Could a coastal "supposed" elite from CA like K.Harris win the GE & rural areas?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why would a rural voter support Kamala Harris?

[Mr. Smith]

Why would a rural voter support Kamala Harris?

A black belt person stands much to gain with her criminal justice stances, an Iron Range or Midwesterner stands much to gain from her decidedly leftist economics, if she keeps Californian environmental standards, then she'll easily outdo Hillary on the Native American vote.

A failure on Trump's part to get all the jobs back, too much controversy on Jeff Sessions, too much pollution from and land degradation from Keystone and these elements could do him in in these rural areas with those blocs.

Obviously everything would have to be postured just right, which makes the whole thing improbable, but certainly not impossible.

So begs the question once again: Which rural areas?

[Mr. Morden]

A black belt person stands much to gain with her criminal justice stances....

Couldn't a black belt fight crime on his own using his karate skills?


[/joke]

[Mr. Smith]

A Black Belt person stands much to gain with her criminal justice stances....

Couldn't a black belt fight crime on his own using his karate skills?


[/joke]

Walked right into that one.

[RaphaelDLG]

No which is why she shouldn't run in 2020 she is better off as a future AG for the den who does best Trump in 2020

Not if she's captured by Big Finance.  You need an AG who will go hard at BOTH racists and bankers - somebody like Spitzer, Preet Bahara, etc (unlike Holder, Lynch, etc)

[tallguy23]

The idea that we need a white, rural male to win in 2020 is ridiculous. The GOP thought they needed a young, minority candidate and look what happened.

[InheritTheWind]

The idea that we need a white, rural male to win in 2020 is ridiculous. The GOP thought they needed a young, minority candidate and look what happened.

It's the exact same thing that happened after 2004. Everyone thought that Mark Warner or Evan Bayh would be the only viable candidates for the Democrats in 2008. Then some black guy from Chicago came around, and all of that went out the window.

You think a rich, coastal elite can't win the White House? Look who's the President right now. It's all about messaging. Someone like Kamala Harris or Cory Booker isn't DOA just because of where they're from. The success (or failure) of the next Democratic nominee for president will not be because they come from Hardscrabble, Ohio or wherever, but it will be measured by how well they are able to connect with the white working class. Of course, it's easier for a white, rural male to do it, but Obama and Trump were anything but that and they still managed to win that group over.

[Technocracy Timmy]

The idea that we need a white, rural male to win in 2020 is ridiculous. The GOP thought they needed a young, minority candidate and look what happened.

I agree HOWEVER,

A lot of people apply this logic to age. I keep hearing that because Carter, Clinton, and Obama were all younger than 54 when they got elected then that's what's needed to win (a young person) especially with millennials and all that. I think that's nonsense. Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders proved that you don't need to be hip and young to win over millennials; in fact trying too hard to be cool will likely backfire.

[Mr. Smith]

The idea that we need a white, rural male to win in 2020 is ridiculous. The GOP thought they needed a young, minority candidate and look what happened.

I agree HOWEVER,

A lot of people apply this logic to age. I keep hearing that because Carter, Clinton, and Obama were all younger than 54 when they got elected then that's what's needed to win (a young person) especially with millennials and all that. I think that's nonsense. Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders proved that you don't need to be hip and young to win over millennials; in fact trying too hard to be cool will likely backfire.

Not to mention that Al Gore and George McGovern were younger than 54 as well.

Meanwhile Hillary probably would've flipped NC, AZ, GA, and held up the Midwest with just one more week and she was 69, and she still did better than Gore [below 54 once again] in raw numbers and percentages.

[Figueira]

Why would a rural voter support Kamala Harris?

I would vote for Kamala Harris because I prefer her political positions to those of Donald Trump.

[Figueira]

The idea that we need a white, rural male to win in 2020 is ridiculous. The GOP thought they needed a young, minority candidate and look what happened.

I agree HOWEVER,

A lot of people apply this logic to age. I keep hearing that because Carter, Clinton, and Obama were all younger than 54 when they got elected then that's what's needed to win (a young person) especially with millennials and all that. I think that's nonsense. Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders proved that you don't need to be hip and young to win over millennials; in fact trying too hard to be cool will likely backfire.

