Kamala Harris 2020 campaign megathread

[Landslide Lyndon]

https://freebeacon.com/politics/kamala-harris-stacks-presidential-campaign-with-hillary-clinton-alums/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, a hard pass on Hillary's favorite candidate.

LOL, she endorsed Obama in 2008. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

[DrScholl]

https://freebeacon.com/politics/kamala-harris-stacks-presidential-campaign-with-hillary-clinton-alums/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, a hard pass on Hillary's favorite candidate.

And hard pass here on Bernie if he somehow makes the general.

[gottsu]

https://freebeacon.com/politics/kamala-harris-stacks-presidential-campaign-with-hillary-clinton-alums/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I mean, I have no illusions as a KH backer that she must accept to some extent (big or small) Clintons into her campaign. The same with her pledge to not to take PAC or corporate money. If Clintons want her as a frontrunner, that is good.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Clintons want her as a frontrunner, that is good.

You really want that second term for Trump?

[DrScholl]

If Clintons want her as a frontrunner, that is good.

You really want that second term for Trump?

Being in California it's not like voting for Sanders would really make any difference to the electoral college.

[Landslide Lyndon]

If Clintons want her as a frontrunner, that is good.

You really want that second term for Trump?

If he wanted that then he would have supported Tulsi Gabbard.

[Badger]

This thread has become yet another example of the left-leaning ideological bias that seems to dominate this forum. Hopefully, others keep on fighting the good fight to break the ideological conformity here.

Over the past few months I've seen again and again the so called "quality posters" of this website endlessly calling out blue avatars for "whining about a lack of civility from people they don't believe deserve rights" and "whining that Badger quoting them has forced them to join the party of personal responsibility"

I missed that event.

And no. The problem here is not with posters needing to treat c a l t h r i n a with more respect. I mean, treating others with more respect is narrow bad solution, but that's not the issue. For a guy that rants about civility so much, his chronic thin-skinned nature leads him to lash out with personal attacks at the slightest personal disagreement. He goes from 0 to nasty in less than 6 seconds. Constantly.

The real solution here is he needs to grow 1) up; and 2) a pair.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If Clintons want her as a frontrunner, that is good.

You really want that second term for Trump?

If he wanted that then he would have supported Tulsi Gabbard.

Or Harris.  Trump would beat her.

[Deleted User #4049]

https://freebeacon.com/politics/kamala-harris-stacks-presidential-campaign-with-hillary-clinton-alums/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, a hard pass on Hillary's favorite candidate.

LOL, she endorsed Obama in 2008. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

2008 Hillary was the opposite of 2016 Hillary.

[Rookie Yinzer]

So Kamala Harris derangement syndrome is a thing too, huh? Didn't take long for that to happen.

An Indian-African American woman who isn’t True Left^TM was always gonna rile up the #populist Bernouts.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Harris was on Maddow tonight. She appears to be getting a lot of praise on Twitter. Rachel also said she believes Kamala has a very good chance at winning the nomination.

[Hindsight was 2020]

The only legit thing about Kamala that bugs me is the Mnuchin episode but for obvious reasons I’m not holding that against her if she’s the nom against Trump

[Da2017]

Impressive interview. Straight and Direct. Again anything is possible.

[Landslide Lyndon]

If Clintons want her as a frontrunner, that is good.

You really want that second term for Trump?

If he wanted that then he would have supported Tulsi Gabbard.

Or Harris.  Trump would beat her.

You didn't get the joke.

[gottsu]

If Clintons want her as a frontrunner, that is good.

You really want that second term for Trump?

Progressives are kind of annoying sometimes, not only on this forum. I am a mod on a Polish forum about American politics, and few days ago incidentally someone (who identifies on this forum as a kind of progressive, but not a Democrat like me, just independent progressive) began discussion about "how Bernie would win in 2016", and few peoples joined her (that person is a woman), and I was the only one not-progressive Democrat who presented that Bernie wouldn't have won 2016 elections if chosen nominee.

