Kamala Harris 2020 campaign megathread

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't think it's a California thing and don't like the California trashing (it's one of the best states). Being from California should actually help you in the primary, assuming you're popular enough to win big and collect a ton of delegates. But Kamala is trailing Uncle Joe, Liz and Bernie in California. This is terrible for her campaign.

Hate to quote myself, but I'll just post what I've posted ad-naseum whenever Harris is polling single-digits in California:

California is a huge state & Harris' CA strength lies entirely in San Francisco Bay. Unless you're an 20+ year statewide institution like Feinstein, you can't expect home-state advantage to mount a successful presidential [primary] campaign in California.

The same thing will occur if/when Newsom runs for President.

I'll let the LA Times fill in from here:

The state is physically immense, its population enormous and attention span short when it comes to politics. It’s also astronomically expensive to advertise, and that makes it exceedingly difficult for a politician — even one elected three times to statewide office like Harris — to become well known, much less revered.

In short, as other presidential hopefuls have painfully learned, there is no such thing in California as a home-state advantage.

“People cling to the notion that no matter how goes the rest of the country, California will be there for them,” said Don Sipple, a strategist for former Gov. Pete Wilson’s disastrous 1996 presidential run. “It’s not. Unless a candidate proves their bona fides on the national stage, California will abandon you. There’s no loyalty.”

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-04/theres-little-california-love-as-kamala-harris-struggles-in-home-state

It also should be noted that this is why Nixon was losing to JFK on Election Night.

Not always true, Reagan's victory margins in CA were better than any Republican since 1928 and a huge reason for that was Reagan's home state being California. If his home state was Arizona I doubt his margins would be that large.


Even in the primaries, Reagan obliterated his opponents there

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't think it's a California thing and don't like the California trashing (it's one of the best states)

median home selling at >$0.5 million
prone to devastating earthquakes
worst homelessness problem in the country
longest average commute of any state outside of the Northeast
extremely vulnerable to climate change
people having sex in the streets, in broad daylight

Harris tried running as a law & order Democrat to compensate for presiding over this mess, but the left shouted her down.

In any case, you're not going to get the rest of the country to accept another candidate from California.

It's a place that would have been a dream as recently as forty years ago, but now we can't afford it and wouldn't want to live there anyway. It's an unaffordable, hazy, car-choked mess that will be even less livable within a couple of decades even if the most modest climate change projections are accurate. Swap out Zuckerberg's hoodie for Eldon Tyrell's bowtie and Blade Runner looks prescient.

If people didn't want to live there, the median house price wouldn't be $0.5 million. In so far as the housing market is driven by supply and demand, those prices are ipso facto evidence of people willing to pay extortionate amounts to live there.

Which is precisely the problem in CA

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

While I no longer support Tulsi Gabbard as her right wing leanings have become apparent I am still ever grateful for her destruction of Kamala Harris

I dont give Tulsi Gabbard that much credit. Seeing what homelessness has done to Cali, Pelosi, Harris and Feinstein have not done anything for the problem. I was a Harris supporter .

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

While I no longer support Tulsi Gabbard as her right wing leanings have become apparent I am still ever grateful for her destruction of Kamala Harris

I dont give Tulsi Gabbard that much credit. Seeing what homelessness has done to Cali, Pelosi, Harris and Feinstein have not done anything for the problem. I was a Harris supporter .

Hawaii has an even worse homelessness problem than California. The median price for a single-family dwelling is well over $600k, and the state has the highest rate of homelessness in the nation.

California has a higher rate of unsheltered homeless.

[Mr. Smith]

I don't think it's a California thing and don't like the California trashing (it's one of the best states). Being from California should actually help you in the primary, assuming you're popular enough to win big and collect a ton of delegates. But Kamala is trailing Uncle Joe, Liz and Bernie in California. This is terrible for her campaign.

Hate to quote myself, but I'll just post what I've posted ad-naseum whenever Harris is polling single-digits in California:

California is a huge state & Harris' CA strength lies entirely in San Francisco Bay. Unless you're an 20+ year statewide institution like Feinstein, you can't expect home-state advantage to mount a successful presidential [primary] campaign in California.

The same thing will occur if/when Newsom runs for President.

I'll let the LA Times fill in from here:

The state is physically immense, its population enormous and attention span short when it comes to politics. It’s also astronomically expensive to advertise, and that makes it exceedingly difficult for a politician — even one elected three times to statewide office like Harris — to become well known, much less revered.

In short, as other presidential hopefuls have painfully learned, there is no such thing in California as a home-state advantage.

