Steve Bullock VS Kamala Harris

[Canis]

discuss with maps

[Voice of low info America]

I hope someone like Kamala Harris is never nominated by a major party in my lifetime.

[Mr. Smith]

How much more does Bullock turn away from Bernie, and what policies besides good crime reform and pro-choice will Harris add?

[Canis]

How much more does Bullock turn away from Bernie, and what policies besides good crime reform and pro-choice will Harris add?

I don't know where bullock stands on free trade I haven't found anything about it but recently said hes opposed to free college
I don't know much about Harris on the issues but apparently shes very pro choice

[Coraxion]

Red is Harris, blue is Bullock.

Harris/Harris.

[Coraxion]

I hope someone like Kamala Harris is never nominated by a major party in my lifetime.

So... you hope that no women of color are nominated by the two parties in your lifetime? Figures.

[Voice of low info America]

I hope someone like Kamala Harris is never nominated by a major party in my lifetime.

So... you hope that no women of color are nominated by the two parties in your lifetime? Figures.

That is not what I said. If that is what you think I meant, go ahead.

[TheSaint250]

I hope someone like Kamala Harris is never nominated by a major party in my lifetime.

So... you hope that no women of color are nominated by the two parties in your lifetime? Figures.

Wtf

[TheSaint250]

I accidentally voted Bullock/Harris but meant to write Harris/Bullock

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Bullock all the way! Kamala Harris is mediocre, and even more overated than Hillary.

[Don't blame me I voted for Harris]

Please, Bullock isn't even on the same level as Harris. 1 on 1, he wouldn't even be able to compete with her. Talk about overrated.

[Nutmeg]

Not sure (I voted Bullock/Harris), but this would be a great ticket in the general.

[CivicParticipant]

Harris would be tough to beat.

[TheLeftwardTide]

Oh god, this is the "hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils" option...

Truth be told, I don't know. I have no idea. If Bullock reverses his distancing from the Sanders wing of the party, then Bullock. Bullock has a better chance of winning back the Rust Belt - Harris might cause the Democratic Party to lose it for the next several election cycles. But Harris is slightly more progressive policy-wise, and that might make me vote for her in the end...

In this hypothetical scenario, I would look into their past record more closely, along with seeing how each one runs his/her campaign. I'd be very surprised if a more left-wing candidate doesn't enter the primary.

[McGovernForPrez]

Oh god, this is the "hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils" option...

Truth be told, I don't know. I have no idea. If Bullock reverses his distancing from the Sanders wing of the party, then Bullock. Bullock has a better chance of winning back the Rust Belt - Harris might cause the Democratic Party to lose it for the next several election cycles. But Harris is slightly more progressive policy-wise, and that might make me vote for her in the end...

In this hypothetical scenario, I would look into their past record more closely, along with seeing how each one runs his/her campaign. I'd be very surprised if a more left-wing candidate doesn't enter the primary.

Has Bullock been distancing himself from the Sanders wing of the party? I think he should distance himself slightly just to come across as a more moderate politician to certain voters but I think his record on campaign finance reform speak for themselves.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

I think Harris would do extremely well in this situation. I don't see how she loses much, if any, of Hillary's core base (women and minorities), while being much more popular among young people than Hillary was. Maybe she loses some of the moderate vote, but that's about it. I just don't see Bullock being nearly popular enough in urban areas to come out on top, while doing just as poorly among blacks and Hispanics as Sanders did - and Harris would likely be at least slightly more likable among WWC people than Hillary was, in an Obama-esque way.

Kamala Harris (D-CA)
Steve Bullock (D-MT)

[McGovernForPrez]

I think Harris would do extremely well in this situation. I don't see how she loses much, if any, of Hillary's core base (women and minorities), while being much more popular among young people than Hillary was. Maybe she loses some of the moderate vote, but that's about it. I just don't see Bullock being nearly popular enough in urban areas to come out on top, while doing just as poorly among blacks and Hispanics as Sanders did - and Harris would likely be at least slightly more likable among WWC people than Hillary was, in an Obama-esque way.

Kamala Harris (D-CA)
Steve Bullock (D-MT)

I think you underestimate a lot of Bullock's strengths and severely overestimate Harris. I think Harris is slightly favored to win but not overwhelmingly so. Bullock has a strong record on campaign finance which he should be able to leverage to win over young progressives. Harris will not have even remotely the same appeal with the WWC as Obama did. Obama was the Senator of Illinois and made the middle class a central focus of his campaign. I don't think a black woman from a state as coastal elite as California really has the same middle class appeal as Obama had.

