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

[Mister Mets]

There are the demographic factors as well as the combination of a weak bench and the desire for a new face, but she is also a leader on criminal justice reform, an issue Democrats care deeply about.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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.

Harris/Brown could work
[/quote]

Brown would be a much stronger Presidential candidate than Harris.

[Maxwell]

Warren, like Sanders, would probably need multiple candidates dividing the black vote, which might be the case if she ends up facing Harris and Booker.

[Orser67]

The fact that she is (half-) African-American could really help her in primaries among blacks, and the fact that she is female could also help in the primaries. Ideologically, I think she could thread the needle between the "establishment" represented by Obama (given that Clinton will likely be discredited and unpopular) and the Sandersites. And with her California connections she could probably raise a ton of money.

So I think she makes a ton of sense on paper, just like Atlas's favorite 2016 Republican candidate, Marco Rubio. Doesn't mean she'll win, of course. But without a Clinton-type prohibitive favorite, and with Sanders and Warren probably being too old, she's currently my pick to win the 2020 nom.

[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...

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).

Picking someone like Brown sounds like a good way to turn off swing voters like me.

[ReaganLimbaugh]

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.

Good point.

[Figueira]

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).

Picking someone like Brown sounds like a good way to turn off swing voters like me.

He did win in Ohio in 2012. I realize that he did about as well as Obama, but he still won.

[Figueira]

One thing that's interesting to note is that Warren has never actually won a primary; she was coronated by the state party.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

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).

Picking someone like Brown sounds like a good way to turn off swing voters like me.

You aren't the kind of voter that decides elections.

[bagelman]

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).

Picking someone like Brown sounds like a good way to turn off swing voters like me.

Aren't you the guy who thought that picking centrist corrupt corporate lobbyist Evan Bayh as Clinton's running mate would help with Bernie supporters? lol

The voters who decided this election were poor whites who were sick and tired of cosmopolitan elites talking down to them and ignoring their needs. Brown would be a strong candidate to win back these voters.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

Trump was never pushed by "the party".  He was nominated purely by popular support.  His nomination represented the most effective grass roots movement in history to date.

Kamala Harris, like Barack Obama, is a candidate picked much in the same way that a young baseball player is tapped as a hot prospect.  She's like a shortstop who hit .340 in the Texas League at age 21, but she played at El Paso, where the air is thin and homers fly, and the player makes errors at shortstop and will probably have to be switched to the outfield in a year or two.  Once that happens, and the player gets to the big leagues, they'll have a job as a RF, but their .275 average and their 15-20 HRs won't make them a star.  Harris's lackluster time in the Senate won't make her a star, either; it'll make her one more candidate for the white working class to hate.

Obama was the beneficiary of a financial meltdown which was squarely blamed on the incumbent GOP President, who was being blamed for other things as well.  If it were Al Gore that was President from 2001-2009 and a Republican from 2009-2017, I doubt very much that a black President would have been elected in 2016.  Obama received many white working class votes by default, at a time where they were blaming Bush for their lot.  That's not the way it is now, and Kamala Harris isn't a solution to that.

[Shadows]

Because they are ignoramuses.

Dems have to come out of these elitist candidates & appoint a candidate who will win in rural areas & in the rust belt & will bring back Working Class Whites. Harris will be decimated by Trump - I think she will lose MN, ME, NH & would probably do worse in CO & NV - Who knows maybe even lose them!

[Trapsy]

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.

Trump was never pushed by "the party".  He was nominated purely by popular support.  His nomination represented the most effective grass roots movement in history to date.

Kamala Harris, like Barack Obama, is a candidate picked much in the same way that a young baseball player is tapped as a hot prospect.  She's like a shortstop who hit .340 in the Texas League at age 21, but she played at El Paso, where the air is thin and homers fly, and the player makes errors at shortstop and will probably have to be switched to the outfield in a year or two.  Once that happens, and the player gets to the big leagues, they'll have a job as a RF, but their .275 average and their 15-20 HRs won't make them a star.  Harris's lackluster time in the Senate won't make her a star, either; it'll make her one more candidate for the white working class to hate.

Obama was the beneficiary of a financial meltdown which was squarely blamed on the incumbent GOP President, who was being blamed for other things as well.  If it were Al Gore that was President from 2001-2009 and a Republican from 2009-2017, I doubt very much that a black President would have been elected in 2016.  Obama received many white working class votes by default, at a time where they were blaming Bush for their lot.  That's not the way it is now, and Kamala Harris isn't a solution to that.

lol

[Crumpets]

Warren, like Sanders, would probably need multiple candidates dividing the black vote, which might be the case if she ends up facing Harris and Booker.

