Are Republicans underestimating Kamala Harris?

[Ogre Mage]

The Republican Party always underestimates us.  I've been around for a while and to hear them tell it at the time, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were total frauds with no political talent.

I do not know if the Republican underestimation of Kamala Harris is more than usual.  But she is very underestimated on Atlas.  This site is largely male and Hillary Clinton suffered similar treatment.

The people who "underestimated" Hillary Clinton were right, look at how she did in 2016.

So Harris is fated to suffer the same fate as Hillary because why?

In my lifetime, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry also lost the presidency.  And Al Gore "lost."

[The Houstonian]

The Republican Party always underestimates us.  I've been around for a while and to hear them tell it at the time, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were total frauds with no political talent.

I do not know if the Republican underestimation of Kamala Harris is more than usual.  But she is very underestimated on Atlas.  This site is largely male and Hillary Clinton suffered similar treatment.

The people who "underestimated" Hillary Clinton were right, look at how she did in 2016.

So Harris is fated to suffer the same fate as Hillary because why?

All I said is that the people who "underestimated" Hillary were right, so your question is based on a false premise.

[Mr. Smith]

She ran what was probably the worst presidential campaign of 2020

The near worst 1988 and 2008 campaigns were run by the current POTUS.

[Ogre Mage]

The Republican Party always underestimates us.  I've been around for a while and to hear them tell it at the time, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were total frauds with no political talent.

I do not know if the Republican underestimation of Kamala Harris is more than usual.  But she is very underestimated on Atlas.  This site is largely male and Hillary Clinton suffered similar treatment.

The people who "underestimated" Hillary Clinton were right, look at how she did in 2016.

So Harris is fated to suffer the same fate as Hillary because why?

All I said is that the people who "underestimated" Hillary were right, so your question is based on a false premise.

Well let me rephrase.  If Harris is nominated do you think she will lose?  If so, why?

[SN2903]

No she would be a weak candidate as presidential nominee.

[The Houstonian]

The Republican Party always underestimates us.  I've been around for a while and to hear them tell it at the time, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were total frauds with no political talent.

I do not know if the Republican underestimation of Kamala Harris is more than usual.  But she is very underestimated on Atlas.  This site is largely male and Hillary Clinton suffered similar treatment.

The people who "underestimated" Hillary Clinton were right, look at how she did in 2016.

So Harris is fated to suffer the same fate as Hillary because why?

All I said is that the people who "underestimated" Hillary were right, so your question is based on a false premise.

Well let me rephrase.  If Harris is nominated do you think she will lose?  If so, why?

That depends on the next 4/8 years.

[ultraviolet]

She ran what was probably the worst presidential campaign of 2020

Gillibrand exists.

Expectations for Harris were much higher, though

Biden ran 2 terrible primary presidential campaigns and he did just fine in the general.

Biden was not expected to perform well in his second presidential campaign, and seeing as he was picked as the running mate, it was a success. He also learned a lot more in 32 years than Kamala will learn in 4 or 8.

So Harris’s campaign was also successful then? Just saying, a bad short primary campaign four years ago doesn’t really matter. Does anyone think Biden ran a good campaign in the primary? And look how he did in the general

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No she would be a weak candidate as presidential nominee.

Biden is Prez and he is running, not Harris unless he says otherwise, so afraid to face Biden again due to fact you know Rs will lose. That's why Rs light up this board with Harris v R maps, not Biden v R maps

[roxas11]

many of the republicans are letting it slip that they believe that economy is actually going to be doing very well by 2024 and that is the reason why they say they current do not support Biden stimulus bill. The CBO projects that employment is expected to return to pre-pandemic levels by 2024....

Heck pat toomey said this not to long ago

"The economy will come roaring back. Disposable income is at record high levels," Toomey said. "It's not an economy in collapse, like it was in March."


If this turn out to be true than than Yes The GOP really are underestimating Harris  
The fact is If Harris is riding a great economy she will be very hard to Beat in 2024.

Its not impossible for the GOP to win but I would much rather be Harris than Republicans who will be running against her

[Shaula🏳️‍⚧️]

I think that Harris fails to clear the bar that Barack Obama met - i.e. charismatic candidate who can single-handedly expand the party's coalition through force of personality and creative campaigning - but that's not exactly a fair standard. None of the younger candidates who ran in 2020 met it and it's not clear that any other young Democrat who might be ready to run in 2024 would either.

<cough>Andrew Yang<cough>

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

I think that Harris fails to clear the bar that Barack Obama met - i.e. charismatic candidate who can single-handedly expand the party's coalition through force of personality and creative campaigning - but that's not exactly a fair standard. None of the younger candidates who ran in 2020 met it and it's not clear that any other young Democrat who might be ready to run in 2024 would either.

