Why do Atlas Dems keep talking about Kamala Harris as a potential candidate?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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?

[Bigby]

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.

[DC Al Fine]

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.

Partially this, partially because the Dem bench is so weak. How many Governors or Senators do they have from bigish purple states?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Ethnicity.

Hey, it's a valid approach.

[bagelman]

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.

Unfortunately this is quite true for a portion of Democrats.

However, she is kind of reminiscent of Obama, who became President after only 4 years in the senate. Harris would have the same qualifications or more than Obama in 2020.

[Figueira]

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?

What is it with this assumption that Keith Ellison has no qualifications?

[Mr. Smith]

If Obama were a bit more straightforward, less apologetic, but also a bit more guarded and bottled-up, you'd get her.

[Mr. Morden]

Obama thinks she's attractive --> she's the next Obama

[America Needs R'hllor]

She was AG and had a progresssive record, so she should be able to get both wings of the Democratic party aboard if she chooses a VP from the Sanders wing, like Sherrod Brown. Also, she could remind people of Obama.
And regarding what you said of Keith Ellison, personally I don't support him unless he resigns from Congress, but you can't say the hype about him is in any way related to his race or religion. The hype is because he's from the Sanders wing, and many believe that this is the approach the Democratic party should be taking to win in 2018 and 2020.

[publicunofficial]

Most of the Democrats with long records and have done something, also have the personality of a wet blanket.

[Maxwell]

I've explained why I like Harris, I'm not going to re-explain myself other than a simple refrain: She's a liberal powerhouse, and can potentially bring back enthusiasm for Democrats. If Democrats were merely talking about checking boxes, then Tammy Baldwin, Tammy Duckworth, Kate Brown, Pramila Jayapal, and many others would have first priority ahead of Harris. Notice how none of those people are discussed as candidates? There's a reason Harris is talked about besides "identity politics".

Harris is a million times more likely than Jim Justice, Brian Schweitzer, Amy Klobuchar, or whoever wet blanket white candidate Atlas has fallen in love with because they've decided to over-correct from "we need a diverse palet" to "IDENTITY POLITICS AHHH".

[RI]

Same reason Rubio was talked up.

[Green Line]

She's a young black.  At this point that makes her the frontrunner.

[Lief 🗽]

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.

[anthonyjg]

I agree with Maxwell. Personally, I think she's a little overrated and I would much prefer to see Warren leading the ticket in 2020. However, there are more reasons to like Harris beyond identity politics.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     She's someone who was born to climb the ladder.

[Kingpoleon]

She was AG and had a progresssive record, so she should be able to get both wings of the Democratic party aboard if she chooses a VP from the Sanders wing, like Sherrod Brown. Also, she could remind people of Obama.

Harris is pretty close to the Sanders wing...

[Lief 🗽]

She was AG and had a progresssive record, so she should be able to get both wings of the Democratic party aboard if she chooses a VP from the Sanders wing, like Sherrod Brown. Also, she could remind people of Obama.

Harris is pretty close to the Sanders wing...

The Sanders wing is more about personality and mostly just about whether or not you endorsed Sanders in the primary. Very little to do with ideology.

[Kingpoleon]

She was AG and had a progresssive record, so she should be able to get both wings of the Democratic party aboard if she chooses a VP from the Sanders wing, like Sherrod Brown. Also, she could remind people of Obama.

Harris is pretty close to the Sanders wing...

The Sanders wing is more about personality and mostly just about whether or not you endorsed Sanders in the primary. Very little to do with ideology.

Brown isn't any farther to the left than Harris, and he definitely endorsed Clinton in the primaries(specifically, in late October 2015). I am pretty sure Harris didn't endorse anyone in the primaries.

[America Needs R'hllor]

She was AG and had a progresssive record, so she should be able to get both wings of the Democratic party aboard if she chooses a VP from the Sanders wing, like Sherrod Brown. Also, she could remind people of Obama.

Harris is pretty close to the Sanders wing...