It would be an interesting match up not least because it would probably be one of the first times black voters don't support one candidate more or less monolithically in a primary. Would Harris do well among west coast black while booker does well with east coast blacks? Is it a north-south divide? Urban-rural? It would definitely make for some interesting maps.

[coloradocowboi]

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?

I think that the identity politics focus of the party is really regrettable, but then when you say stuff like this it just proves that it's at least somewhat necessary.

Keith Ellison has done more than "check boxes," and that kind of rhetoric isn't really appropriate--especially from a Democrat.

If you want the ID politics to end as much as I do, don't say dumb things like this, and then nobody will feel the need to go on tirades about race in the first place.

/rant

As for Kamala, I actually think that she might not be as strong with AAs as people think she is, given her kind of SF-elite demeanor and the fact that she has got to have a couple of skeletons in the closet (at least from an oppo POV) from her time as SF DA.

She might be a great VP candidate, but I'm not sure if she is ready for primetime yet.

[Devout Centrist]

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...

Not really. As AG, she was quite moderate. Her rhetoric is progressive, but nowhere close to DeBlasio or Sanders.

[Tintrlvr]

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...

Not really. As AG, she was quite moderate. Her rhetoric is progressive, but nowhere close to DeBlasio or Sanders.

This is nonsense. On an actual, substantive, what she has done from a policy perspective, she's as left-wing as Sanders, and I challenge you to produce any evidence whatsoever to refute it. (Local politics are a different world, but she's at least comparably liberal to de Blasio, albeit in different ways.) Granted, that could change in her Senate career, but we can't speak to that yet.

That's what makes her a strong candidate. She's an establishment candidate who, unlike others, such as Booker or Cuomo, is basically impossible to successfully attack from the left. Plus, she's the only viable candidate from the West, which basically locks down an entire region of the country for her in the primaries in a way that no other potential candidate can boast.

The reason people are excited about Harris is that, from a liberal Democrat's perspective, she's a no-downside candidate.

[BlueSwan]

The more I look at it the more I like the idea of Harris 2020. I'm somewhat concerned about her appeal to the white working class, but remember: If someone can bring out the Obama coalition, they pretty much win. She might be the one to do that. I can definitely see her having strong appeal to minorities, millenials, liberals, women and the highly educated.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Identity Politics, simple as that.

(Trump would defeat her 52-44 by the way)

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

a young black four-year senator from a safe-d state? why do you think?

(not that i think she'd be a good candidate — america isn't ready for a female president — but the reason she gets brought up should be obvious)

[Hindsight was 2020]

Identity Politics, simple as that.

(Trump would defeat her 52-44 by the way)

I'm getting really sick of this "identity politics" bs when you go onto liberal sites like Huffpost or Daily Kos Harris being black or Ellisob a Muslims is not mentioned nearly as much as it is on Brietbart or Drudge

[Devout Centrist]

Identity Politics, simple as that.

(Trump would defeat her 52-44 by the way)

I'm getting really sick of this "identity politics" bs when you go onto liberal sites like Huffpost or Daily Kos Harris being black or Ellisob a Muslims is not mentioned nearly as much as it is on Brietbart or Drudge

In fact, it usually isn't mentioned unless it's relevant.

Face it, identity politics won this year. That identity was white and primarily male. It's the largest single identity in this nation.

[Beet]

Trump did not win because he was a white male. What struck me throughout the campaign was that nothing was handed to him. No one handed him his poll lead in July 2015. No one handed him support from the party. No one handed him enthusiastic endorsements from his vanquished primary opponents. No one handed him celebrity or newspaper endorsements. He was almost alone the whole time. What he got, he took himself. Trump won because he identified a cleavage that the major parties weren't meeting and exploited it. The Obama coalition is no guarantee of success because it has only been validated in world where Democrats were running up against plutocratic R candidates like McCain and Romney. That world is gone.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Trump did not win because he was a white male.

http://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/11/1/13480416/trump-supporters-sexism%3F0p19G%3De

[Figueira]

a young black four-year senator from a safe-d state? why do you think?

(not that i think she'd be a good candidate — america isn't ready for a female president — but the reason she gets brought up should be obvious)

Kamala Harris is not really "young." By Inauguration Day 2021, she'll be older than any newly elected Democratic President since James Buchanan.