<cough>Andrew Yang<cough>

why do people think he is magically electable is beyond me.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

I think so. The GOP did not fixate on her nearly as much as I thought they would try to during the 2020 campaign.

[wbrocks67]

I think so. The GOP did not fixate on her nearly as much as I thought they would try to during the 2020 campaign.

because they didn't really have anything. all of their attacks were flimsy as hell.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

They want to run against a Hillary 2.0 candidate and they think Harris is the one, but Hillary wouldn't have lost in 2008, since she had no scandal, Harris would be Hillary 2008 version without scandal

[AlterEgo]

A lot of the attacks on Kamala Harris remind me of the Democratic attacks on the supposedly uninspiring Republican Senate incumbents this year. Remember how Joni Ernst alienated the soybean farmers? Or how Roger Marshall might not win over enough Trump voters? I don't think there would be enough Biden voters refusing to vote for Harris to matter, especially with potential incumbency advantages and four more years of demographic change.

Theses aren’t comparable

I think they're very comparable. Last year I read (and sometimes wrote) post after post discussing candidate quality and how all these weak candidates were vulnerable because they were uncharismatic or they had alienated the base over some vague misstep only to see pretty much all of these candidates go on to win.

It's mostly about partisanship and the quality of a campaign. If Harris runs a horrible campaign in 2024 that doesn't appeal to the right voters, then she may lose. If she is perceived as terribly mishandling an important issue right before the election, then she may lose. But if she loses I will bet money that it won't be because she's "unlikable" or because of an ancient scandal from the 90s or 00s. Biden voters aren't going to vote Republican because of weed convictions from 2004 the same way that Trump voters didn't support Greenfield because of Ernst not knowing about soybeans.

I think you're fundamentally correct. The trouble for Harris isn't that different from the trouble that any other successor to Biden will face. Biden won a narrow electoral college victory. That victory depended on moderates and other marginal voters who won't necessarily turn out to vote against a non-Trump Republican. There's also some evidence that Biden won voters that any younger nominee would struggle to retain.

I think that Harris fails to clear the bar that Barack Obama met - i.e. charismatic candidate who can single-handedly expand the party's coalition through force of personality and creative campaigning - but that's not exactly a fair standard. None of the younger candidates who ran in 2020 met it and it's not clear that any other young Democrat who might be ready to run in 2024 would either.

So if Trump isn't on the ballot:

The marginal voters who turned out to vote against Trump aren't going to turn out (I agree), but the marginal voters who turned out to vote for Trump are going to turn out?

[Motorcity]

Considering the most electable canidate barely won, I don't think a black women can win. I hate to say it I really do

I live in Tennssee. There was immense hate for Obama and especially Hillary. Biden not so much actually. Don't get me wrong they don't like him and are ignored he won but I barely hear his name that much.

But I do hear a lot of hatred towards Harris and somewhat Pelosi and AOC.

Basically, I see Harris as "Hillary 2.0". If she runs on a platform of "its her turn" or "making history", she will lose. No one cares about making history or who is next in line. Otherwise Hillary or Jeb! would be president.

People only vote for people who they think will improve their lives or are simply voting aganist the other guy. That's it.

The reason Harris's primary campaign was a dumpster fire and went no where was because her whole sticking point was "I'll be the first women POC president"

Ok, who cares? I would love to see a women president but I will never vote on somone because they are a male or female.

That is why I am worried that Harris is being groomed as Biden's successor. She would be weak in the general. Plus the idea that she is groomed for a coronation turns people off.

[Motorcity]

I can only imagine why Harris has so much vitriol on this forum - oh right, it's mostly guys here.

Thats's not why

Harris entire primary campaign was based on the idea of "pick men because I'm a women POC"

Her platform was unclear and changed freqently, which shows she stood for nothing. She never ran on her experience or electablity. Not a single person watching those debates came out thinking "Harris truly thinks she is the best person for job". Harris was running to be VP, that's it. If she caught fire, great. But otherwise it was obvious to most people that she ran for President because she wanted to be President, not because she thought she was the best person for the job. Same with Buttigieg

I personally think that Biden, Sanders, and Warren truly belived they were best for the job. And as much as I detest the guy, Bloomberg.

I think Harris, Booker, Buttigieg, Gabbard, Bullock, and Gillibrand just wanted to be VP, cabinet, sell a book, or prepare for a future run. Not because they thought they were best. I don't think Yangh expected to get anywhere but hoped his ideas would become mainstream. 

That is why I advocated for the DNC to limit the debates to only the top 5 after the first debate.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What everyone seems to be underestimating is Biden's chances of running for reelection in 2024.