in charge of crafting a policy agenda (so-called) for Hillary's 2016 campaign.  Talk about failing upward

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'd like to note that Harris' campaign chairwoman is the person in charge of crafting a policy agenda (so-called) for Hillary's 2016 campaign.  Talk about failing upward

Well it’s also her sister.

Hooray for nepotism

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I saw parts her speech. It was a good speech and I hope she continues to address criminal justice in a proper way.

She's my likely choice as of now.

I mean, she fought to keep an innocent man behind bars for pretty much no reason

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

jdb is pissed Harris's launch was a massive success )

I remember when people said I was just pissed because Hillary was gonna be the Democratic nominee instead of Sanders.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Erm, we really gonna scream nepotism over someone putting a family member on their campaign staff?

That part was a joke, I'm more worried by the general swarm of Clintonworld types that have swarmed the Harris campaign like ants on a decaying carcass.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Kamala Harris has a lot of problems. She isn't really that progressive, she already seems to have lost a lot of black youth from what I'm seeing. Democrats need to juice turnout and she's not the one to do o IMO. This is not the candidate Democrats need if they want to win. She doesn't have any natural base. She also seems like she would repel Midwest voters.
 
 I think if she gets black female support she could win the primary but her candidacy seems to be arranged by wealthy donors more than having any kind of grassroots momentum.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=312294.0

How could I forget Harris' popularity in the crucial swing state of Oakland.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

First Kamala's 20,000+ crowd didn't count because it was too white and now it doesn't count because it's in Oakland. Yet the same people went nuts when Ojeda announced in front of 10 people in a cafeteria.

Ojeda's running?  Why?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/Newsweek/status/1090207952760393728

Whatever that means

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Can we give the maroon avs their own "Kamala Derangement Megathread" So they don't keep spamming the 2020 Forum with individual articles?

Does this mean we can also quarantine the Hillary Hacks for Harris?  That way you guys could have your own private echo chamber thread devoid of any discussion about Harris’ record as CA AG or lack of any substantial accomplishments during her time in the Senate. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Trump would defeat her soundly. Dems do not have a consensus unifying candidate in 2020.

Trump will not win solidly against anyone. Half the country hates his guts and he's one of the most unpopular presidents we've ever had! He won in 2016 against someone who was hated equally(or perhaps more) then he was! If Sanders, Biden or someone else had been the nominee, Trump would have lost in 2016
I'm not saying he can't win, but he's not going to win in a "Landslide" even against a weak candidate like Booker or Warren

Hillary Clinton was not always “hated equally.” And you say it as if it was her fault. But the truth is, Trump will have some degree of success doing this to any nominee, particularly any nominee that comes with the added and unfortunate disadvantage of facing mysoginistic double standards. The only question is whether his degree of success with it will be enough. But don’t expect a Democratic president to begin their term with much goodwill or benefit of the doubt. Trump will see to that.

I mean, in many ways it is Hillary's fault that so many folks hate her.  Bill's worse, but the Clinton's embody about 2/3 of what is wrong with the Democratic Party.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Harris is a nothingburger. She’s going nowhere

I don't like Harris but this has got to be one of the most out of touch comments on this entire forum.

Lest we forget, generally this forum has been out of touch with the average voter.

Yeah, being surrounded by out-of-touch #HotTakes kinda comes with the territory if you post on Atlas.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Not sure why people are pushing that Kamala is a national figure. Yes, is she one of the better known national dems? Sure, but still not a lot. Just look at all of the polls going on -- even her score of "Don't Know" is still pretty high among even DEMOCRATS, let alone all voters.

Her candidacy and supposed popularity is more of a media creation than anything else.  Besides being an identity politics candidate from the most "coastal elitist" city in the country (besides NYC of course), what does she have to offer as a future President?

Is anyone who’s not a white male going to be referred to as an identity politics candidate? Are non-white, non-male candidates not supposed to speak about how their experience as a part of a historically marginalized community has shaped their perspectives on issues?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

First Scrooge McSanders, now Yosemite Kam!

The Hill: Kamala Harris: 'I am a gun owner' for personal protection

I bet she also enjoys hunting small varmints.  

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Does that make Democrats feel good about Harris? Someone who will position themselves as more of a neocon than Trump on North Korea and Russia?

Literally all the things she listed are widely agreed upon in America despite foreign policy ideology.

And all of them are neocons

Pretty sure Gabbard and Sanders also think climate change is a crisis, think Kim Jung un is a murderous dictator, and don't trust Russia.

Gabbard is a Russia shill and Bernie definitely has a blind spot regarding left-wing authoritarianism.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Does that make Democrats feel good about Harris? Someone who will position themselves as more of a neocon than Trump on North Korea and Russia?

Literally all the things she listed are widely agreed upon in America despite foreign policy ideology.

And all of them are neocons

Pretty sure Gabbard and Sanders also think climate change is a crisis, think Kim Jung un is a murderous dictator, and don't trust Russia.

Gabbard is a Russia shill and Bernie definitely has a blind spot regarding left-wing authoritarianism.

Lol you think Sanders supports Kim Jong Un?

Lol you think that is what my post says?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Does that make Democrats feel good about Harris? Someone who will position themselves as more of a neocon than Trump on North Korea and Russia?

Literally all the things she listed are widely agreed upon in America despite foreign policy ideology.

And all of them are neocons

Pretty sure Gabbard and Sanders also think climate change is a crisis, think Kim Jung un is a murderous dictator, and don't trust Russia.

Gabbard is a Russia shill and Bernie definitely has a blind spot regarding left-wing authoritarianism.

Lol you think Sanders supports Kim Jong Un?

Lol you think that is what my post says?

I don't see what else you could be implying with the bolded section

That Sanders is generally reluctant to condemn left-wing authoritarianism in countries like Cuba and Venezuela?