“People cling to the notion that no matter how goes the rest of the country, California will be there for them,” said Don Sipple, a strategist for former Gov. Pete Wilson’s disastrous 1996 presidential run. “It’s not. Unless a candidate proves their bona fides on the national stage, California will abandon you. There’s no loyalty.”

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-04/theres-little-california-love-as-kamala-harris-struggles-in-home-state

It also should be noted that this is why Nixon was losing to JFK on Election Night.

Not always true, Reagan's victory margins in CA were better than any Republican since 1928 and a huge reason for that was Reagan's home state being California. If his home state was Arizona I doubt his margins would be that large.


Even in the primaries, Reagan obliterated his opponents there

Reagan was an actor, he had the telegenic presence few had and used that to his advantage. Not to mention all his opponents besides Unruh were not exactly in good straits.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't think it's a California thing and don't like the California trashing (it's one of the best states). Being from California should actually help you in the primary, assuming you're popular enough to win big and collect a ton of delegates. But Kamala is trailing Uncle Joe, Liz and Bernie in California. This is terrible for her campaign.

Hate to quote myself, but I'll just post what I've posted ad-naseum whenever Harris is polling single-digits in California:

California is a huge state & Harris' CA strength lies entirely in San Francisco Bay. Unless you're an 20+ year statewide institution like Feinstein, you can't expect home-state advantage to mount a successful presidential [primary] campaign in California.

The same thing will occur if/when Newsom runs for President.

I'll let the LA Times fill in from here:

The state is physically immense, its population enormous and attention span short when it comes to politics. It’s also astronomically expensive to advertise, and that makes it exceedingly difficult for a politician — even one elected three times to statewide office like Harris — to become well known, much less revered.

In short, as other presidential hopefuls have painfully learned, there is no such thing in California as a home-state advantage.

“People cling to the notion that no matter how goes the rest of the country, California will be there for them,” said Don Sipple, a strategist for former Gov. Pete Wilson’s disastrous 1996 presidential run. “It’s not. Unless a candidate proves their bona fides on the national stage, California will abandon you. There’s no loyalty.”

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-04/theres-little-california-love-as-kamala-harris-struggles-in-home-state

It also should be noted that this is why Nixon was losing to JFK on Election Night.

Not always true, Reagan's victory margins in CA were better than any Republican since 1928 and a huge reason for that was Reagan's home state being California. If his home state was Arizona I doubt his margins would be that large.


Even in the primaries, Reagan obliterated his opponents there

Reagan was an actor, he had the telegenic presence few had and used that to his advantage. Not to mention all his opponents besides Unruh were not exactly in good straits.

Yes but him being from CA gave him an advantage in that state that say being from AZ would not have .

[The Mikado]

3% in Quinnipiac today. Tied for 5th with Yang.

People so eager to call her the new Rubio they haven't noticed she's actually Jeb!

[Gracile]

Imagine being the junior senator for the largest state in the country and polling even (or a little behind) in a presidential race with an internet meme candidate and the mayor of a mid-size city.

Suffice to say, this race isn't going well for Harris.

[Politician]

OOF. Dianne Feinstein endorses Biden over Harris.

https://twitter.com/joegarofoli/status/1181669655389208576

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

Conservative Democrat endorses conservative Democratic candidate. Film at 11.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

I don't think it's a California thing and don't like the California trashing (it's one of the best states). Being from California should actually help you in the primary, assuming you're popular enough to win big and collect a ton of delegates. But Kamala is trailing Uncle Joe, Liz and Bernie in California. This is terrible for her campaign.

Hate to quote myself, but I'll just post what I've posted ad-naseum whenever Harris is polling single-digits in California:

California is a huge state & Harris' CA strength lies entirely in San Francisco Bay. Unless you're an 20+ year statewide institution like Feinstein, you can't expect home-state advantage to mount a successful presidential [primary] campaign in California.

The same thing will occur if/when Newsom runs for President.

I'll let the LA Times fill in from here:

The state is physically immense, its population enormous and attention span short when it comes to politics. It’s also astronomically expensive to advertise, and that makes it exceedingly difficult for a politician — even one elected three times to statewide office like Harris — to become well known, much less revered.

In short, as other presidential hopefuls have painfully learned, there is no such thing in California as a home-state advantage.

“People cling to the notion that no matter how goes the rest of the country, California will be there for them,” said Don Sipple, a strategist for former Gov. Pete Wilson’s disastrous 1996 presidential run. “It’s not. Unless a candidate proves their bona fides on the national stage, California will abandon you. There’s no loyalty.”

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-04/theres-little-california-love-as-kamala-harris-struggles-in-home-state

It also should be noted that this is why Nixon was losing to JFK on Election Night.