Kamala and Biden (if he'll run) or maybe Castro and maaaaaybe Beto (if he'll run) are the only ones who are, let's say, federally electable candidates among those who have real chances in this primary. I mean, progressives are making huge gains, breaking glass ceilings one after another (Bernie in 2016, AOC etc.) but from my mainstream POV (with little assistance of certain electoral nuances in America) they are not capable to also win in Bronx, New York City or Vermont or San Francisco or DC, let's say, but also in more rural America like Kansas, Iowa, Missouri or rural Virginia (2017 VA GOV primaries showed that or IL-3 primary, Dan Lipinski's district), and whole, I mean, whole Democratic Party needs a candidate who will be most federally electable or who will be a bridge linking mainstream and progressive elements (like KH does). Progressives can be nationwide electable in 10 or more years, when things like 15$ minimum wage or Medicare-for-all or at least further reforms of healthcare will be impacting not only New York City or Seattle or San Francisco, but also Kansas City, Oklahoma City or Little Rock. That needs some time, time to enact it and time to get people used to it, to understand the changes, to simply get to knew that I can benefit from ex. 15$ minimum wage, like I can benefit from ACA or end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy" when in military and breaking these glass ceilings don't mean that progressives must act against Eleven Commandment in politics (not to criticize other party members). Especially in these polarized, partisan times.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Clintons want her as a frontrunner, that is good.

You really want that second term for Trump?

Progressives are kind of annoying sometimes, not only on this forum. I am a mod on a Polish forum about American politics, and few days ago incidentally someone (who identifies on this forum as a kind of progressive, but not a Democrat like me, just independent progressive) began discussion about "how Bernie would win in 2016", and few peoples joined her (that person is a woman), and I was the only one not-progressive Democrat who presented that Bernie wouldn't have won 2016 elections if chosen nominee.

Kamala and Biden (if he'll run) or maybe Castro and maaaaaybe Beto (if he'll run) are the only ones who are, let's say, federally electable candidates among those who have real chances in this primary. I mean, progressives are making huge gains, breaking glass ceilings one after another (Bernie in 2016, AOC etc.) but from my mainstream POV (with little assistance of certain electoral nuances in America) they are not capable to also win in Bronx, New York City or Vermont or San Francisco or DC, let's say, but also in more rural America like Kansas, Iowa, Missouri or rural Virginia (2017 VA GOV primaries showed that or IL-3 primary, Dan Lipinski's district), and whole, I mean, whole Democratic Party needs a candidate who will be most federally electable or who will be a bridge linking mainstream and progressive elements (like KH does). Progressives can be nationwide electable in 10 or more years, when things like 15$ minimum wage or Medicare-for-all or at least further reforms of healthcare will be impacting not only New York City or Seattle or San Francisco, but also Kansas City, Oklahoma City or Little Rock. That needs some time, time to enact it and time to get people used to it, to understand the changes, to simply get to knew that I can benefit from ex. 15$ minimum wage, like I can benefit from ACA or end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy" when in military and breaking these glass ceilings don't mean that progressives must act against Eleven Commandment in politics (not to criticize other party members). Especially in these polarized, partisan times.

A third wayer lost the last Presidential election despite massively outspending her reality star opponent who was less popular than Goldwater, and polls showed Bernie doing much better against Trump, but you still think that progressives are the unelectable ones? The American people want to to vote for someone who talks about the issues and doesn't suck on them, not the vapid third wayers that the Democratic party loves to nominate.

[Zaybay]

Just an interesting observation Ive made.

At this point, the waters are pretty muddled on who the Progressive candidate is. If you want the authentic progressive, someone who has been for a long time and has no sudden shift, Bernie and Warren are your candidate. But besides Biden and Beto, the entire D field have embraced Sanders' platform, most of his positions. If you notice, much of the conflict against a candidate like Gillibrand or Harris or Sanders or Beto, or etc. isnt of reallly large, or major policy. Its about details, its about rhetoric, bipartisanship, and other smaller details.

It always perplexes me how moderate Dems can support Harris, when she is just as to the Left as Sanders and Warren(at least, recently), but to be fair to them, its either her or Biden. Not that hard of a choice.

[mgop]

sanders and warren are progressive left, beto is centrist, harris and biden are rightwingers just like hillary in both economics and foreign policies. in social policy all dems are far left.

[Skye]

It always perplexes me how moderate Dems can support Harris, when she is just as to the Left as Sanders and Warren(at least, recently), but to be fair to them, its either her or Biden. Not that hard of a choice.

It's all about how to project your image I guess? If you successfully make it look to people you aren't as extreme as the other guy, they may end up supporting you.

[Zaybay]

It always perplexes me how moderate Dems can support Harris, when she is just as to the Left as Sanders and Warren(at least, recently), but to be fair to them, its either her or Biden. Not that hard of a choice.

It's all about how to project your image I guess? If you successfully make it look to people you aren't as extreme as the other guy, they may end up supporting you.

I guess? But even then, Harris/Gillibrand/Castro havent been presenting themselves as moderates at all, and have taken positions on the Progressive Left. It really does confuse me. It seems to be more of an "anti-Bernie/Warren" rather than anything else,but even then, Im not sure. The idea of an image may be correct, as senators who are Liberal/Conservative can get appeal from moderates by having a moderate image.