That's true, but I think she's not really percieved as a part of that wing. In any case, an establishment-wing VP would be pretty useless because she would be enough to turn out these voters. A Sanders-wing VP would consolidate his voters and appeal to all working class voters (regardless of ethnicity).

[LLR]

Can you think of anyone better?

(actual question)

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

She was AG and had a progresssive record, so she should be able to get both wings of the Democratic party aboard if she chooses a VP from the Sanders wing, like Sherrod Brown. Also, she could remind people of Obama.
And regarding what you said of Keith Ellison, personally I don't support him unless he resigns from Congress, but you can't say the hype about him is in any way related to his race or religion. The hype is because he's from the Sanders wing, and many believe that this is the approach the Democratic party should be taking to win in 2018 and 2020.

I think a lot of the Ellison hype on Atlas specifically is related to his race and especially his religion, tbh.  I doubt the forum would be as excited about an otherwise identical white Christian.  The fact that when I asked in another thread what the argument was *for* Ellison being chair and what his accomplishments were and none of the Ellison supporters could come up with anything concrete really speaks volumes.

I've explained why I like Harris, I'm not going to re-explain myself other than a simple refrain: She's a liberal powerhouse, and can potentially bring back enthusiasm for Democrats. If Democrats were merely talking about checking boxes, then Tammy Baldwin, Tammy Duckworth, Kate Brown, Pramila Jayapal, and many others would have first priority ahead of Harris. Notice how none of those people are discussed as candidates? There's a reason Harris is talked about besides "identity politics".

Harris is a million times more likely than Jim Justice, Brian Schweitzer, Amy Klobuchar, or whoever wet blanket white candidate Atlas has fallen in love with because they've decided to over-correct from "we need a diverse palet" to "IDENTITY POLITICS AHHH".

Could you link me to that post then, I was actually genuinely curious.

Can you think of anyone better?

(actual question)

Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren both come to mind, especially the former.  

[Person Man]

She was AG and had a progresssive record, so she should be able to get both wings of the Democratic party aboard if she chooses a VP from the Sanders wing, like Sherrod Brown. Also, she could remind people of Obama.
And regarding what you said of Keith Ellison, personally I don't support him unless he resigns from Congress, but you can't say the hype about him is in any way related to his race or religion. The hype is because he's from the Sanders wing, and many believe that this is the approach the Democratic party should be taking to win in 2018 and 2020.

I think a lot of the Ellison hype on Atlas specifically is related to his race and especially his religion, tbh.  I doubt the forum would be as excited about an otherwise identical white Christian.  The fact that when I asked in another thread what the argument was *for* Ellison being chair and what his accomplishments were and none of the Ellison supporters could come up with anything concrete really speaks volumes.

I've explained why I like Harris, I'm not going to re-explain myself other than a simple refrain: She's a liberal powerhouse, and can potentially bring back enthusiasm for Democrats. If Democrats were merely talking about checking boxes, then Tammy Baldwin, Tammy Duckworth, Kate Brown, Pramila Jayapal, and many others would have first priority ahead of Harris. Notice how none of those people are discussed as candidates? There's a reason Harris is talked about besides "identity politics".

Harris is a million times more likely than Jim Justice, Brian Schweitzer, Amy Klobuchar, or whoever wet blanket white candidate Atlas has fallen in love with because they've decided to over-correct from "we need a diverse palet" to "IDENTITY POLITICS AHHH".

Could you link me to that post then, I was actually genuinely curious.

Can you think of anyone better?

(actual question)

Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren both come to mind, especially the former.  

They are about the same as Harris on balance. They are all kind of Romneyesqie at this point.

[LLR]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren both come to mind, especially the former.  
[/quote]

Brown is strong, but Warren is 73 years old and far left. And Harris would win a primary against Brown, I do think.

[Person Man]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren both come to mind, especially the former.  

Brown is strong, but Warren is 73 years old and far left. And Harris would win a primary against Brown, I do think.
[/quote]
Harris/Brown could work