Assuming he takes a more moderate approach to the Bernie coalition I could see a map like this

[Mr. Morden]

Has Bullock been distancing himself from the Sanders wing of the party?

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=268889.0

[TheLeftwardTide]

Has Bullock been distancing himself from the Sanders wing of the party?

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=268889.0

Yeah, in March I would've probably said Bullock, but after those comments, this race is purely undecided for me. I still think he was a good governor though.

Again, it would depend on how each candidate runs their campaigns.

[McGovernForPrez]

Has Bullock been distancing himself from the Sanders wing of the party?

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=268889.0

Yeah, in March I would've probably said Bullock, but after those comments, this race is purely undecided for me. I still think he was a good governor though.

Again, it would depend on how each candidate runs their campaigns.

I'm disappointed by it, but I hope he has progressive alternatives to Bernie's policies. For all we know he could be a big fan of the public option, which would be great. For me I think I'd support him simply because I know he's fairly progressive and would have a better chance of winning the GE than Harris.

[Mr. Smith]

I think Harris would do extremely well in this situation. I don't see how she loses much, if any, of Hillary's core base (women and minorities), while being much more popular among young people than Hillary was. Maybe she loses some of the moderate vote, but that's about it. I just don't see Bullock being nearly popular enough in urban areas to come out on top, while doing just as poorly among blacks and Hispanics as Sanders did - and Harris would likely be at least slightly more likable among WWC people than Hillary was, in an Obama-esque way.

Kamala Harris (D-CA)
Steve Bullock (D-MT)

I think you underestimate a lot of Bullock's strengths and severely overestimate Harris. I think Harris is slightly favored to win but not overwhelmingly so. Bullock has a strong record on campaign finance which he should be able to leverage to win over young progressives. Harris will not have even remotely the same appeal with the WWC as Obama did. Obama was the Senator of Illinois and made the middle class a central focus of his campaign. I don't think a black woman from a state as coastal elite as California really has the same middle class appeal as Obama had.

Assuming he takes a more moderate approach to the Bernie coalition I could see a map like this

Obama was from Chicago, which is often considered an elite inland pocket and often the first thing people think of anyway. Also, Trump is from NYC and is literally the richest man in office. So yeah, it's a moot point.

As for California, the inland areas generally and places like Salinas or the Weed Triangle on the coast are about as relevant to the "elite" image as Downstate Illinois compared to Chicago. It's not beyond her to be recover from that as Obama did if she campaigns in a similar manner.

Also, not all middle class are WWC factory workers (or did Trump's loss in bellwether state Nevada and razor thin win in Florida mean nothing).

I can see Harris being able to make up ground lost to Bullock in the GE against Trump. I can't see Bullock managing to not get Hillary's numbers (or less) on minorities lost to Harris.

That said, all of this assumes Harris and Bullock both play the cards right, and I can easily see Bullock as more likely to play the cards right than Harris.

[dw93]

Bullock. Sure, he's moderate, but not that moderate and after a lack of experience in one form or another hindered the ability of the current and previous two Presidents, I think we need someone with governing experience. Harris' resume in 2020 would be essentially the same as Obama's was in 2008. With that said, I'd vote for Harris over Booker, McAuliffe, or Cuomo, even if they're more experienced than her.

[Jeppe]

Kamala Harris would demolish Bullock in urban areas like Los Angeles, New York City, Seattle, Philadelphia, Miami, etc, which as proven by Hillary, are where Democratic primaries are won and lost.

[Don't blame me I voted for Harris]

What makes Atlas think a conservative democrat would ever win the nomination this day in age? He's not competitive for 2020, especially against Harris.

[McGovernForPrez]

What makes Atlas think a conservative democrat would ever win the nomination this day in age? He's not competitive for 2020, especially against Harris.

Because he's not actually a conservative Democrat. If this were a discussion about JBE I'd agree with you. Just because he's from Montana doesn't mean he's a conservative. Bullock has progressive credentials. He was Montana AG at the time Citizens United was ruled on and he fought hard to try to reverse its effects on Montana. That'll fly over really well with the Bernie wing of the party. Moreover as a governor he hasn't had to weigh in as much on national issues allowing him to pivot towards whatever is politically expedient. He's also able to run on the record, which is actually quite good in Montana.

Let me ask this: why do people think sitting Senators make good candidates? Evidence and reasoning show that unless there are rare circumstances or generational candidates like JFK or BHO they never get elected. Far more sitting Governors have been elected to POTUS than Senators.