Any moderate Democrats willing to jump in, now would be the time.

[Deleted User #4049]

If Clintons want her as a frontrunner, that is good.

You really want that second term for Trump?

Progressives are kind of annoying sometimes, not only on this forum. I am a mod on a Polish forum about American politics, and few days ago incidentally someone (who identifies on this forum as a kind of progressive, but not a Democrat like me, just independent progressive) began discussion about "how Bernie would win in 2016", and few peoples joined her (that person is a woman), and I was the only one not-progressive Democrat who presented that Bernie wouldn't have won 2016 elections if chosen nominee.

Kamala and Biden (if he'll run) or maybe Castro and maaaaaybe Beto (if he'll run) are the only ones who are, let's say, federally electable candidates among those who have real chances in this primary. I mean, progressives are making huge gains, breaking glass ceilings one after another (Bernie in 2016, AOC etc.) but from my mainstream POV (with little assistance of certain electoral nuances in America) they are not capable to also win in Bronx, New York City or Vermont or San Francisco or DC, let's say, but also in more rural America like Kansas, Iowa, Missouri or rural Virginia (2017 VA GOV primaries showed that or IL-3 primary, Dan Lipinski's district), and whole, I mean, whole Democratic Party needs a candidate who will be most federally electable or who will be a bridge linking mainstream and progressive elements (like KH does). Progressives can be nationwide electable in 10 or more years, when things like 15$ minimum wage or Medicare-for-all or at least further reforms of healthcare will be impacting not only New York City or Seattle or San Francisco, but also Kansas City, Oklahoma City or Little Rock. That needs some time, time to enact it and time to get people used to it, to understand the changes, to simply get to knew that I can benefit from ex. 15$ minimum wage, like I can benefit from ACA or end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy" when in military and breaking these glass ceilings don't mean that progressives must act against Eleven Commandment in politics (not to criticize other party members). Especially in these polarized, partisan times.

A third wayer lost the last Presidential election despite massively outspending her reality star opponent who was less popular than Goldwater, and polls showed Bernie doing much better against Trump, but you still think that progressives are the unelectable ones? The American people want to to vote for someone who talks about the issues and doesn't suck on them, not the vapid third wayers that the Democratic party loves to nominate.

You're almost right but not quite. American voters don't want to hear specific policies, they want a clear vision that they agree with. Bernie presented a strong and clear vision for America, so did Trump, Hillary did not.

[BlueSwan]

I've been saying this for a loong time, but here it goes again. Kamala Harris is a candidate that just about everybody in the party should be pretty happy with. I believe that she can unite the party. I also believe that she projects strength which is highly important for any presidential candidate, but probably in particular for a female presidential candidate. The only real question I have is whether she can inspire people as well. We'll see. For now I regard her as the favourite - at least until Beto joins.

[Heebie Jeebie]

You're almost right but not quite. American voters don't want to hear specific policies, they want a clear vision that they agree with. Bernie presented a strong and clear vision for America, so did Trump, Hillary did not.

Gimme a break.  Hillary most certainly did present a strong, clear vision for America--the Democratic vision of fairness, inclusion, equality, and opportunity. Not enough voters found that vision as compelling as the regressive, nativist hate espoused by the Trump campaign, but the vision, and the choice, was clear.

[Deleted User #4049]

You're almost right but not quite. American voters don't want to hear specific policies, they want a clear vision that they agree with. Bernie presented a strong and clear vision for America, so did Trump, Hillary did not.

Gimme a break.  Hillary most certainly did present a strong, clear vision for America--the Democratic vision of fairness, inclusion, equality, and opportunity. Not enough voters found that vision as compelling as the regressive, nativist hate espoused by the Trump campaign, but the vision, and the choice, was clear.

"America is already great" is not a strong, clear vision. Wonky lists of policies and making small tweaks around the edges of our currently existing system, is not a strong, clear vision.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You're almost right but not quite. American voters don't want to hear specific policies, they want a clear vision that they agree with. Bernie presented a strong and clear vision for America, so did Trump, Hillary did not.

Gimme a break.  Hillary most certainly did present a strong, clear vision for America--the Democratic vision of fairness, inclusion, equality, and opportunity. Not enough voters found that vision as compelling as the regressive, nativist hate espoused by the Trump campaign, but the vision, and the choice, was clear.

Oh yes, the vision that we must deport child refugees from the Honduras government installed by the coup that Hillary supported to send a message. Truly a message of inclusion there.