Not always true, Reagan's victory margins in CA were better than any Republican since 1928 and a huge reason for that was Reagan's home state being California. If his home state was Arizona I doubt his margins would be that large.


Even in the primaries, Reagan obliterated his opponents there

Reagan was an actor, he had the telegenic presence few had and used that to his advantage. Not to mention all his opponents besides Unruh were not exactly in good straits.

Yes but him being from CA gave him an advantage in that state that say being from AZ would not have .

Certainly helped Pete Wilson, Jerry Brown & currently Kamala Harris

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't think it's a California thing and don't like the California trashing (it's one of the best states). Being from California should actually help you in the primary, assuming you're popular enough to win big and collect a ton of delegates. But Kamala is trailing Uncle Joe, Liz and Bernie in California. This is terrible for her campaign.

Hate to quote myself, but I'll just post what I've posted ad-naseum whenever Harris is polling single-digits in California:

California is a huge state & Harris' CA strength lies entirely in San Francisco Bay. Unless you're an 20+ year statewide institution like Feinstein, you can't expect home-state advantage to mount a successful presidential [primary] campaign in California.

The same thing will occur if/when Newsom runs for President.

I'll let the LA Times fill in from here:

The state is physically immense, its population enormous and attention span short when it comes to politics. It’s also astronomically expensive to advertise, and that makes it exceedingly difficult for a politician — even one elected three times to statewide office like Harris — to become well known, much less revered.

In short, as other presidential hopefuls have painfully learned, there is no such thing in California as a home-state advantage.

“People cling to the notion that no matter how goes the rest of the country, California will be there for them,” said Don Sipple, a strategist for former Gov. Pete Wilson’s disastrous 1996 presidential run. “It’s not. Unless a candidate proves their bona fides on the national stage, California will abandon you. There’s no loyalty.”

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-04/theres-little-california-love-as-kamala-harris-struggles-in-home-state

It also should be noted that this is why Nixon was losing to JFK on Election Night.

Not always true, Reagan's victory margins in CA were better than any Republican since 1928 and a huge reason for that was Reagan's home state being California. If his home state was Arizona I doubt his margins would be that large.


Even in the primaries, Reagan obliterated his opponents there

Reagan was an actor, he had the telegenic presence few had and used that to his advantage. Not to mention all his opponents besides Unruh were not exactly in good straits.

Yes but him being from CA gave him an advantage in that state that say being from AZ would not have .

Certainly helped Pete Wilson, Jerry Brown & currently Kamala Harris

Pete Wilson didnt even last till Iowa let alone CA and if he was the nominee Pete Wilson may have won CA in 96(At the very least it would have been within 4-5 points) although he would have done worse in the south and would have lost NC GA and maybe VA and TX as well .


Jerry Brown won the CA Dem Primary in 1976, and in 92 was pretty much done by the time CA rolled around.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

https://twitter.com/emilyelarsen/status/1182029565004267520?s=20

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Not news that Feinstein is endorsing Biden. If Biden lose, she will be free to endorse Newsom. But, Feinstein is a conservative Dem anyways.

[Continential]

I don't think it's a California thing and don't like the California trashing (it's one of the best states). Being from California should actually help you in the primary, assuming you're popular enough to win big and collect a ton of delegates. But Kamala is trailing Uncle Joe, Liz and Bernie in California. This is terrible for her campaign.

Hate to quote myself, but I'll just post what I've posted ad-naseum whenever Harris is polling single-digits in California:

California is a huge state & Harris' CA strength lies entirely in San Francisco Bay. Unless you're an 20+ year statewide institution like Feinstein, you can't expect home-state advantage to mount a successful presidential [primary] campaign in California.

The same thing will occur if/when Newsom runs for President.

I'll let the LA Times fill in from here:

The state is physically immense, its population enormous and attention span short when it comes to politics. It’s also astronomically expensive to advertise, and that makes it exceedingly difficult for a politician — even one elected three times to statewide office like Harris — to become well known, much less revered.

In short, as other presidential hopefuls have painfully learned, there is no such thing in California as a home-state advantage.

“People cling to the notion that no matter how goes the rest of the country, California will be there for them,” said Don Sipple, a strategist for former Gov. Pete Wilson’s disastrous 1996 presidential run. “It’s not. Unless a candidate proves their bona fides on the national stage, California will abandon you. There’s no loyalty.”

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-04/theres-little-california-love-as-kamala-harris-struggles-in-home-state

It also should be noted that this is why Nixon was losing to JFK on Election Night.

Not always true, Reagan's victory margins in CA were better than any Republican since 1928 and a huge reason for that was Reagan's home state being California. If his home state was Arizona I doubt his margins would be that large.