The reason why young candidates are better isn't because they can "win over millennials."

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why would a rural voter support Kamala Harris?

I would vote for Kamala Harris because I prefer her political positions to those of Donald Trump.

Rural voters would vote for Donald Trump because they would prefer her political positions to those of Kamala Harris, would they not?

[Figueira]

Why would a rural voter support Kamala Harris?

I would vote for Kamala Harris because I prefer her political positions to those of Donald Trump.

Rural voters would vote for Donald Trump because they would prefer her political positions to those of Kamala Harris, would they not?

I am a rural voter.

Yes, you're correct that most rural voters would vote for Trump, and that's true regardless of who the Democrat is, but it's all relative. Harris doesn't strike me as an especially strong candidate for winning more rural voters than Clinton (aside from rural African-Americans) but you never know.

[Technocracy Timmy]

The idea that we need a white, rural male to win in 2020 is ridiculous. The GOP thought they needed a young, minority candidate and look what happened.

I agree HOWEVER,

A lot of people apply this logic to age. I keep hearing that because Carter, Clinton, and Obama were all younger than 54 when they got elected then that's what's needed to win (a young person) especially with millennials and all that. I think that's nonsense. Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders proved that you don't need to be hip and young to win over millennials; in fact trying too hard to be cool will likely backfire.

The reason why young candidates are better isn't because they can "win over millennials."

Then what's with the fixation over the youth of Obama, Clinton, and Carter? There's this sentiment that the Democrats need to run a young candidate to win and I don't think that's true at all.

I don't care how old the Democratic nominee is. I don't care if they're born in 1950 or 1980.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The idea that we need a white, rural male to win in 2020 is ridiculous. The GOP thought they needed a young, minority candidate and look what happened.

I agree HOWEVER,

A lot of people apply this logic to age. I keep hearing that because Carter, Clinton, and Obama were all younger than 54 when they got elected then that's what's needed to win (a young person) especially with millennials and all that. I think that's nonsense. Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders proved that you don't need to be hip and young to win over millennials; in fact trying too hard to be cool will likely backfire.

The reason why young candidates are better isn't because they can "win over millennials."

Then what's with the fixation over the youth of Obama, Clinton, and Carter? There's this sentiment that the Democrats need to run a young candidate to win and I don't think that's true at all.

I don't care how old the Democratic nominee is. I don't care if they're born in 1950 or 1980.

Obama, Carter, and Clinton weren't big deals because they were "young".  Obama was a big deal because he was black (actually, he is bi-racial).  Carter and Clinton were big deals because they were Southern Governors who took some conservative postures and were viewed as candidates who could help the Democrats recapture at least some of the Southern states, and because they were Governors without the kind of liberal Congressional voting records and statements that boxed them into a liberal box.

[Illini Moderate]

Kamala Harris is a lot more charismatic than Hillary. She's also not a multimillionaire. So I think she could combat the "coastal elite" type well. As for winning in rural areas, it depends on how Trump does with his promise to "bring back all the jobs". I don't see him succeeding to much because I think he has proven he is mostly all talk by now. He also doesn't seem to understand the actual reasons why the jobs left in the first place. If K Harris can come off as relatable and down to Earth, while have a good, strong message on jobs, she could pick up some rural areas. Still she would probably lose most. I could see her possibly winning back Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania though

[SoLongAtlas]

Not to sound prejudiced or anything but Kamala Harris is a liberal, black woman from California. If you have lived in rural areas or understand them, you will know that she stands no chance due to sheer political factors that still linger in those areas, demography, overwhelmingly white majorities outside of the BB. It would be the Michelle Obama magazine cover from 2008 every week if she was the Dem nominee.

[Figueira]

Not to sound prejudiced or anything but Kamala Harris is a liberal, black woman from California. If you have lived in rural areas or understand them, you will know that she stands no chance due to sheer political factors that still linger in those areas, demography, overwhelmingly white majorities outside of the BB. It would be the Michelle Obama magazine cover from 2008 every week if she was the Dem nominee.

They voted for Obama; I don't see why voting for Harris would be that big of a jump. Plus there's the other side of the equation which is how popular Trump is in these areas.