Even in the primaries, Reagan obliterated his opponents there

Reagan was an actor, he had the telegenic presence few had and used that to his advantage. Not to mention all his opponents besides Unruh were not exactly in good straits.

Yes but him being from CA gave him an advantage in that state that say being from AZ would not have .

Certainly helped Pete Wilson, Jerry Brown & currently Kamala Harris

Pete Wilson didnt even last till Iowa let alone CA and if he was the nominee Pete Wilson may have won CA in 96(At the very least it would have been within 4-5 points) although he would have done worse in the south and would have lost NC GA and maybe VA and TX as well .


Jerry Brown won the CA Dem Primary in 1976, and in 92 was pretty much done by the time CA rolled around.

Brown lost by 7 and Pete Wilson was close with Bill Clinton in ORANGE COUNTY.

[OneJ]

https://twitter.com/emilyelarsen/status/1182029565004267520?s=20

Wow...

[Mr. Smith]

I don't think it's a California thing and don't like the California trashing (it's one of the best states). Being from California should actually help you in the primary, assuming you're popular enough to win big and collect a ton of delegates. But Kamala is trailing Uncle Joe, Liz and Bernie in California. This is terrible for her campaign.

Hate to quote myself, but I'll just post what I've posted ad-naseum whenever Harris is polling single-digits in California:

California is a huge state & Harris' CA strength lies entirely in San Francisco Bay. Unless you're an 20+ year statewide institution like Feinstein, you can't expect home-state advantage to mount a successful presidential [primary] campaign in California.

The same thing will occur if/when Newsom runs for President.

I'll let the LA Times fill in from here:

The state is physically immense, its population enormous and attention span short when it comes to politics. It’s also astronomically expensive to advertise, and that makes it exceedingly difficult for a politician — even one elected three times to statewide office like Harris — to become well known, much less revered.

In short, as other presidential hopefuls have painfully learned, there is no such thing in California as a home-state advantage.

“People cling to the notion that no matter how goes the rest of the country, California will be there for them,” said Don Sipple, a strategist for former Gov. Pete Wilson’s disastrous 1996 presidential run. “It’s not. Unless a candidate proves their bona fides on the national stage, California will abandon you. There’s no loyalty.”

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-04/theres-little-california-love-as-kamala-harris-struggles-in-home-state

It also should be noted that this is why Nixon was losing to JFK on Election Night.

Not always true, Reagan's victory margins in CA were better than any Republican since 1928 and a huge reason for that was Reagan's home state being California. If his home state was Arizona I doubt his margins would be that large.


Even in the primaries, Reagan obliterated his opponents there

Reagan was an actor, he had the telegenic presence few had and used that to his advantage. Not to mention all his opponents besides Unruh were not exactly in good straits.

Yes but him being from CA gave him an advantage in that state that say being from AZ would not have .

Certainly helped Pete Wilson, Jerry Brown & currently Kamala Harris

Pete Wilson didnt even last till Iowa let alone CA and if he was the nominee Pete Wilson may have won CA in 96(At the very least it would have been within 4-5 points) although he would have done worse in the south and would have lost NC GA and maybe VA and TX as well .


Jerry Brown won the CA Dem Primary in 1976, and in 92 was pretty much done by the time CA rolled around.

Brown was pulling a Bernie in '92 in a lot of ways, and this did him no favors. My Dad himself voted for Clinton that year because of the attitude taken.

As for '76, unlike Harris, he was part of the Brown Dynasty, with Pat Brown actually still quite respected by Democrats. He wasn't considered provincial like Harris.

[ibagli]

OOF. Dianne Feinstein endorses Biden over Harris.

Again? This is like the third time.

It's like the hints->exploratory committee->official announcement timeline, but for her endorsement.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Goddamn

https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1182826584845234179?s=20

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

OOF. Dianne Feinstein endorses Biden over Harris.

https://twitter.com/joegarofoli/status/1181669655389208576

We’ve known that Feinstein’s a Biden supporter since like January.

[Mr. Smith]

Goddamn

https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1182826584845234179?s=20

In which sense? They're both right.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Goddamn

https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1182826584845234179?s=20

In which sense? They're both right.

Christ almighty, you people.... Kamala’s ofc. Trumps aren’t good at insults.

[John Dule]

https://twitter.com/JohnDule/status/1183325120799985664?s=20

[Tintrlvr]

https://twitter.com/JohnDule/status/1183325120799985664?s=20

Shilling your own tweets elsewhere because you think you're really clever... sad, too sad to even warrant an exclamation mark.

[ElectionsGuy]

Does anyone want to explain why this thread is still pinned?